Chair, when the committee began, if we think back to December when we started here in this new Parliament and were appointed to this committee, we elected a chair and we created rules for our routine proceedings. That really would have been the time to come up with the rules to guide this committee. Can they be changed through the process? Yes.

Having been here for almost 13 years, and at one time as chair, I learned to use O'Brien and Bosc as a guide to help me, as you do, Chair. It's been developed over a long period of time by people who have a lot of experience here.

There is guidance in here on when we should be going to in camera. It says:

On occasion, a committee may decide to hold an in camera meeting to deal with administrative matters, to consider a draft report or to receive a briefing. Subcommittees on Agenda and Procedure usually meet in camera. Committees also meet in camera to deal with documents....

It goes on to explain when a committee does that. It also builds into the rules discretion for the chair. At any time, a member of the committee could present a motion that we move in camera. And it works.

My concern is that we would only go in camera when we create a motion and amend it. We get very prescriptive that these are the only times. We now take away the discretion of the chair and take away the discretion of the committee. We'd actually be amending our routine proceedings to be able to make a practical change that needs to be made because we've restricted ourselves. We have a system that works well, and if we abuse it, then the government would wear it, because in this case we have a majority government.

I don't see the necessity, and I think it could create a problem for this committee because we get prescriptive in the list, saying that we only do it then and then and then.

I'll just give you an anecdote. The former Liberal government came up with compassionate care. They were very prescriptive of who would qualify for compassionate care. I had somebody come into my office whose sister was dying. The sister who saw me did not qualify to give compassionate care to her dying sister. The intent of the previous Liberal government was to allow people to take care of each another in the last six weeks of their life, but they created a very prescriptive list.

When we became government in 2006, we opened it up and said that provided the person qualifies for EI benefits, let the dying person choose who is their care provider. That was very easy. Suddenly the problem was solved so that a sister could take care of a sister, or a friend could take care of a dying person.

I think it would be in our best interests the more open and practical we leave it, leaving the discretion with the chair, leaving the rules and the structure that we have in place that's worked well for Canada. If we move to something that sounds good but is prescriptive or restrictive, it could create problems for us.

For those reasons I would recommend that we do not support the motion. I appreciate its intent, but it really could restrict and not serve the committee well.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Monsieur Robillard.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

I will give my place to Ms. Sansoucy. She is the expert here.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

I think point (f) of the motion certainly includes the study we could conduct on the award. I don't think it's necessary to amend the motion to include examples. If not, each time a new element is referred for study purposes, the motion will need to be amended to include it.

The way we interpret these elements could enable us to include certain things.

I think it's accurate to say that privacy and the protection of personal information are at stake in this type of discussion. When rules are too broad, there may be abuse or even perceived abuse.

We know that new information technology makes it much easier for people to follow our work. The motion assures the people who listen to us that, when we're not in front of them, it's for very specific reasons.

November 3rd, 2016 / 9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you.

Now we move on to Mr. Ruimy, please.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

Thank you.

I have two points to make.

First, coming back to the Centennial Flame award, I don't believe we need an amendment to the motion in that regard, because it's about privacy. When you're talking about multiple people and their qualifications, that is a private matter and I think that speaks directly to that.

The second thing is, again yes, we're all new here, at least on this side. Time and time again, we've heard that previous committees got shut down multiple times by in camera sessions. I'm not making this up; even members of the opposition have said the same thing. To me, this holds us to a higher standard and we can't be afraid to have that higher standard of transparency. If we can't discuss in public the appropriate things, other than what's in the motion here, then the question is, what are we trying to hide? Again, that's why I'll be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Ms. Tassi, you're good. Okay.

Seeing no further debate, I call for a vote on the motion. Do I need to read the motion for the record? No, okay.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Using paragraph (g) of the motion you just adopted, I would like to proceed in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]