Public Safety Committee on Oct. 4th, 2010

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I'd just like to speak to the motion, Mr. Chair.

What I have here is nothing about witnesses. I do believe it's important that the public should know that the committee has a number of items to deal with, and that we are willing to put something on the table that I think all of the members of this room should be willing to discuss quite openly and in public so that the public knows what this committee is doing and what its plans are as we move forward.

I don't see anything in what I have in that motion that any of the members would feel that they wouldn't want their voters or any other voters in the country to know about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Let me just say this. In serving on other committees....

I hate to invoke the name of someone from the past, but Svend Robinson, when he was on committees, would never go to future business in camera. He wanted everything to be public. He wanted to make sure....

So it's not parliamentary practice, or parliamentary process, that we would immediately go in camera. That's why I asked the question about whether it's something you've done in the past. To my understanding, certainly, future business may be discussed in camera or it may not be.

Mr. Davies, and then Mr. Holland.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I actually had comments way back when about the procedure, but we're far past that now.

I've only been here two years, so I don't know what Mr. Robinson did or didn't do, but I can tell you that since I've been here, we have always gone in camera when we discussed future business. I've never heard that questioned by anybody on either side. I think there are some good policy reasons for that. When we go in camera, we could be discussing such things as potential witnesses. Names will be mentioned. Names will be proposed. Some might be rejected. This is all part and parcel.

So for Mr. MacKenzie to say that we won't be discussing witnesses--his motion, which we have not heard, will deal with future business, which will obviously involve other members perhaps proposing witnesses--is impossible for him to say.

I would support Mr. Holland's motion to go in camera. I think it's sound practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Chair, very quickly, we're going in camera to talk about future business. The outcome will be the meetings we have, so the notion that somehow this will be hidden is preposterous.

Aside from the fact that I think you have to go in camera to talk about which witnesses you potentially might or might not be having, so that you can have a frank discussion around the table without using people's names who might potentially be called or not, or to use the rationale for why you might want to hear them.... Aside from that being inappropriate, the other point of going in camera, frankly, is so that we expedite the session a little in having a discussion around the organization of meetings and the witnesses.

On that basis, and given the fact that it's all going to be very public as soon as we announce the decision of what we're doing with what meetings, I continue to support my own motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Norlock.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Well, I guess there are two parts to this, and we've heard what they are. The first part is to basically tell folks what we're about—when I say “folks”, I'm talking about the public at large, the taxpayers—and what business we believe should come before the committee. And it's wholly appropriate, I think, to then go in camera and begin to discuss the witnesses and perhaps what order that business should take.

I don't see where the order in which we do business would deviate from any past practices. The fact is we're just simply outlining where the government intends to go. What is very public is the legislation that has come before Parliament, and the government's indication as to what legislation will be coming to this committee.

I think it is wholly appropriate for everyone to know what the intention of this committee is with regard to government business and--I think equally as important--some of the things that this committee has been studying for quite some time. As a matter of fact, I can think of one study that we're doing that is almost two years old, or at least well into a year-plus. So I don't think it's a secret that way. After that, going in camera is wholly and totally appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You mean being in public.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

No, going in camera to discuss witnesses and the order in which we're going to go about business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Oh, okay. Right.

This committee maybe operates a little differently, too, from others, which is fine.

My understanding is that there is no steering committee here. Is that correct?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

So you do the work of the steering committee.

Is there anyone else on the motion?

Mr. Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The matter is simple: I am new here, but if I want to start learning, I would like us to vote and to dispose of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. That's the kind of question we like to hear; you bet.

Is there any other debate on the motion?

Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Holland's motion is to now proceed to an in camera meeting, where we will discuss future business.

(Motion agreed to)

[Proceedings continue in camera]