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
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
That's not going to work, because “in camera” is already at the end of that sentence, right? What's on the table right now, before your amendment, is as Mr. Bezan's motion now reads in its entirety, with the words “in camera”, then a period, at the end of the sentence.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Add “or in public at the discretion of the ombudsman”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Okay, so you're going remove the period and add to the end of it, “or in public at”—
Conservative
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I thought “in camera” was put up between “one” and “meeting”—“one in camera meeting”. I thought that's the way it was moved by Darren.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
It wasn't discussed before today in the amendment. How could “in camera” be anywhere else but after “report”?
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I was under the impression that we had inserted “in camera” between “one” and “meeting”, Mr. Chair, but regardless—
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I just want to speak to the amendment brought forward by Ms. Gallant. I think we should leave it at the discretion of the ombudsman on whether or not he's to be censored. If we're not going to censor him, and he wants to be in public, then let's allow that to happen.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
We're not censoring him. Censoring him would imply that we're not allowing him to speak. He can get up and speak about whatever he wants in public. He can go wherever he wants and say whatever he wants.
To suggest that we're censoring him is—
Conservative
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Oh, come on. He can walk out of the room and say anything he wants. That's not censoring somebody.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
What I have here is up to the end of the original motion from Mr. Bezan. We take the period away from “report”, add “in camera or in public as determined by the ombudsman”. That's essentially the essence of it. That's what we're voting on.
All in favour of the amendment by Ms. Gallant.
(Motion negatived)
We're back to our original motion as amended by the addition of the words “in camera” at the end of the sentence.
Mr. Garrison.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
I'm placed in a very awkward position, because as I've said several times already in this meeting, I think this business should be done in public. However, I think it's important that this committee as a group hear from the military ombudsman, so it's difficult for me to determine how to vote on this. It places two principles that I have here in opposition. I will probably therefore vote to support the motion, because I think it's more important that we hear from him than not.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Once again, I think my point is whether this meeting can or will add value beyond what's already in the public realm without going into a second public session. My conclusion is that it probably will, so I would support it.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I echo what Randall just said. It's unfortunate that we're going to be behind closed doors, not be transparent and not allow Canadians to hear what the ombudsman has to say to us or what we have to ask as questions. At the same time, it is important that we hear from him, so I'll be supporting the motion.
