Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 18th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

On these two points, is it okay that we invite them for next Thursday? We will also invite the minister for Tuesday. If the minister declines, we'll go ahead with our discussion on conflict of interest. Is that okay with everyone? We'll move the committee meeting if they need a video conference.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

The only thing I would add to that is that if the minister is not available to come on Tuesday we should demand that she choose a day when she will come, and have none of this playing around. It seems to me as though she's just trying to stall and delay here. Let's get her to give us a date that she is available on if she isn't available on Tuesday.

Frankly, she should do everything she can to make herself available Tuesday. As I think I mentioned in the subcommittee meeting, I'm aware that after we requested that she appear, there was a Senate committee that requested that she appear, and she is appearing there on the 24th. That proves she is able to actually set a date. It really seems to me that we have a minister here who's trying to avoid being accountable before a House committee, and we cannot let that be acceptable. We must press to make sure that the minister is here. This is a process taking place as we speak, and it needs to be dealt with. We can't let this drag on and on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll tell the clerk, when she's inviting the minister, that we would be highly displeased if the minister did not appear soon.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

We also need to receive some alternate dates. We can't have this “we'll let you know at a later date” kind of stuff. Let's have a date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We can't direct a minister, but we can say we'd be pretty displeased if she didn't appear.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

And she should provide us a date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Just to summarize, we're going to invite the minister for Tuesday; if she cannot come, we're going to go on with the conflict of interest code. Thursday, we will have the two other federal appointments on the Senate recommendation committee. We will be in the Promenade building if we need to do a video conference.

Before you get to that, Arnold, I have one other thing to say.

I would suggest, if we all agree, that if we do conflict of interest on Tuesday that it be in camera since we will be having a lot of discussion on the lengthy report, and in the last committee, all of that was done in camera. That's why the conflict commissioner didn't know what it was we were discussing and so the committee felt that there were those things.

If we are discussing something that was in camera before, we're not at liberty to reveal it publicly anyway, so to allow us to discuss that, I think we should probably suggest that meeting at least start in camera.

Mr. Reid and Mr. Masse.

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

The obvious problem is that Mr. Christopherson has very strong feelings, but he's not here right now. So I'd just.... I don't know.

I'll let Mr. Masse try to deal with that one.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

My understanding is that we're not bound by previous parliamentary action. This is a new Parliament.

It sounds to me like you've proven the case for why it shouldn't be in camera, because you had interested parties that were not aware of this. I would hesitate on that. You've brought up a point where obviously the testimony today—I'm sorry I wasn't here for all of it—was influenced by a lack of knowledge because of going in camera.

I would suggest caution to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

To the clerk, when they went in camera for whatever it was, those members who were at that meeting could not say what happened because it was in camera. As this is a new Parliament, can we now say publicly what happened?

[A voice]

No. It's 30 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, so it's 30 years.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

You don't have to discuss what previously took place, and you can't under those rules. But you're not bound by those rules anymore, what they did. This committee is a creature of its own and is not bound by the previous Parliament's committee, by any means. That includes studies and a whole series of things.

I would just suggest that it would compound the injury that took place today by following those practices that obviously caused some problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are there any other comments?

It just means that we might be reinventing the wheel with some things they discussed, but the stuff we brought up today, that's already public.

Mr. Reid.

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

I actually think it makes sense to be in camera for the purpose of reviewing evidence that was discussed, or discussions that took place, and proposals that were made in the last Parliament. Once we're in camera, we can figure out whether any of that stuff can be dealt with publicly.

Having said that, I suggest we start the meeting in public and then go in camera if there is consent to do so. I suspect a reasonable argument can be made for going in camera, and then we'll get there, but I just think it would be politically smoother.

This is not my own agenda. This is Mr. Christopherson's agenda. I just think that would be the best way of getting there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Chan.

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

I was going to echo that. I was going to suggest that's the way we proceed, as was suggested by Mr. Reid.

If you recall the amendments I proposed to Mr. Christopherson's motion, one of the additional items was members' privileges. Technically, changes to the conflict of interest code directly affect members' privileges. I think we should have those discussions in camera, but in fairness to Mr. Christopherson, we should give him the opportunity to put his position on the record first. Is that fair?

[An hon. member]

That's fair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. We'll start out in public and then if the committee feels so, we'll go in camera.

Is that what we've decided? Is that what we're agreeing on?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

I have one more item, but on all those things we've just discussed, is there anything more? No.

We have set aside the two meetings after the March working constituency week to bring forward witnesses on ”family friendly”. Just to give people enough warning, if anyone has already thought of witnesses they want, it would be helpful to let us know now.

Mr. Masse, I know the NDP has one.

If you could let the clerk know this, we can start inviting people for those weeks.

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

Mr. Chair, can we just clarify which weeks? Are you referring to March 8 and 10, or are you talking about March 22 and 24?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It's March 22 and 24.

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

Right now, from a scheduling perspective—I can just clarify with Blake—we still have a blank for March 8, right?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You know, I recall us having set something that would fit in there. I know that one portion of it was committee business. I do not recall what the other part was, off the top of my head. I don't have my binder with me.