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.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
I'm not going to make an amendment, but I think the way it's worded, you could have.... You're saying it could be the whip, but is it? Does it say “the whip”?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
We've asked for the whip, so it would be there. In fact, I should point out that before Mr. Carrie proposed it, we wanted the whip's office there, and so did they. We're okay. We're fine, Joe, with your intervention.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We could have “one member of the whip's staff”. Is that acceptable to members?
9:40 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, so we'll go with the new “Staff at in camera Meetings”.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now go to “In camera meetings transcripts”.
Go ahead, Mr. Carrie.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Basically, it's added the wording “and these transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session”.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Chair, I have a comment. We were concerned about this.
It may come as a surprise to some members, but in fact transcripts in camera are kept for 30 years. There's probably a good reason for that.
I would use the precedent of RADARSAT, when I was on the foreign affairs committee. When we were passing legislation on RADARSAT-2, we had to actually go back to in camera work on RADARSAT-1, which took place several years before. It was very helpful and very instructive to the committee, and it allowed members to be privy to where they stood several years ago.
I see no purpose in having to do this, and I think it would probably be counterproductive to allowing members in camera to avail themselves of the previous wisdom of previous committees. I would urge that we not propose or support this. We will not be supporting this recommendation, Mr. Carrie, for that reason.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Chairman, I will give you an example. When I was sitting on the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, our work was interrupted by the elections. The subcommittee had travelled, there had been an enormous number of hours and public funds invested in order to gather this testimony. The work was resumed later on, and at times we must come back to such information much later on. It would be most unfortunate to lose all those transcripts, which were made with great difficulty in the case I refer to. In fact, we had to meet with some witnesses in secret. It would be best to keep the documents. We therefore do not agree with the way in which you want to proceed.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
There is a point of information that the clerk has provided, which I think builds on Mr. McTeague's point but which I feel I ought to read as chair. The transcripts are presently kept in the clerk's officer under lock and key, where only members of the committee and committee staff can consult them. At the end of the session, the transcripts are sent to the National Archives, where they are kept sealed for 30 years, after which time they are made public.
So that's a point of information for members.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
So in 30 years you and I are going to be in real trouble.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, I think the idea behind this is that when we have an in camera session, you're allowed to just let it all out. Although 30 years is a long time, in some cases that may create some difficulties for members. I think, just as a precedent, we understand that we don't have to worry about it getting out to the public. We can really thrash things out. I know when we're not in camera, we're very careful with our words, but in camera we can speak freely.
I like the idea. I can't imagine 30 years down the road that something I say is going to come back to haunt me, although that could be the case.
I think it's more just the idea of what in camera is all about, and that we continue to.... It's not really an in camera meeting if these documents can be released in 30 years. I think there's a matter of precedent, and principle there as well.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Again, as Mr. Van Kesteren was saying, Mr. McTeague brought up an example where he actually had access to in camera documents. My understanding from the clerk is that they're filed under lock and key and then sealed for 30 years, and then they're publicly....
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Yes, I'll clarify that.
The transcripts are kept in the clerk's office under lock and key, where only members of the committee and the committee staff can consult them.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Forever—for the duration of the session. After the session they're sent to the National Archives.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
That's what I mean. After the session they're sent to the National Archives. They're sealed.
Mr. McTeague brought up an example, and I just wanted him to clarify. The understanding is, as Mr. Van Kesteren was saying, that when we're in camera, what's said is said, and there's no concern about that. As to what Mr. McTeague was just stating--and maybe you could clarify this--it doesn't sound like the rules we already have.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I have Mr. Brison and Mr. Stanton, but perhaps Mr. McTeague would want to clarify that.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Chair, the rule is that in camera meetings can bring back in camera documents from years ago and can refer to them under special request. That was done, again, with RADARSAT. I can only use that as a precedent. I didn't make the request; I believe the NDP made the request at the time. But it had to be in camera. That, of course, was recorded as well and had to be before the committee. So special circumstances can take place.
Mr. Brison has raised an issue with respect to cabinet documents.