Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 16th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Why don't you make all your points and then we'll get the government or the opposition to respond.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, but if I may, just by way of timing, if I can get some interest—I mean, we're sitting right here.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, good.

If they're going to agree to things, there's no sense in me taking you for a walk around the world.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If you're going to agree anyway....

At some point, maybe that would be helpful. I'll outline it, but rest assured, I'm not done on any of these areas. There are lots of things to revisit and talk about, but only if necessary. Since we're all getting along so well, hey, hope springs eternal.

In terms of review, right off the bat, with regard to outlining what committees can or cannot do in camera, for those of us who served on city councils, we're very used to this idea. I remember at the time there was a whole lot of push-back. People were saying, “You know, cabinets get to meet in camera”, completely missing the point, of course. It's a very different dynamic and a whole different procedure when you have built-in opposition and checks and balances. You don't have that at a city council.

One of the first things that happens on a city council when a motion is made is that somebody often tests it to see if indeed the matter falls within the rules for discussing in camera. It should be noted that the media play the biggest check and balance on this, because once a majority on council votes, things move quickly and they just go in camera. The media will grab on to that issue. They'll take it to the press council and other places, and months and months later you'll hear a report come back saying that the council's had its wrist slapped. That's not to mention what can happen to some of the officers who are responsible municipally for some of these things.

Having an outline of exactly what we go in camera for or not makes a lot of sense. Between the first idea, that it can be debatable and amendable, and the second, that the motion has to stand against the criteria for when we go in camera, that alone would remove a lot of the potential abuse just by slowing it down and putting some kind of reference in there. In the past, it didn't matter what we were talking about. If it got awkward or ugly, if the government was getting beaten up on anything, they would just run and hide and they would move that motion. It would happen that instantly. It would be those two things alone—debatable and amendable—and the fact that they have to stack up against certain criteria on what we're allowed to do in there and what we're not.

I won't go into all of the stuff I have to say just now. I'll just do the Coles Notes version in the hope that everybody will agree and you don't have to hear from me. But providing those two key aspects would go a long way toward removing abuse and potential abuse.

The last one is what really makes me crazy. A lot of people don't know this, but as it stands right now, when you're in camera, if anybody moves a motion on committee and we spend an hour debating it, and it loses, you are violating the confidence of the committee; you are actually in breach—it's a serious matter—if you talk about that motion, because it lost. Under the rules, when you're in camera, the only motions you can talk about in public are the ones that are carried. In fact, it's not even written down. It's like it didn't happen. It drives opposition members crazy, because you're trying to initiate certain directions.

I grant you, a lot of it is partisan. So? This is a partisan place. The fact is that initiatives are put forward when you're talking about business. They're usually opposition, because the government gets their buddies to vote for it and it carries. Okay: we all accept that the election happened and you have the control at the end of the day. The government wins ten votes ten times out of ten. Fair enough. But the whole idea is at least allowing the motion that was made to be heard.

By what anti-democratic rule do we hide behind when we say that if Mr. Richards moves a substantive motion in camera about the business we're doing, or about new business, or wants to invite other witnesses, or wants to start a study, all of which is public business and doesn't fall in the categories (a) through (e) that I listed earlier...? If he should do that, currently under the rules, by the time you get out of in camera, it's like the old Soviet Union when you fall out of favour: you look at the pictures from the past, and holy smokes, they are just not there. That's what would happen to that motion. It goes all Soviet. It just disappears as if it never happened.

So, you're in camera, and you're left wondering what to do. Do you not bother making the case? Well, you want to make the case. You're going to make the argument. It just eats up a whole lot of time but denies anybody outside that committee room the opportunity.... And believe me—because you will probably see it happen at least once—when I say that if anybody violates the confidence of in camera meetings, that's a big deal. It gets raised in the House. It's a breach, and it's held as such. So this is a big deal, and it has always driven me insane that you can't even talk about it.

I have a lot to say about all of this, but those are the three items. It's 12:40 and I have lots of time to start in, but it would be helpful to me if I could get some kind of feedback from the government, just some indication of where I am vis-à-vis the possibility of this carrying. It won't stop me from making my case, but it certainly could save us a whole lot of time if they were being co-operative.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I need you to concede me the floor so I can respond.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's fair enough. I just need to make sure the clerk knows I would like the floor again after I'm done so I can stay on the list and not have this close off on me.

I will defer so I can hear from Mr. Chan, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll go to Mr. Chan and then Mr. Graham.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Christopherson for his contribution on this point.

The government supports the basic premise of what you're putting forth. We took this position in opposition. As you'll recall, the member for Westmount—Ville Marie in the 41st Parliament spoke with respect to the basic principles attached to this, and our leader introduced a private member's bill with respect to the basic premise in regard to the motion you're putting before this committee today.

The only suggestion I would have on a couple of points with respect to the substantive motion that's before the committee.... First of all, we think some additional items should be considered to expand the list of what we think would be appropriate matters to be in camera, and I'll introduce those in a moment.

The other point we have is on where you talk about how “any motion to sit in camera should be debatable and amendable”. My point is that I'm okay with it being debatable for, let's say, three minutes. I don't see why it needs to be amendable. It's either an up or down vote from my perspective; we either agree to it or we don't agree to it. Because at that point, we're dealing with a prescribed list of items, and only those items can go in camera. We vote it either up or down. It's straight up. Also, I don't want us to take an enormous amount of committee time to make those decisions once we know that we're dealing only with the prescribed list of matters that can go in camera.

Finally, with respect to the last point, which was basically about the minutes of the meeting, from my perspective—again, since we're dealing again with a prescribed list of issues—the result of those votes, because we're only dealing with a prescribed list, should only be recorded with the unanimous consent of the committee, because the only way you go in camera is that you're dealing only with those issues.

I'll give you a couple of amendments that I would suggest. For example, here's how the motion would then read. I would simply delete the provision that says “and amendable”, so it would read instead “That any motion to sit in camera should be debatable for”—I'm going to just propose this—“not more than three minutes”. So you can debate it and get your points out. We're only dealing with these items, okay? Then we'd vote it up or down.

Then I would simply add three other provisions to the list that you've already prescribed. I'm fine with the list you have so far, but I would suggest that these other items would be appropriate as well.

I would add an (f) that would read “for matters of members' privilege”. Again, I think that might be appropriate for us to go in camera on. I would then add a (g) “for the discussion of witness lists”. Again, it might be appropriate to go in camera for whatever reason. I would add an (h) “for any other reason”, because we might forget what that particular reason might happen to be, “on the consent of the entire committee”—so we all have to agree, okay?—“or on the advice of the clerk”. There might be a reason that we haven't thought about it in this list, but it gives us a way out.

[An hon. member]

That wording...?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Right, on consideration from the advice of the committee....

I'll read it back: “for any other reason with the consent of the whole committee or on consideration of the advice of the clerk”.

There may be reasons we need to go in camera that we haven't thought about in this particular list, but again, it's either that we all agree, or that the clerk raises it, thinking that it might be appropriate for us to do that. Then we'd still have to decide as a body.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I would think so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. You're on the list.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I'll defer to Mr. Graham. I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have Mr. Graham, Mr. Christopherson, and then Mr. Reid.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

There's one more thing I want to change, and it's that “the Minutes of in camera meetings should, with unanimous consent of the committee, reflect the results” of all the votes. I don't think it's appropriate that every vote we ever have in camera comes back to the Hansard, but maybe sometimes it will, and I think we should be able to agree to that in camera. That's the suggestion I'd make there.

As you see, we're very much agreed with this in principle. I was there. I was behind you in the third party. I remember watching how it was abused. In principle we agree with this, but we're trying to get it so we don't hit any roadblocks that we really don't want to hit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson, and then Mr. Reid.

Or you might want to hear from Mr. Reid first, because then you'd have more to comment on.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

My comments are brief and technical.

The first is that Mr. Chan's motion says “three minutes”. Do you simply mean that the proposer gives a three-minute rationale and then everybody else simply votes, as opposed to three minutes for each person? You can see the distinction. One involves three minutes. One involves three minutes' time for how many members there are potentially. I'm not sure which one you meant.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

My intention is really that the mover of the motion will have three minutes to put the issue forward. I just want to put a time limit on debating something ad nauseam so we don't eat up valuable committee time.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I wasn't asking a question; I was asking for clarification.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

It's a fair question, and I would be fine with any other member having up to three minutes. Even then that would eat up a significant amount of time, but at least at some point there's closure and we can vote it up or down, because we're dealing with a prescribed list of items, a limited number of items that can go in camera. Not just anything can go in camera.