Public Safety Committee on June 15th, 2011

[The Clerk]

Generally, if someone is named as a member of the committee and they need to know, for instance, what has happened in previous in camera sessions, they are allowed to see it. When it comes to the privacy of other members, they are bound by the seal of in camera as well. But in order for them to act as members of Parliament, they may need to know what the discussions have been. For instance, when dealing with reports and so forth, they may wish to review the debate.

I haven't often seen it done, but if you're a member of the committee you're generally allowed to see--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Does the next Parliament ever have access to in camera meetings of that committee in the previous Parliament?

[The Clerk]

No, they are generally viewed as different creations. And if they're going to have access, the records belong to the House and they can give people access.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

We don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. I take Mr. Rathgeber's point.

I personally think it shouldn't be open to all members of Parliament, because that would mean people who don't sit on the committee. But how about restricting it to the people who were present at the in camera meeting? It seems a little bit odd that a staff member or a member from the House office could be in the in camera meeting and listen to everything but not be able to review the transcripts.

Again, we don't have strong feelings about it, but maybe it should be the same group. The same group that is allowed to be at the in camera meeting should be allowed to review the transcripts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I wouldn't support staff being able to see it. They can still access it if they need to later on, but I think it should just be for consultation by.... If you don't want “members of Parliament”, I would say “members of the committee”. I'm fine with that, but not staff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Rathgeber, and then Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I think the wording is appropriate as written; it's “members of the committee”. I think the clerk makes a very good point that if a bona fide member of the committee was, for whatever reason, absent from the in camera meeting, that member might legitimately go to review the transcripts of a meeting he or she might have missed. So I think “consultation by members of the committee” is the appropriate wording and should be left as such.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Did we have a motion? Did you bring it as a motion?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I did, but I'll withdraw it if I can get unanimous consent.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'll withdraw mine as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. To our clerk, I think the intent is fairly clear. It looks as though we have a consensus in that Mr. Rathgeber's suggestion is that it remain as is. So members of the committee and not staff are the ones who have access.

(Motion agreed to)

Next on the routine motions is the notice of motions. In the past I think it was 48 hours' notice. The motion is that 48 hours’ notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and distributed to members in both official languages

Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I do have something I would like to add to that, and that would be that “completed motions that are received by close of business day would be distributed to members the same day”. I can give you an explanation. Even if we want to set a time, like 4 o'clock, what concerns me--and I think what's happened before--is that sometimes if it's a Friday, then the motions aren't sent out until Monday. I think we want to try to make sure that if a motion is received by the clerk at 4 o'clock, or something to that effect, the clerk will distribute it the same day.

So I would add “completed motions that are received by close of business shall be distributed to members the same day”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That way all members would have the ability to know what motions have been submitted, and not just on Monday.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

And we have 48 hours' notice. Exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

The part I'm not clear on is where it says “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”. What does that mean?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That means that the chair has the ability.... People can bring forward a motion here at committee without notice of motion being given if it is in relation to the topic under discussion.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Is that the way it...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's always the way. Yes. It's in the.... That remains the same. That's not a change at all, is it?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, we agree with Ms. Hoeppner's motion. I would put “by 4 p.m.” instead of “by close of business”, so that we're certain.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Exactly.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

The other question is that we do have a blank in terms of the hours. We're okay with 48 hours, although an intriguing idea I'd like to throw out, which we were discussing at immigration and which was in place last Parliament, is that 42 hours' notice would allow you.... Let's say you're meeting on a Tuesday. For four hours after that meeting you can get a motion in to be considered for the Thursday. We didn't have any experience with that. Ours was always 48 hours at this committee last time, and it worked fine. But the restriction of that 48 hours is that you cannot actually get a motion from a Tuesday on the agenda for the Thursday. You would have to wait until the following week, which may be of no issue to people, but I thought I'd throw that out for consideration.

[The Clerk]

The situation Mr. Davies is describing obtains when you're meeting late in the day. For instance, citizenship and immigration used to sit late in the afternoon, sometimes into the early evening. With the 42-hour requirement, that allowed them fewer than two days, and they held fast to the 42 hours. I was clerk of the committee at the time. Where it says 48, it's understood to be the same as the 48 hours’ notice required by the House. It's not truly 48 hours. It's actually.... You need two intervening midnights, deux dodos, two sleeps, however you wish to put it. As long as you have those, if you get the motion by 1600, it could be moved at 0800 two days hence.