Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Ms. Wilshaw and associates, for the good work you're doing in very difficult times. You appear to have a great group of associates working with you, Ms. Wilshaw, and I wish you much success.
We are going to deal with committee business.
Witnesses, you can do whatever it is you do to leave the meeting so that we can continue with our committee business. I'll just give everybody a minute to find their way.
We're going to deal with Mr. Dhaliwal's motion. I asked the clerk to send out another copy of the motion, plus a revised version. I need to read into the record certain things in order to explain my position on that motion.
Standing Order 67(1) and Standing Order 67(2) consider a motion to go in public or in camera to be non-debatable. This is also outlined in Bosc and Gagnon on page 1089:
Any member may move a motion to go from sitting in public to sitting in camera (and vice versa). The motion is decided immediately without debate or amendment.
As members know, committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent that they respect the higher sources of authorities, which the Standing Orders are. In the previous Parliament, the procedure and House affairs committee and the human resources committee adopted similar motions. For reference, the procedure outlined in this type of motion tended to be used more as a guide for the chair and the committee on a way to proceed rather than as a strict rule. Generally speaking, a committee may decide to adopt this as a general way of proceeding and there may be agreement to continue to do so. However, it is important that members of the committee know that, at some point, there could be a risk of this motion coming into conflict with what is laid out in the Standing Orders mentioned above.
Given the discussion that we had on Mr. Dhaliwal's motion, my sense from the committee members who spoke to it was that they clearly wanted to have that motion in place, so I am not going to rule it inadmissible. What I have suggested is a couple of amendments that would make it much easier for us to function as a committee. You should all have the amendments with you, and I can read this out if necessary.
First, this version of the motion could be interpreted by some as taking away the chair’s discretion to start a meeting in camera. For greater clarity, a line could be included regarding the chair’s discretionary authority to call a meeting in camera. For example, in the motion adopted by PROC during the 42nd Parliament, this line was included: “That the Chair may schedule all or portions of a meeting to be in camera for the reasons listed above”.
Second, committee business is not included, which means that, for example, to call a meeting to discuss the committee’s working calendar, as it stands now, I would not be in a position to make this decision. Therefore, I would suggest that committee business be added to the list of purposes to go in camera in Mr. Dhaliwal's motion.
Finally, as the motion reads now, there are no limits to the debate about going in camera or in public, which could go on for quite a while, eating all the time that the committee would have at its disposal. Here again, a suggestion is that, as PROC did in the 42nd Parliament, we move:
That any motion to sit in camera shall be subject to a debate where the mover, and one member from each of the other recognized parties, be given up to three minutes each to speak to the motion; and that the mover shall then be given up to one minute to respond.
With those suggested amendments to Mr. Dhaliwal's motion, things should continue to flow as they have previously, and I think with the support of the committee.
Is there any discussion? Is someone prepared to move those suggested amendments to Mr. Dhaliwal's motion?
Mr. Sheehan, go ahead.