Evidence of meeting #54 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was camera.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I'm not certain why we would change it to “briefing”. “Study” leaves open the option of making recommendations. It doesn't require us to make recommendations. If we change it to a briefing, then we have to go through a lot of rigmarole to make recommendations if we decided we wanted to do that. A study doesn't require recommendations; it just leaves us that as an option that we could consider. If we do it as a briefing, I'm not sure how we would get to any recommendations that we would present to the House. I'm sure we could probably figure out a way to do it, but it would take a lot of juggling of the rules to do that.
I would like to see us leave the option open. We may have something quite non-controversial that we all agree on—that would be a miracle—but we should leave that option open.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Yes, I agree with Randall one hundred per cent: a briefing would close the door, if we decided as a committee to do a report with recommendations. And it would take a majority of the committee to do a report with recommendations. I'm concerned that we'd want to go in camera. I still think this is a public report, from a public office holder whom we want to hear from in a public setting at committee.
Despite what Mark is staying about grandstanding, this is about hearing from Mr. Walbourne on what needs to happen to ensure that he can do his job, as well as his replacements down the road, so they have the independence, the resources, and the ability to do what's right for those who serve us in uniform, as well as those who work in the Department of National Defence.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I wanted to ask a question of the clerk for the benefit of the committee. What other differences are there formally between a briefing and a study in the context of a one-meeting session that would constrain us or empower us to do anything other than just publish the report?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
From a procedural standpoint, what the clerk was just saying to me is that whether it's a briefing or a study, assuming that this motion passes, which is for an in camera briefing, we could still do recommendations if we felt like it. The words “study” or “briefing” don't constrain the committee from providing recommendations should we want to do that.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, that's helpful.
If I could just complete my pitch, I think, in light of what Ms. Gallant mentioned, that he did meet privately with a number if not all of the members of the committee, and chose to do so in private, I think there's a good opportunity now, through an in camera session, to align those private discussions, to listen to each other about what we had learned from him and to make sure that we have an opportunity to ask him those things that he may still want to tell the committee, but not in a public setting.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
When I originally asked to be recognized, I was going to say I agreed with Randall about closing the door to the idea of a recommendation. I was going to suggest that we keep the word “study” in, but now I'm hearing that it doesn't matter one way or the other. I think that's a good point.
I don't know if you can do a motion to amend an amendment, but I like keeping the word “study”.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I was just looking at the one meeting. It's not much of a study; it's more of a briefing. If there is no major difference between a study and a briefing, then I would be happy to remove the change.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I withdraw the change from “study” to “briefing”.
(Amendment withdrawn)
Liberal
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
To go back to Sven's comment about this being briefed in private. Remember that we were briefed before the report was made public. The ombudsman wanted to make sure all of us on the committee from all parties were aware of his report and the recommendations that were in it, as well as the proposed legislation. That's why we received private briefings.
Now is the time to talk about this in a public format. Let's leave it at this: we can take out the term “in camera” and leave it at the discretion of the chair to talk to the ombudsman. If the ombudsman wants to do a public meeting, then let's do the public meeting. If the ombudsman is requesting that we do it in camera, then we'll do it in camera. Let's leave it up to the witness, rather than sitting here debating and playing politics.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
There is nothing sensitive that we're going to ask. We're not going to ask about specific cases. If a specific case were to come up, however, we'd do that sort of discussion in camera.
This is not going to be a discussion where we are going clause-by-clause on a report. There is no reason to have this in camera. Now we've gone from an open public meeting, after the military ombudsman has already given his report in public and on television, to a closed-door briefing.
The spectrum that we've gone across in this committee is appalling.