Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Welcome to meeting number two of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Today's agenda of committee business will consist of the adoption of routine motions and the planning of business.

Before we start the official part of the meeting, let me acknowledge the past accomplishments of this committee.

To both the members and certainly the staff, I extend a sincere thank you and an expression of gratitude on behalf of all Canadians to all members for their cooperation and their contribution to this committee.

As your chair my desire is to build upon these past successes, and obviously, to complete unfinished business and to deal effectively with all new business before this committee.

I would advise all members that the chair is always open to dialogue that will advance the positive interests of this committee. Of course, as your new chair, I'm at your service, and as always, open to an extension of courtesy and cooperation in setting the tone for where we'll go with this committee.

With the little niceties aside, we'll now turn to business.

I would like to thank both the government and the opposition members for notifying the chair that they plan to introduce motions today. That's a marvellous courtesy going forward and it adds, obviously, to the expeditious movement of our committee here. Of course, should we get caught up in debate on these motions, which has been known to happen once or twice over the history of this Parliament, then I would hope we would recognize that we do have responsibilities as well to complete some planning of future business.

As such, I'm hopeful that we will proceed as normal and have plenty of time to deal with future planning. Should we not, I'm asking for the consideration of this committee to ensure that we have at least 15 minutes at the end of today's meeting to provide for the fact that we are not here on Thursday. In order to give our staff, analysts and clerk the opportunity to prepare for Tuesday's and Thursday's meeting the next week, we have to do something with regard to future business today.

I'm hopeful that we will get through the motions, but if not, I'm asking for unanimous consent from this committee to at least dedicate the last 15 minutes to future business. Do I have that consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

The floor is now open for routine motions. Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, being new to this committee, I did review the routine motions that were adopted in the previous session. From past members on this side who were on this committee, they all agreed that they seemed to work well. Therefore, I'm proposing that we adopt the routine motions that were set out in the previous session as they are on the sheet that was handed out to all the committee members today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Do I have a seconder to the motion?

It is seconded by Mr. Norlock.

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on your election as chair of the committee.

I would like to welcome the new members of the committee and the previous members whom I recognize on either side of the table. This committee is very pleasant and I look forward to seeing how things will unfold over the next few weeks. I am pleased to be back here.

If I may, I would like us to go over every routine motion that was passed in the previous session. We would like to propose a few improvements to what was presented during the last session, including the following motion:

That the Committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing: (a) wages, salaries and other employee benefits; (b) contracts and contract negotiations; (c) labour relations and personnel matters; (d) a draft report; (e) briefings concerning national security; and That all votes taken in camera be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.

That is one of the improvements we are suggesting. That is why we would like to review the motions individually instead of as a group.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Madame Doré Lefebvre.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think I heard you say that you planned to put forward a motion after we accept the routine motions from the last committee. Again, I would propose that we vote on the routine motions as set out in the last Parliament and then move to the next thing on the agenda which would be the motions from both sides of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, would the point that the official opposition is making here not be considered an amendment to this particular motion? I believe it should be considered as such. This is not a motion on calling in certain witnesses, doing a certain study, or an attack on the government. This is a proposal by the NDP to improve how the committee operates.

I'll make my point now, Mr. Chair, in terms of that. I haven't sat on this committee for a while, although I have been on it before, but I've sat on other committees. The same procedure has become the norm in the last few years; that is, even on motions whereby an opposition party is making a certain point or wanting a certain study, the tendency seems to have been for government members, for whatever reason, to move the motion in camera.

That wasn't normal procedure prior to 2006, Mr. Chair. It happened on some committees, but I can tell you that when I chaired the fisheries committee, there were 32 motions in my time, 11 of them by government members. All were critical of government policy, all 32 of them were debated in public in full, and all but one of them carried.

There seems to be a tendency for government members, who are members of the government party, not members of the executive council—the government is the cabinet—to hold a sentiment that they have to be supportive of everything the government does. In my view, they don't have to be. Committees are structured to investigate, to be critical of government, to look at new ideas. They're structured for a purpose and to be done in an open and democratic way.

What's been happening here, and the reason we have this motion today, I submit, Mr. Chair, where we're getting down to technicalities and procedure, is that tendency to move in camera and not debate issues in public. In my view, it doesn't speak well for democracy.

Mr. Chair, I'm supportive of the motion. I think we have to go the way the NDP is suggesting, so that when a motion comes forward, it is known who voted which way, that going into an in camera session can't nullify.... When we come out of an in camera session on a motion, we can't talk about who voted which way. I mean, most of us know....

I think what you're going to see, Mr. Chair, is that if we continue to move routine motions in camera, eventually people are going to speak out and say who voted which way and what they said, because that kind of strategy is becoming a farce to our democracy.

I'm supportive of the NDP motion. I believe it should be considered in routine proceedings as an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much for your input.

The chair had hoped we could have dealt with this separately, but I do take Mr. Easter's comment that it could and should, in his opinion, be considered as an amendment.

Actually, the chair agrees that it is and can be considered as an amendment. As such, we will proceed with it as an amendment to the main motion at this particular point. We will have speakers both for and against. What I will do is read the motion to the committee, so that it will be considered as an amendment to the main motion of approving the routine proceedings.

The suggested amendment reads as follows:That the committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing:(a) wages, salaries, and other employee benefits;(b) contracts and contract negotiations;(c) labour relations and personnel matters;(d) a draft report;(e) briefings concerning national security; andThat all votes taken in camera be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.

We have now had speakers for at this particular point, and I think we will now recognize Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I understand some of the points from the opposition parties. However, we must not forget the committee that we're on. It's SECU, public safety and national security. There will be times that are not going to fall within this very small, pre-defined list on this motion. There will be times when we will need to go in camera for various reasons, such as witnesses and other security issues, routine committee business based on schedules, and proposed witnesses coming in whose presence should not be public knowledge until the point in time that they appear.

On the government side, we cannot support a motion that would confine us to a very small defined, narrow perspective of when in camera should be used. The very nature of this committee dictates that we need to be able to use that for various reasons.

Last, Mr. Chair, it's a parliamentary right of everyone on this committee to be able to voice their opinions and have a say, and sometimes that requires you to go in camera. Taking that privilege away would be taking away something which Parliament has had the privilege of doing since the beginning of time.

On the government side, we cannot vote for any motion that's going to take away parliamentary rights, and we can't accept any motion that's going to limit when we can or cannot go in camera for various reasons, obvious reasons.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Madame Michaud.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I would like to say something about that. I think the interpretation of the motion that has just been presented is a little too narrow. When we are dealing with major issues that are directly related to national security or when we wish to receive witnesses who need to share more confidential or sensitive information with the committee, we can always decide amongst ourselves to go in camera at that time. However, the motion being introduced seeks to curtail the types of abuse that occurred in the past.

In the past, I had an opportunity to briefly sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and I have been a long-standing member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We have seen an abusive use of in camera meetings when the government felt uncomfortable or when we had to deal with various hot issues. Often, the members of the opposition are seeing their privileges as parliamentarians taken away. As a result, they can no longer hold the debates that the Canadians who sent them to Parliament wish to see. That is the problem we are trying to solve with this motion.

Before I became a member of Parliament in 2007, I was a parliamentary guide. During the tours, I used to tell people that, in committees, members of Parliament could work together in a non-partisan or less partisan way than what we usually see in the House. However, since I became an MP, the reality has changed completely and, unfortunately, my message to Canadians today would be completely different from that of 2007.

In our view, the government uses in camera meetings only to hide behind the rules and to avoid being as accountable to Canadians as it should be. Canadians deserve better. Debate on public safety is important and affects everyone. The motion we are presenting would enable us to do our job as MPs better, and that is why I fully support it.

I thank my colleague for introducing the motion today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Madame Michaud.

Are there any other speakers on this?

Mr. Menzies, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

With all due respect to Madame Michaud, I think you just contradicted the motion that was put forward, because it specifically says “only for the purpose of discussing”, but that binds us.

Your suggestion, which I think makes sense, is that there are times when we need to do this for public security reasons. We would be contradicting the motion that just came forward. We need to protect the witnesses as well. There is great concern about those people and whether or not they would come and be forthright with this committee if they were concerned. I think we would be able to encourage them at the appropriate time if we could actually do some of this in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you. Any more speakers on this issue?

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I would like to thank all the members for considering this motion. Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank you for considering this motion as an amendment to what has been proposed here.

If my colleagues are ready to vote on the amendment, I would like to request a recorded vote.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

The chair will proceed with a vote and this will be considered an amendment to the main motion. We are not voting on the main motion here but on the actual amendment first.

We will take a call, please, on a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We will now go to the main motion, and I will ask the parliamentary secretary something.

Would you like to consider the motion you are bringing forward as an amendment to the main motion, and would you like to deal with it separately and just have the main motion voted on first?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to actually proceed with adopting the routine motions from last session. Then we'll be putting forward our motion to amend it by adding another principle.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Are there any more speakers on the main motion?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Maybe you could clarify this, Chair.

On the times for questioning of witnesses, this is different. There are seven minutes in the first round for the government and the official opposition, then the government again, and then the third party, and then five-minute rounds. I think I've sat on three other committees and normally in the first segment it's seven minutes for the official opposition, seven minutes for the government, and seven minutes for the third party.

Has it always been standard procedure to give the government members double the time in this committee? Certainly the government members, especially when a minister is here, are getting more than ample time versus, in my view, what the opposition party is getting. Usually it's seven, seven, seven. I don't want to get into a long-winded debate about it, but I do think it's a little out of sorts and a little top-heavy on the government side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

I will simply tell you that this was the previous practice. When we look at the timeframe, it works out to 28 minutes on the first round, 30 minutes on the second round, and that actually means 29 minutes for the government, 22 minutes for the official opposition, and seven minutes for the third party, which I believe is very close to the actual seat count in the House of Commons.

That is what has existed. I leave it to the committee's will to adopt what exists or to make any changes. Of course, the chair is open to the will of the committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

If it has worked, Mr. Chair, I don't have a huge problem with it. We'll see how much of that 14 minutes is spent praising a minister when they're here rather than on constructive criticism. I'll be watching for that.