Evidence of meeting #2 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
November 15th, 2007 / 9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Just for clarification, in terms of the cabinet documents, it's only 20 years. I'd like to understand better the rationale for having a longer period for committee than for cabinet.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I just identify that as information for the committee. I'm not here to explain why it's 30 years. We can find that out.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, can we ask the legal beagle here--not to put him on the spot.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I think we'll endeavour to find that out for Mr. Brison. I thought cabinet documents were in the paper the next day, but....
Mr. Stanton.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It just occurs to me that the nature of in camera meetings in terms of the transcript really is the domain of the committee for that particular session.
Keep in mind the kind of work that's done in camera. These are usually discussions around formulating a work plan, committee business, and the development of recommendations. I mean, you're putting a report together and there's a lot of discussion. Points are raised about how we formulate and ultimately come to a conclusion and agreement on what recommendations will be included in a report. But really, the permanent record is the report itself and the debates that led up to it, and I think that's the key record that needs to be preserved.
It seems to me that the in camera portion, while it is relevant for the current session—and I myself have had occasion where I've had to go to the clerk's office, particularly when we're in the development stage of report recommendations and considering what should be in and not in a report—once that's done, the nature of that part of the debate of the committee, I would think, would have very little relevance for some point in the future.
As has been pointed out, there may be very rare circumstances where the points that are raised in committee might have to be referred to, but I just can't imagine a scenario, because of the nature of that kind of dialogue, of it being relevant to committee business that occurs in a subsequent session of Parliament.
I really think this is an effort to put the public record and the reports and the outcomes of the committee into the place it should be held, and that should be the permanent record of the committee's work, not all of the dialogue that flows into those recommendations.
That's the only point I would make.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
That is true, and that clarification I want to ensure. All of the witness testimony will be preserved. That's all public. I hope I didn't leave members with that impression. It's only the in camera portion that we're talking about.
Mr. Van Kesteren, and then Madame Brunelle.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Just to follow up what Mr. Brison pointed out--he has left the room, but maybe Mr. Regan can....
Were you in cabinet? I think you're referring to cabinet documents, but there must be some times in cabinet, too, where you can talk about something and not have to ever have that recorded for 20 years down the road or something. So when he brings that point in—and I think Mr. Stanton has laid it out quite well—it's the very principle that at those meetings, when we can actually thrash things out, you can say, with due respect to opposite members and your colleagues, what's on your mind.
We're setting a precedent, and I think we need to set a precedent in the proper direction. If it's 20 years at one point, we should eliminate at committee...so in other areas of government we can actually have these times where we can thrash things out and not have to worry about future generations dissecting them and trying to understand or judge us for what we said at that particular time. I just think it's an important thing, and I'd like to see government move in that direction.
I can't see the rationale for keeping it for 20 or 30 years. To me, it just makes absolutely no sense. So although it might seem like a minute point, it's important. We're setting a precedent.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I would like to draw your attention to another point. Beyond the time period, we are being told that we want to ensure confidentiality because of the witnesses and that it is in in camera discussions that people feel free to express themselves. However, according to the old procedural rule, the consultation of transcripts of in camera meetings was reserved for members of the committee. According to the new rule being moved, transcripts could be consulted by other members of Parliament. We're therefore broadening the access to more people, members and senators. It seems to me that the arguments being raised intend the opposite. We are saying that we want to ensure that discussions be as confidential as possible and that we be able to speak as freely as possible, but such a motion makes the transcripts accessible to a greater number of people.
9:55 a.m.
Independent
André Arthur Independent Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I can understand, and I will support, what the parliamentary secretary suggests, that the transcripts from our in camera meetings be destroyed at the end of the session. It is logical, because we have all agreed that there is nothing of consequence in that.
Beyond that, when I first came to this committee, I had a very peculiar experience. While the Bloc Québécois was publicly denouncing me in my riding on the pretext that I was not participating in parliamentary deliberations, Mr. Crête, at this table and at in camera meetings, was trying to reduce the possibility that some committee members might share their time with me so that I could ask questions. I am sure that Mr. Crête was quite capable of behaving in this rather surprising, but perhaps understandable manner for a politician, because it was never to be made public that he and his party were talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. You can say one thing in public, and say another in private. The fact that these discussions were secret made it possible to say one thing and the opposite at the same time.
Personally, I found the situation quite amusing when, because of an indiscretion that I played no part in, the newspaper La Presse was able to publish discussions that had taken place concerning the difficulties I was having getting speaking time, when Mr. Crête was trying to prevent other members of the committee from giving me time while simultaneously his party was publicly denouncing me for not having participated in debates in the House. Finally, I find that this is really very funny, when one considers that even the statements made by Churchill during the war when he was half-drunk were published—they were never able to marshall the privacy that he might himself have dreamt of—and we are deciding that what we say is so important that we must protect our right to say one thing in private and its opposite in public.
On the other hand, if we agree that our private meetings are only to chit-chat about things that are of no interest, it is perhaps the most ecological idea to take those papers and recycle them at the end of the year. That is why will readily support the motion put forward by the parliamentary secretary. I did nevertheless want to share my amusement with the members of the committee at the notion that the secrecy of our discussions could assist certain members of the committee to say one kind of thing in public and the opposite in private.
Thank you.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thanks again, Mr. Chair.
I just want to clarify for Madame Brunelle that it says, “for later consultation by members of Parliament”, as opposed to “members of committee”. Sometimes the committee membership changes during a session. So you may be a member of the committee today, but tomorrow you may change to another committee. So by making that slight change there, you would still be able to have access, as you'd no longer be a member of the committee.
Again, on having the transcripts destroyed at the end of the session, the problem with keeping anything for 20 to 30 years is that it could be become public and you may not have the opportunity to explain yourself at that time. I feel more comfortable with just having it destroyed.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say to Mr. Arthur that Mr. Crête was saying that he did not participate in debates in the House. When we talk about the House, we are talking about what goes on in the House of Commons. Here, we are in committee. They are two completely different things.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
I've listened to the discussion and I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other on this, but what I haven't heard is that the status quo has been a problem for this committee at any time in the past.
I think what is being proposed is a change for a hypothetical problem, and I'm not sure that makes sense, so I support the current provisions.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Carrie, do you want to vote on this? I sense three parties are opposed.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
To address Madam Nash, this has not necessarily happened in this committee, but there have been issues on other committees. Whatever we decide to vote on, the idea was, as I said, to clarify the first part. You may be a member of this committee today, and for whatever reason you may not be an industry committee member a week from now, but you may want to have access to it. The way it's written now, it says they're kept at the clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee. By changing it to “members of Parliament”, that would allow you access later on in the same session to work that you had participated in. Again, whether or not it's destroyed, I suppose, will reflect what you feel is better in your opinion.
I'm prepared to vote on it now, but I did appreciate the opportunity to explain that portion to you.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Nash, I would like to add that I'm glad that you're reflecting on this. That's a good question. But we could also ask why we would keep this information. It's a matter of privacy. I just think we're moving towards that more and more in our society--protecting our privacy. I think it is not necessary to keep this information for 30 years. Probably nothing will ever happen. But future courts can judge. They can change those rulings. Again, I don't think that much is said in our committee, but we need to set a precedent. I just think it's important that it's not necessary to keep these documents. I can't understand why we're doing it. I would just feel more comfortable if we moved in that direction in government, and this sets a precedent.
