National Defence Committee on Feb. 24th, 2020

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I suggest that we proceed with this motion in front of us, and then do the same thing, refer it for further clarification.

My concern is that last time we had a very serious case of a whistle-blower who had to give testimony in public because we didn't have this provision, and who received some quite negative response in public, through the media, because of the testimony.

I'm quite willing to look at the longer list and have the subcommittee consider it, but this would give us a place to start on in camera proceedings, if we adopted this today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think it's a notice of motion. We have only just seen this.

I think we should have those discussions. There's nothing that says that with unanimous consent of the committee we wouldn't be able to do that, but I think we need to have longer discussions.

It didn't come to a vote in PROC for four months. We sat down and really made sure that the wording.... We worked with the clerks to make sure that there wasn't an unintended consequence.

I would suggest that maybe the subcommittee could take it up and then we could look at the text as we go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Bezan.

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

I've always considered motions to move in camera dilatory motions. They're non-debatable. It's a process. It's not about a substantive issue. I believe that Bosc and Gagnon is clear on it as well, that these are dilatory motions. You may want to set conditions on when we would use a dilatory motion to go in camera, but I wouldn't want us to see us debating in camera motions on and on again.

I think we have something to consider with the PROC report.

I see, Randall, that your motion captures some of that, but it doesn't capture everything that they're talking about, so maybe we could do this at the subcommittee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I concur that there is room to explore this in greater detail at the subcommittee.

I have one quick point on the motion, part 1(c). It's food for thought. It refers to briefings concerning national security. If the challenge is to protect conversations around national security, why is it limited to briefings? It could be that the next day we're having a follow-up discussion on a briefing. It's no longer a briefing, but the import of national security is still very much there. I think it's a fairly broad scope.

Those kinds of things should be discussed in greater detail at the subcommittee I think.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

All right. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adjourn the debate on this particular motion and then have it addressed at the subcommittee? Is that a way forward?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Madam Gallant.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to propose another routine motion. This had been a motion, as a matter of practice, prior to the last Parliament, and Richard will say it in French.

We move that, when a minister, the chief of the defence staff, or any other officer of Parliament and/or ombudsman appear before the committee, the meeting be televised.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

We would like the meeting to be televised when we have a minister or another officer of Parliament, including the ombudsman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I think there was a condition on that in the past, though, because Parliament only has the technical capability of doing two or three, and they—

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

It's in every room now. Also, they have enough personnel.

[The Clerk]

The capabilities have been upgraded. There is now a distinction between televising and webcasts. We now have the ability to webcast as well as televise. The House can televise two meetings at the same time. We can also webcast two other committees at the same time, and that's ramping up within the next month to four committees. In total, you could have six committees being broadcast with video, but two of them would be televised and four would be webcast.

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

We still want televised.

[The Clerk]

Some other committees have added a stipulation: televised, and if not possible, webcast. It's like a drop-down tier.

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

The reason we have this in place is that sometimes we have different clerks or there's illness, and since it's not in the routine motions it gets skipped, and then we miss an opportunity for Canadians to hear what the witness had to say. That's why we put it up front in the very beginning: preferably televised, and if and only if it cannot be televised, then we would go to webcast.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Could you repeat which witnesses that would apply to?

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

It was routine in the past for a minister, the chief of the defence staff or any other officer of Parliament, so that would be when the Auditor General, for example, or the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or the ombudsman appeared before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Bezan.

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

How many committee meetings can meet at the same time, normally?

[The Clerk]

It varies, but usually about six.

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

So we have the capabilities now with cameras and all. It is not contingent upon being in any particular room, because all the rooms have cameras in them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Vandenbeld.