Mr. Speaker, in this debate I do not want to impute any motives to my colleague from Lakeland, who sits on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, far from it.
Nor do I intend to turn this into a heated debate, as the government and official opposition members are trying to do.
I do, however, want the Liberal members to hear what I have to say, because it is basically representative of my understanding of the meeting of March 2 in particular.
I would remind hon. members that we received a notice to appear, as is the case for all committees. I did indeed receive such a notice, in proper form, a few days before the committee sat.
I was initially rather surprised to see that session 15 was to be an in camera session. Why surprised? On the one hand, because the notice indicated that we were going to examine a draft report, whereas we had never received such a draft report.
A few days before the committee sitting, I recall very clearly receiving a document in proper form, a well-prepared document, as is usual with the research staff. To my mind, this was far from being a draft report; it was instead a summary of options and of the appearances of witnesses throughout the entire examination of the refugee status determination system.
This document summarized what the witnesses had had to say. It went so far as to provide summaries. This document contained no potential recommendations. At no time did we have the position or statements of position from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
I recall that I spoke at that point in committee, and I would refer you to the transcript of the committee meeting on March 2. I had said clearly that the meeting should have been declared in camera, not on the basis of the report we had at our disposal, but rather on the basis of a study of a draft report.
I quote my statement of March 2:
However, I would hope that we would study the real draft report in camera, the one our researchers have prepared for us on the basis of the options we choose.
I stress the fact that basically I wanted the meeting in camera because of the draft report for two reasons. First, I felt that all the committee work we were starting and the report we would be producing several weeks later had to be done as fairly as possible, on the basis of the recommendations and evidence gathered during deliberations.
Second, it seems basic to me that the meeting should be in camera when a draft report is involved. Why? Because we had to be sure we were free from influence from interveners outside the committee, which could have affected our proposals and recommendations.
That seemed so important to me that I said on March 2, and I refer you again to the transcript of the committee's proceedings:
If we study the report in camera, I hope we take the necessary steps, as responsible parliamentarians, to ensure there are no leaks.
What I said at that time was that we could have a public meeting. We could have outside interveners come to our committee, based on the summary of options prepared by the researchers and the Library of Parliament. There was nothing confidential in that.
There was just a series of statements that we had heard in committee and that we were examining. This is why I was surprised to see, when I read the notice, that the meeting would take place in camera, because of the document that we had in hand. I questioned the committee and I expressed my astonishment.
I said “My first reaction was one of astonishment when I received the notice about this committee meeting and saw that we were going to study in camera the document that was sent to us. It was supposedly confidential, having been prepared by the library”. Again, I am quoting the transcript. I was surprised to see that we were having an in camera meeting on the basis of that document.
I was prepared for a public meeting, so that outside interveners could read the summary of options. However, I was hoping from the bottom of my heart that the review of the draft report, which was supposed to be ready after March 2, would be conducted in camera.
I readily admit that I was disappointed to learn from some assistants that this report, which I believed to be confidential and which was jointly drafted by opposition and government members, had been leaked and could be found in the pages of newspapers outside Quebec.
This is my interpretation or my version of these events. I believed and I fundamentally think that the review of the draft report should be conducted in camera.