National Defence Committee on June 13th, 2017

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I want to say once again that I think we have a responsibility to do our business in public, unless there are good reasons to be in private such as national security or personal privacy information.

If the witness says he wishes to do this in camera, I would respect that request. He understands very well what things need to be kept in private. I agree with James if he has made that request, but I don't believe he has, and I don't believe he will. If he has, though, we should be in camera. If not, then I would use the test I always use in these situations. How do I stand in front of a microphone and explain to people that we are excluding them from the public's business? In this case I wouldn't have a very good explanation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

James.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I have a final comment before we vote on the amendment. Every time we've had the ombudsman here it has been a public meeting. I just don't understand why we would want to go in camera.

I don't think that what he's suggesting is partisan in any way, shape, or form. This is the system that has been in place for a number of years in several successive governments. He's just looking for a way to improve upon the system, so he can better serve those he's charged with caring for. After all, he's the adjudicator in many different situations with employees, staff, and members who serve this nation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I think Sven might have covered that when he said that an in camera meeting might lead to other opportunities.

Was this ever considered under the previous government? This is something you guys seem interested in doing and I'm wondering why you didn't do it.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

This is all new.

Mr. Walbourne himself served only for a very short period of time under the previous government and has been under the current minister since. This had not come up before, but I can see the merit in what he's suggesting.

Whatever changes are made will affect future governments as well. Essentially, let's hear from him and then decide after that how we will process this information. The way it stands right now, anybody could pick up his document and do it as public or private members' business, as a bill in the House. It's all drafted. It's ready to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Is there anything else on this?

We're going to vote on basically adding “in camera” to the amendment. James' motion stands as it is, with “in camera” at the end as the amendment, as proposed by Mr. Fisher.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

So we're voting on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We're voting on the amendment.

Do you want to record it?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Okay.

All those in favour of Mr. Bezan's amended motion, which is adding “in camera” to this motion?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

All those in favour of the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

In camera.

By a show of hands, all those in favour of the “in camera” amendment? Anybody opposed?

(Amendment agreed to)

Back to the motion as amended:

That the Committee undertake a one meeting study with regards to the National Defence Ombudsman's Report titled The Case for a Permanent and Independent Ombudsman Office in order to analyze the report in camera.

This motion is back on the table for discussion.

James.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Finally, the NDP has suggested the following process on whether or not a meeting should be in camera. This is for the following purposes, and we'll see whether this falls into the criteria, as eloquently placed by David Christopherson. It says:

That the committee may only meet in camera for the following purposes: (a) to consider wages, salaries and other employee benefits; (b) to consider contracts and contract negotiations; (c) to consider labour relations and personnel matters; (d) to consider a draft report or agenda; (e) for briefings concerning national or parliamentary security; (f) to consider matters where privacy or the protection of personal information is required; (g) when conducting an inquiry pursuant to the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment; (h) to receive legal, administrative or procedural advice from the House of Commons' Administration; and (i) for any other reason, with the unanimous consent of the Committee.

This was moved at the procedure and House affairs committee. It means that all of the other meetings scheduled by the chair would be public. I thought those are pretty good criteria suggested by the NDP.

I don't think in any way, shape, or form that the amendment forcing the ombudsman, an officer of the Department of National Defence, who reports to the minister and to us as parliamentarians, to meet in camera should ever have been proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Okay.

You also know from having been a chair that the committee is the master of its own destiny. The will of the committee is to have this particular meeting in camera, and that's kind of what's on the table right now. What happens after this meeting is still open for debate. There was a suggestion that this could turn into something else, based on the testimony at the in camera meeting.

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I would like to seek another amendment that we offer to the military ombudsman the option of whether he would prefer to have it in camera. The motion would go forth, at the discretion of the military ombudsman to have it in camera or not.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We already voted on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Yes, I know.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

That was the amendment. It wasn't at the discretion of the military ombudsman. You're concerned that he may be discussing something that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Just a second. Let's just get everyone's gyros caged here.

We have Mr. Bezan's statement as it stands, and at the end we added “at an in camera briefing”.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Not “briefing” but “study”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm sorry, “in camera” period.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

In camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Now Ms. Gallant wants to add “at the discretion of the ombudsman”.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

On whether or not it's going to be in camera.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

As a point of order, we've already made the decision. We've already voted on an amendment that it's going to be in camera. Now you're saying that it's going to be in camera if the ombudsman wants it in camera?