Evidence of meeting #3 for Public Safety and National Security in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was plan.
Liberal
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to remind the members here that during our last session this was an issue that was raised.
As I understand it, Mr. Lloyd was not here, but it was decided that it was best to have it in camera, because it's a generally understood concept that the chances are if it's in camera then the witnesses will feel more at ease to provide all the necessary information. The reality is that we did decide on this, and the member who was not here now trying to raise this issue again is, in my opinion, not something that's generally done in good faith.
Thank you.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
I would like to remind Mr. Ehsassi that the reason this meeting was held in camera is that witnesses are normally more talkative in such a setting. They give us more relevant or more confidential information. That said, I don’t think that was the case today. In my opinion, we heard a very general presentation that did not really contain any sensitive security information.
I was present when the decision was made, and that was the argument that was put forward. It was even Mr. Sari who argued that public servants talk more when they testify behind closed doors. However, I did not feel that the witnesses were more talkative today. They gave very proper testimony and were co‑operative.
We simply need to set the record straight and clarify the reason why it was decided to hold the meeting in camera.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
My memory may be failing me, but if I recall correctly, the reason given was also that many of the members present around this table are new and would feel more comfortable addressing senior officials in a private setting at this initial stage.
As Mr. Lloyd so aptly put it, the information shared today is useful now, but it would also be useful in a public context and in the study that Mrs. DeBellefeuille has requested for the coming weeks, in particular.
This is therefore a kind of warm-up exercise in private that will very soon lead to discussions that will probably be even more useful in a public session.
That is the reason we didn't have a public meeting until now. The question now is whether we want to have the remaining meeting in public. Therefore, I ask members of Parliament whether they support that. Who is supportive of turning it into a public meeting?
Four MPs are not supportive, and four MPs are supportive of moving to a public meeting. That turns to me, and the chair typically keeps the status quo in these types of environments, which then—
Mr. Lloyd, do you have a question or a point of order?
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
No. I want to speak after you're done. I'm just letting you know.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
You were saying something, Mr. Chair. I want to hear what you have to say, and then I'd like to speak after you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
What I am saying now is that we are remaining in camera, and we have one minute and 37 seconds for you to terminate your questions and comments.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Okay. Thank you.
My motion was really a two-part motion. The first part was that we move the meeting out of camera, which failed due to the tiebreak from the chair, but the second half of the motion was that we make the testimony given here today public testimony. I'd ask for a recorded vote on that motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Well, I would first need to turn to the clerk for procedural advice, because it having been the understanding that this meeting was in camera until now, deciding a posteriori that it now becomes public is not a usual thing to do. It would be counterintuitive to start in camera and then suddenly declare that everything that had been said until then would become public. It's just a matter of procedural accuracy and appropriateness that I want to check with the clerk.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Parkland, AB
Of course, Mr. Chair, and we have the clerk right here. Can the clerk let us know what those thoughts are, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
We do indeed have a motion that is debatable. The motion that MP Lloyd is moving is that the meeting we have had until now would lead to proceedings that would be made public. The usual content of the meeting that has been produced until now would be made public. The in camera understanding until now does still allow, if the committee wants it so, those proceedings to be made public.
That is the motion, which obviously allows for a debate.
I'll turn to MP Acan.
Liberal
Sima Acan Liberal Oakville West, ON
Being new, I want to understand better. Mr. Lloyd has divided the motion into two, so would we have the entire meeting in public or just the testimony part? It's pretty much the same.
Could you please explain it a little bit? Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Sorry, I was a bit distracted. What is it you want me to explain, MP Acan?
Liberal
Sima Acan Liberal Oakville West, ON
The motion was divided into two pieces. The second part of the motion would make the testimony part of the meeting public. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
That is correct. The first piece was defeated. The motion to move to public from in camera was defeated. Now the question is whether the committee wants the proceedings until now to be made public, and that's a matter for debate.
MP Ehsassi, go ahead.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Could the clerk kindly advise, as a matter of procedure, whether that would give rise to any complications or difficulty and how often it would happen that something that was meant to be in camera is then deemed to be public?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
I'll turn to the clerk in a moment, but she has already advised me that it can be done. That's why we are debating the motion now. Whether it creates technical or other difficulties is a good question.
Madam Clerk, could you indicate whether that would be operationally feasible?
Geneviève Dubois-Richard Committee Clerk
Yes, it is possible to make in camera testimony public.
Liberal
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Since we have confirmation from the clerk, I agree.
As you said earlier, this will be very useful for the study that the committee will begin in early October. All of this very interesting testimony will enhance our study and allow us to delve deeper into the matter.
I do not agree with returning to a public meeting, but I do agree that the testimony should be made available to us so that we can use it. I think that would be really helpful.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jean-Yves Duclos
Very well, thank you for your contribution.
Mr. Sari, you have the floor.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
This is more of a procedural question, in terms of content. I am speaking on my own behalf, of course.
Mr. Lloyd was right to ask the witnesses for permission. The members of the committee also expressed their views on this. Everyone needs to feel comfortable. This motion should not be put to a vote. If someone spoke knowing that the meeting was in camera, and they are not comfortable with their comments being made public, I don’t think we can easily make them public.
If I spoke knowing that it was in camera, I think I still have the freedom to keep the content of that in camera meeting confidential at any time. For me, it’s really a procedural issue.