Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 8th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Hill, you have the floor.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

That's perfectly acceptable, and I thought that was the intent at the previous procedure and House affairs committee meeting as well. I can check the blues and see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know what the intention was, but it's true that this was discussed at the whips' meeting. I think that the suggestion was that if a party wanted to go and vote, the meeting would not be adjourned but rather suspended. This gives everybody the opportunity, if everyone agrees to remain...

All votes should be equally important, but if there is a vote that the four political parties consider less important and they want to continue to sit because the witnesses have a flight to catch at a specific time and the four political parties feel that it is preferable to continue the meeting, this gives the committee an option: it may stay or go, but at least a party can say that the vote is important and that it's going to vote, and everyone leaves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's my understanding at this point, and I'm getting a lot of nods around the table.

I don't want to put a kink in this, but I do want to raise three issues so it's on the record that we did at least think about them. The motion before us does not cover quorum calls.

Madam O'Brien.

[Audrey O'Brien]

No. I know there were discussions about potentially only having this suspension motion activated if it was a deferred vote that was scheduled and not an unscheduled vote, for example, where this member be now heard or that kind of thing.

Again, the problem when you start trying to draft something like that is that you're getting into levels of detail that have not traditionally been part of the rules. I think this makes it clear that if there is unanimous consent, where someone were to find out that it's a quorum call or where it's that this member be now heard, the committee might decide they don't want to go in for that vote and they're going to continue to sit. I think that gets to the stage you want it to be at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you for putting that on the record for us.

Monsieur Guimond and then Madame Redman.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I think I spoke to this issue. I hope that it wasn't during the whips' meeting, where the majority of people were not in attendance, including the clerk. The wording of Standing Order 115(5), which is going to be rewritten, refers to the first division bells sending members to a vote. However, a quorum call is not a vote. Not all committees will suspend. As I understand it, it's only when there is a vote.

As long as the magic number... It will be up to other members and the whips to round up other members not sitting on the committee. I understand that committees will not stop their deliberations when there is a quorum call. We are talking about votes.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Yes, you are correct. We are confusing the two: quorum calls and motions seeking, for example, that a member be now heard. It is not the same thing.

If there is a quorum call, it is not a vote, and this would not apply.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Madam Redman, would you like to comment?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I took this to be that whenever the bells started ringing and there were a succession of quorum calls or whatever, it would again be up to the committee's discretion. I like the wording I suggested. I think it's very clean and very simple. Committees are the masters of their own destiny. If unanimously they want to stay and work through that vote, that's their prerogative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, colleagues. It looks like our discussion on this motion has ended.

I'll ask our clerk to read the motion as we have now deemed it to be worded.

Please go ahead.

[James Latimer, Committee Clerk, House of Commons]

115(5) Notwithstanding Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and 113(5), the Chair of a standing, special, legislative or joint committee shall suspend the meeting when the bells are sounded to call in the Members to a recorded division, unless there is unanimous consent of the committee members to continue to sit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It looks like everybody is happy with that, so I'm going to call the question. Is it agreed that the committee adopt this report?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is it agreed that the chair, clerk, and researchers be authorized to make such grammatical and editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report?

Madame Robillard, do you have a question?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should look at the French version. Sometimes, the French version is a problem when we compared it to the English version. Right, Michel?

[Audrey O'Brien]

Mr. Chairman, I asked my assistant to go and prepare a revised document with both the French and the English versions, so that you can look at the text in both languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We will suspend this part of the procedure then and get back to that in a few moments. Thank you.

That's a bit out of order in some respects, but I'm sure you can tolerate that.

I'd like to move to the issue of in camera now.

Colleagues, in front of you there is an options and issues document. This is dealing with the in camera proceedings.

While you're looking at that, I want to be very clear that there are two issues before this committee. So that we're not confused, we're dealing with the deliberate releasing of in camera information and under what circumstances a committee would choose to make public in camera proceedings.

This is not to be confused with another motion before this committee to deal with sanctions for leaked information from in camera meetings. That, colleagues, is a separate event. We are not dealing with that today.

What we're dealing with today, then, is under what circumstances should, would, and could a committee make in camera information public. The paper in front of you summarizes the issues and indicates some of the precedents that have been set when this has occurred in the past. These were discussed at the last meeting as well.

I'll encourage colleagues to have a look at that, if you haven't already, and then we can begin that discussion immediately.

I see colleagues are still reading a little bit there, but we're going to have to come to some agreement as to how to proceed.

It would be my suggestion that we look at the options, of which there are three, and then there are questions regarding some of those options. But ultimately, colleagues, there are three things that this committee could choose to do.

Option number one suggests that we amend the Standing Orders and prohibit the publication of any document, in any in camera meeting, by anybody, in any circumstance. That would require that the transcripts be destroyed, the tapes be destroyed, and so on and so forth.

I'm only going to throw my opinion out to begin the discussion. I initially thought this is the way it should be. That would have been my opinion in the first place, because if it's in camera, it's in camera.

However, in reviewing the history through the House and the precedents that have been set, there are seemingly reasonable times when this particular option doesn't work. Whether it's with the permission of witnesses, after the fact, and so on, there are ways that a committee or this House could move forward in doing the right thing in making in camera....

So I'm proposing that option number one is probably not going to work. And now I have my discussion going.

Mr. Hill, please.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

It's really maybe in the form of a point of order. I notice that our colleague from the NDP has been called away from the meeting. After our last discussion on this last topic, I'll have to be a little bit gun-shy on this, but if I recall correctly, at the last meeting Monsieur Godin was adamant that option one is what he believes in fervently and passionately, and he expressed that, if I recall, he was unwilling to consider another option.

For the purposes of our whole discussion today and whether we could convince him to consider other options, it would be necessary that he be here, I would assume. That's why I want to raise that as a concern, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have two opportunities in front of me. I have two options on that.

I believe you're correct, Mr. Hill. I recall the NDP raising great concerns, seemingly to draw the line in the sand on this issue.

We could proceed. We have a majority here with the witnesses. We certainly have a quorum.

The other option, which seems to make more sense, out of fairness, is to defer this discussion. My concern with that is that we have our expert witnesses before us today.

Perhaps we can have a discussion and defer a decision, but I'm open for committee members right now. Let's take two minutes to make a decision as to how we wish to proceed.

Mr. Lukiwski, and then Mr. Owen.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

I don't know if I can give any helpful suggestions here. I think we should continue the discussion. I don't know about voting on something. I agree with Jay that we should perhaps wait until Yvon comes back, just so that the NDP is represented at this. If we're going to make any decision, it seems to be only fair that they take part in any decision by vote.

My only comment is that I'm kind of caught betwixt and between, Chair. Like you, originally—and I think I mentioned this on the record at the last meeting—I generally agreed with Monsieur Godin on the fact that in camera means in camera and no exceptions. However—and I think I also mentioned this—what precipitated this discussion was the incident where Mr. Guité, at an in camera meeting, supplied testimony that was later contradicted in public at the Gomery commission, and the Gomery commission wanted to subpoena the in camera testimony and all that sort of stuff.

Exceptions like that will occur, and I'm not sure how to deal with that. On general principle and general practices, I would still argue the fact that in camera means in camera, but there is always going to be an exception from time to time, perhaps.

I think Mr. Owen and I both made a comment on this, about the number of in camera proceedings that take place and that there should be some caution exhibited by chairs before they allow in camera discussions from witnesses to be agreed to.

So I'm not sure how we come to a solution on this. I just think in the particular case of Mr. Guité's testimony, where his in camera testimony clearly contradicted the testimony he gave in public, and not being able to square the circle on that, there doesn't seem to be any fairness or justice. That case is the one exception that I think should be noted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Owen, did you have your hand up, sir?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I did. Do you want me to address the substantive aspect of it or just the question of whether we proceed at all without Mr. Godin?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm happy for both opinions. I'm sort of getting the sense that we can't proceed much further.

However, I would like, since our witnesses are here, to perhaps have them give us their opinion on this issue, and then we can defer it at that point. That way, the opinions expressed by our experts would be in the minutes, and we can make sure that Monsieur Godin has that there. We can certainly call the witnesses back, but I'm leaning towards moving to your comment, then asking our witnesses to make comment, and then deferring it.