Evidence of meeting #1 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
That's a witness meeting in camera, and I think you'd want to have access to those beyond one session.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
The clerk has some valuable information. And then I have another comment too. The clerk is going to make a comment on what the practice has been in the past.
The Clerk
If you specify “destroy”, that means destroy. Here, in this one, there's no specification to that effect. What will happen with the documents is that they're archived and not accessible for 30 years, which is the usual practice.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay.
I have a question for you, sir. We had a witness who was willing to come to the committee and appear in camera only. And if that witness had felt that at some point that could then become public, it would have made it seem that the witness had not appeared, if we didn't have this kind of protection.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
It's 30 years, yes, but in this case she felt personally threatened by someone and 30 years may not have been enough. I don't know. But this is something we have to consider if we don't destroy in camera evidence, that some witnesses would be greatly disturbed by that.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
I can tell you that one of my objections to this, the way it's drafted, is about later consultation by members of Parliament. Quite frankly, members of Parliament, unless they're members of the committee, are not able to go. It's members of the committee who have access, not any members of Parliament.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
The existing one says “for consultation by members of the committee”.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Yes, and it's changed so that any member of Parliament can go and read stuff, and that's not right. What's the whole point of having in camera?
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Yes, “by members of the committee” would specify it, make it narrow.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
That's something we can hash out and think about until next Tuesday.
Yes, Monsieur Ménard.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
While we are making corrections, we should also consider the fact that in French, the term is broader. Oh no, I see. When we say “members of Parliament”, I suppose that includes senators. Alright, but the term parlementaires is very broad.
Conservative
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
It is very broad. In French it is broader because it includes provincial MLAs, whereas when you say “members of Parliament”, there is only one Parliament in Canada.
In any case, you should revise the French translation as well, to make sure that it says the same thing as the English version.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Chair, in looking at this item I'd like to know a little bit more about these documents once they're archived. You know, things are sometimes archived and historians use them, and writers later, very much later. Thirty years hence, if someone wants to write a book and they go to the archives, the in camera meetings might be useful. I'd like to know a little bit more of the background to the archiving process, who accesses it, what sort of history is behind that, what the incidence is of accessing these kinds of documents through archives.
Conservative
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Yes, if the clerk could come back with some information about that, I would appreciate it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay, let's clarify this. Are you asking who can access the archives? What's your question?
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I am not asking who can access it. I'm interested to know who accesses these materials subsequently, what has been the history, what has been the precedent. What kinds of people access them, or are they accessed at all?
If they're just archived and then no one goes to them, what's the point of archiving these things if no one is interested in them? Are there historians or writers who eventually access this material? It might be useful to them.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I don't know if we have a study on it. I don't know if we can answer your question, Mr. Cullen, because I don't know if anybody has kept track of who goes into the archives and what they look at.
Ms. Barnes.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Perhaps the clerk can clarify. I remember from before, chairing committees, that as a chair you had the option of doing an in camera meeting with transcription or without transcription. If you had it with transcription, the transcription was kept at the office of the clerk, and only members of the committee could access that. The idea was for members who had to work on reports who had missed a meeting could catch up--or, potentially, researchers. I always thought researchers could also access it to get the correct information if they were given instructions during those sessions, especially during the drafting of reports.
But it was always at the chair's discretion to figure out whether it was in camera with transcript or without, and I always understood that they were destroyed. So it is news to me that anything was archived, if it was other than what Mr. Cullen was talking about, with a witness with transcription.
The Clerk
When the committee gives no directives as to the disposition of the documents, then they're archived. But they're kept in camera, kept not accessible because they are in camera.
Conservative