AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 27, 2001

• 1114

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order, please.

Thank you very much. I was a little worried that there might be a vote called this morning, but I understand we won't be getting one till 3:30, and one tonight at eleven.

• 1115

The first order of business is routine motions. At the last meeting we talked about the routine motions for this committee. I believe we have ten routine motions, and a couple with asterisks in them that we might want to discuss further.

I understand you all have a copy of the routine motions. If we want to go through them and establish the routine for this committee, I'll open the floor for discussions. Do we want to go on number one, the subcommittee on agenda and procedure—that the chair, two vice-chairs, two parliamentary secretaries, and one member each from the Bloc, Progressive Conservatives, and New Democrats compose the subcommittee? Does anyone have any objections, or is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Number two is that the Library of Parliament committee retain the services of three or more research officers.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Madam Chair, I think we can dispense with reading the motions. We've got them.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Reduced quorum, number three. Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Is this customary, the reduced quorum business? Is that done in most committees?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Serré: No votes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Oh, I see.

The Chair: It's just to hear witnesses.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Then that information is available to everyone.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's on the record.

The Chair: As I understand it, that routine is to accommodate witnesses who might have travelled all the way here, and we couldn't get quorum—whether it's by teleconferencing or whatever.

On number four, I have a suggestion that...

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): I have a point of order. We have the pages, but they are not numbered.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, I didn't get the translation.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I will not be insulted.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, I'm not getting any English.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): You're not missing anything, Nancy.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: There are some people who should watch their language. Madam Chair, when you say you want to give witnesses 10 minutes...

[English]

The Chair: I'm not getting the English, I'm sorry. I don't know which channel—I'm trying every one.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: That is what I meant. It is not that we were not prepared; we were prepared. We did not get the documents. We can prepare better now that we have them. Which point are we on?

[English]

The Chair: Number four.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, I have an addition for number four. We put down a maximum of two representatives for any organization; but we discussed it, and I realized that some of them will need their own interpreters.

• 1120

As I explained to Mr. Vellacott during the last session when we were going through the routine motions, when we say two representatives from any organization, there might be circumstances where they need to bring an interpreter. That would limit the scope of being able to bring another person in.

So our suggestion is that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a third person should there be exceptional circumstances. I'm thinking the exceptional circumstances will be when people cannot speak either English or French and need to bring their own interpreter. That won't limit the organization to just one person and an interpreter. I bring that to you for your consideration.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Madam Chair, could we not simply add to this, saying “and a third person if a translator is required”?

The Chair: Well, it says “exceptional circumstances”, and I guess that would....

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is that the only one? Are there other things we're trying to include here too, or does it just concern a translator?

Mr. Benoît Serré: It could be somebody else, for instance in the case of a person who is handicapped and needs a caretaker. By using the words “exceptional circumstances” you cover all those other possibilities.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As long as it doesn't get so loose as to mean everybody and anybody, I suppose it's okay if that's our understanding.

The Chair: Common sense would hopefully prevail here. We're trying to make it as accommodating as we can for exceptional circumstances. It's difficult for us to say what those exceptional circumstances might be, but I would hope they would be within reason.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

The Chair: As examples we just talked about, if someone needed an interpreter or special assistance to help them travel, that wouldn't limit that organization to having two representatives.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Could I make a suggestion that would satisfy Mr. Vellacott? Instead of being at the discretion of the chair, any decision would be at the discretion of the executive, so you would be included in the decision.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, but could I just know the anecdotal kinds of reasons or possibilities here?

The Chair: Okay, I think Mr. Keddy wanted to interject.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, it's fine. I'm okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Let's deal with travel expenses. If the committee meets on a Monday, and the witnesses from all over Canada arrive on the Saturday, it should be clearly indicated that the travelling, accommodation and living expenses to be reimbursed are for the day the witnesses appear, even if they arrive the night before. Nothing is said about that. It just refers to their "stay." The committee may sit for three days; it happens.

We run the risk of having witnesses arrive early in our deliberations, but only testifying later on. They will say they were invited as witnesses and took two days to listen to the other witnesses.

We have to pay attention to which day they are scheduled to appear. Something should be said. We are not saying it. We reimburse living expenses, but for how long? For a stay of three days? One day? We need to think about this because in the past, there have been witnesses who were not very happy. They left Nunavik on a Saturday because the forecast was calling for a storm on the Tuesday. They arrived two days early, thinking their expenses would be paid.

The length of stay needs to be made clear. We could say “the day or days scheduled by the committee for their appearance” or something like that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, with respect to what Mr. Vellacott said, I would be inclined, which is rare, to trust you and do without an executive committee in this particular instance. I think you have sufficient judgment to know what is, or is not, exceptional.

I share Mr. St. Julien's concern. I think we can trust that you will not allow witnesses to take advantage by coming to Ottawa for a week-long party. Anyway, I do not know how you could party in Ottawa for a whole week. I am going to trust you to decide on the exceptions. If there is a problem, it can be referred to the full committee.

[English]

The Chair: So what we'll do to number four is add that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a third person should there be exceptional circumstances.

• 1125

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I had a question about this six-day thing. I didn't see that in my motion anywhere, so where did the six-day comment come from?

The Chair: I think from the sentence that said “reasonable travelling”. I think it was—

Mr. Benoît Serré: It doesn't mean six days; it means the time you're staying here—your stay. Séjour means stay, not six jours.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Séjour. It was in the translation.

The Chair: Oh, okay. They said six days.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): It's interesting that the English text speaks of “reasonable expenses”, but there's no reason.

[Translation]

The word “reasonable” is not in the French text. Strike the sentence.

[English]

The Chair: I'm assuming that when witnesses come the staff speak to them as to what the rules are, and what days are going to be covered. Okay.

We can go to number five now. We have an asterisk beside that one, because we were asking the clerk to come up with what the other committees have agreed on. We also had a suggestion from the Alliance Party with suggested speaking locations.

I have a few examples of what the other committees have come up with. I'm not sure whether you want me to give you these suggestions, or what other committees have done, or did you want to discuss first? Do you want me to give you what the other committees have done? I have Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Citizenship and Immigration, Finance, Public Accounts, and Justice. I have examples of what they're doing. We have suggestions from the Alliance on that. I'm not sure which....

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I just want to say that I think what Dave Chatters presented to the clerk before was the Citizenship and Immigration one. I think if you compare it, you'll find it's the very same in terms of the breakdown—10 minutes, 10 to the Liberals and then from there—

The Chair: The rotation is not the same.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Isn't it?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I thought the time allocation was the same, though. Wasn't it?

The Chair: No.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: The rule says we give 10 minutes, but I think it should say that 10 minutes are given to the witnesses or to the organization, not 10 minutes per witness. Some people from my riding came thinking they were entitled to 10 minutes each. It is 10 minutes for all of the witnesses, for the whole group, for the organization. They can split it into two five-minute intervals.

Otherwise, it is confusing. Some witnesses from Nunavik prepared as though they had 10 minutes each, but it is 10 minutes in total for the organization that is appearing, the organization and its witnesses. That should be stated. Otherwise, people get the impression when they read it that each witness gets 10 minutes all to himself.

We need to rethink the sentence and say 10 minutes for the group of witnesses or for the organization.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: If there is a lone witness, he gets 10 minutes. It is a total of 10 minutes for the organization or group of witnesses. Let's say so.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's been a problem with every committee in the House, without question. I don't think we put enough emphasis—especially to people who are appearing before committee—on the fact that they only have 10 minutes for their presentation, and that we need their information ahead of time. We don't need it that morning, or the day before. We need it a week before, if we can get it a week before.

So I think that's the responsibility of the chair. But somehow, we have to get that message across in a better way than we have in the past, because we don't tend to have enough information. Also, if they have three representatives, all of them think they have ten minutes. It goes on forever, and you never get an opportunity to ask your questions.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

• 1130

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I agree with Guy St-Julien's suggestion that we replace the word “witness” with the word “organization.” So it would be 10 minutes per organization or group. If this motion carries, we will decide how long they have and what the rotation will be. If we agree on that, I will readily support Mr. St-Julien.

[English]

The Chair: I don't think there's any objection to clarifying what we mean. I think we all understood at the last session when we talked about opening statements for the whole group being ten minutes. How they choose to break it up is up to them. Our job will be to make witnesses understand that before they come here.

The point about material made by Mr. Keddy—we will have to stress that they must have their material prepared. I know how that works with some organizations. It's going to be difficult, especially if it's an individual who might not have access to computers or whatever. But we will stress to every witness that we would appreciate receiving the material ahead of time, because that will mean a more lively participation by the members. The more they know, the more they will be able to ask the right questions, and hopefully help the witnesses to come across better.

So we'll try as much as we can, but I know there will be limitations.

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chair, again I think the committee has to use a bit of common sense. Let's say two witnesses come in from Iqaluit, and we spend $15,000 to bring them here, and we allow them a total of ten minutes—five minutes per person. If I were living in Iqaluit, and you asked me to come here and talk to you for five minutes, I'd say that I would send you a fax.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I have a question for after.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I understand that too. After all, you have to use some judgment.

[English]

The Chair: If I may add something, during the questions that come after, we still have to take the 40 minutes or so as participation by the witness. If there's something that didn't come out, if they're willing to use those five or ten minutes to answer something, then they have the opportunity to add more. We'll make sure they understand that. I know what you're saying. That's why some of them.... It would be at the discretion of the chair, who will hopefully understand the circumstances of each witness.

Mr. Marceau, and then Mr. Vellacott.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I just want to reply to Benoît Serré. If we give 10 minutes for presentations, it adds up to 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60 minutes, an hour in other words. It is not just 10 minutes, but one hour in total. That is without subsequent rounds. That is reasonable.

Mr. Benoît Serré: In my experience, committee members have often spoken for nine of the ten minutes allotted, leaving only one minute for the witness. That happens quite often.

Mr. Richard Marceau: If the questions are short, the answers are longer.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, I agree with Benoît, my colleague. I think in some circumstances—and maybe we will agree as we go along—the nature of it could be changed. Say there are visitors in from a distance, and we don't have many witnesses. I think probably we could get consensus or agreement on a case-by-case basis. Is that what you're suggesting?

Mr. Benoît Serré: All these procedural motions, Madam Chair, are guidelines. I think the committee should use discretion at all times. We should move fairly quickly on the guidelines, and whenever the need arises we raise the question or the point, and then we decide. We could talk about this forever, actually.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Let's talk about No. 6. I am from Val-d'Or. If I were in Iqaluit and received the document sent by the committee, I would see that it says “time allotted,” “distribution of documents”.... We could say under No. 6 “reception and...

[English]

The Chair: We're going to discuss that after number five. We're still on number five.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Oh, 5! I thought we were done with that.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: We were talking about documents...

• 1135

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: As I look at the various models, the one that strikes me as the most attractive is the one for the justice committee, because it allows the total ten-minute package for the witnesses. In order for us to have maximum participation by members, each party's first question would be reduced to seven minutes—that would total 35 minutes—which would allow for three extra minutes per party. This would increase the possibility of having everyone get in at least one question.

The most frustrating thing we heard about was for people on this side. There was so much time chewed up with first the witnesses and then the questioners that somebody was left out. I don't think anybody should be left out on either side. Let me put it this way: I think it would be more unjust to have two rounds over here and still have somebody left out over here, whoever they were.

So I like the justice committee model because it moves along. I would propose that it is the model that recognizes the importance of each party and the lead questioner, covers off everybody, and allows for maximum participation.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré: Okay.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: How does the second round work?

Mr. John Godfrey: The second round alternates three minutes, three minutes, three minutes, three minutes. We just keep using it up until.... Everybody has another crack at it, but you get the crack sooner because you just have to be a little tighter in your questioning.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré: The 10 minutes I referred to earlier would be much appreciated.

[English]

The Chair: I'm understanding that each organization will be given ten minutes for its opening statement. Then for the questions, we go with the suggestion of the justice committee of seven minutes for each party.

It doesn't say what sequence. You might want to cover the sequence part, because if we don't work it out, then we're talking 21 minutes there before anyone here. Right?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I suggest, given that I sat on the justice committee, that it be seven minutes for the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, and that we alternate between the Conservatives and the Liberals, the Canadian Alliance and the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals, and so on. That is how the Justice, Finance and Foreign Affairs committees work.

Mr. John Godfrey: That is good.

[English]

The Chair: Let's just recap that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Question.

The Chair: The justice committee is giving seven minutes to each party and then three minutes afterwards. We all agree on that. Now we're just trying to decide on the sequence. You're suggesting that everyone get their seven minutes here, seven minutes there, and then the same rotation—three minutes each.

Mr. John Godfrey: But alternate every other time.

The Chair: The three minutes alternate—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: On the second round.

The Chair: —and the seven don't.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: It is so that, as John Godfrey said, no one feels left out. It also allows the Liberals to ask a few questions during the three-minute round. It is also consistent with the number of members in the House, because we start with the Canadian Alliance, which is the official opposition. That seems fair to me.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott and then Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I like John's idea of getting more in and clipping it down in terms of time.

If you want to truly follow something in the pattern of the House, then another suggestion might be to simply allow the Alliance ten minutes and then go seven, seven, seven.

I think John's idea was that it go back to the Liberals before the first round of questioning. Was that your idea?

Mr. John Godfrey: You go around. You have five, then you go over there for six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On the second round?

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On the first round, the opposition goes first—say ten minutes or whatever—and then it comes back to the Liberals—

Mr. John Godfrey: No, no, no. First round down the line and then you end up here on the fifth. So the last presentation of seven minutes is from the Liberals.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

The Chair: Three there, three there, three there, three there. So we alternate the second round. First round we don't.

Mr. John Godfrey: Correct.

• 1140

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I would agree to that if in fact we could take a few more minutes for the Alliance on their time—added to the official opposition's.

Mr. John Godfrey: But if that were the case the government would want more time altogether, if they could. You don't want to go there.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, but you are getting the alternating back and forth, John, on this second round. Right?

Mr. John Godfrey: We still outnumber you.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, I know. And you are getting every other question on the second round.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: They're also getting seven minutes on the second round, the same as everybody else.

Mr. John Godfrey: And we're going fifth on the line.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I think that's a good compromise.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, all I'm saying is that it doesn't really reflect the composition of the House. Let's not be fooled by that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, it's actually fairly democratic.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Especially for the fifth party.

The Chair: Do we have consensus on this one, to go with the justice committee model?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We'll make sure it says alternating between government and opposition parties in the second round. Okay?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's different from what we did in HRDC and different from what we did in the health committee. We did allow for the official opposition party to have an extra question in there, to acknowledge in some manner that they are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. If that can be done, then I would certainly be in accord; if not, I guess I choose to be outvoted.

Is there a way to accommodate the official opposition by sneaking in extra time for them—as we have done in the health committee and HRDC?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: John, you've sat on HRDC, right?

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes—the world's most dysfunctional committee.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, the health committee was the most dysfunctional.

The Chair: The clerk pointed out to me that you have the opportunity for the first question, and then in the alternation, you again get the first three minutes.

Mr. John Godfrey: Pride of place.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau and then Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are we agreed on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, there seems to be a broad consensus, except for Mr. Vellacott. I therefore request a vote. Let's vote. Let's not spend our...

[English]

The Chair: I will just give Mr. Harvey an opportunity.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): To reassure Mr. Vellacott, say it is mathematical. At first, the floor will be offered to us on an alternating basis. However, not all committee members will necessarily want to take their turn. So the pattern is not set in stone. It will not always work that way. Maybe it will in the end. There may be two or three rounds. There is no problem there. Not all members from both sides will necessarily use their time on the second round. It may be that witnesses will be questioned by two or three members. That happens all the time.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, I understand that.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I missed it totally.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I still contend that there should be something of a special provision—even if just one, two minutes—as we have done on other committees. That's simply my contention, and I don't mean to be difficult. Honest. If it's a major problem for people, then obviously you vote. I'll decline—but I'm not going to be really disagreeable about it. I just thought that there might be some quick and easy concession to make on that. I'm looking for a bone here—I don't think it's problematic to say one or two minutes.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think we should move on, but just as a last comment, in most committees—especially if there's a third or a part round—it goes back to the official opposition again. They quite often get the final question, or the next-to-final question. So you usually get your extra question anyway. But let's vote on it, or decide we're going to accept it as is and move on.

• 1145

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: If you have a question you think is essential, I am sure the committee will let you submit it. That is no problem. You must not look for an absolute mathematical balance. Intelligence always prevails, not math.

[English]

The Chair: Even the suggestion we have from the Canadian Alliance doesn't give them any more time in the first round—ten minutes, ten minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I thought it was five.

The Chair: So I think there's general consensus, and I will try very hard as chair to recognize that you are the official opposition. In the rotation, we'll grant you either the last question—if someone on our side doesn't want to take it—or, depending on the time, we will....

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Be careful.

Mr. John Godfrey: She'll be sensitive.

The Chair: I'll get Mr. Serré to have his final input, and then we'll move on.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I'm sorry, that was my last comment. He was asking for a bone, and I think we've given quite a big bone of compromise. I think we should have a vote right now on this.

The Chair: Do you want to vote, or do we have consensus that we've agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay, so we'll go with the justice committee model. I just want to say that we'll change “witnesses” to “organizations”, so we know it's organizations that only have ten minutes.

Now, number six. When we had our steering committee meeting, I suggested we go with this model. From my experience with this committee, and with the previous aboriginal affairs committees for the last three years, I felt that some witnesses didn't always have the opportunity to get the French translation right before they come before the committee. On some committees, they have not been allowed to distribute their material—which made it very difficult for them to give a full understanding to the committee members.

We've given witnesses the opportunity to put their material on the side table for members to pick up, but because of these realities, we felt we would accommodate the witnesses better. We will encourage them all to have translated documents before they come, but we felt we could best accommodate the witnesses who will appear before this committee if they can distribute their material in the language it's received in. Then it will be translated.

I know you might want to have a discussion on this, so we'll start with Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: There is something missing under No. 6. It refers to distribution of documents, but it does not say when the documents are to be received. The title should say "reception and distribution of documents." There is no rule explaining to witnesses when the documents must be received, so we never know when we are going to receive the documents. If there was a section called “reception and distribution,” we could stipulate in that section that committee clerks are authorized to receive and distribute documents, but that those documents must be received five days before the appearance date.

We really should have a rule on reception and distribution, because there is no reference to that issue. Because we do not say anything, the witness does not know when to send his documents and figures it does not matter if he sends them the day before his appearance. If all witnesses knew, if they received a document telling them they had one week to send their documents by fax or something like that... There is something missing, and that's a section on reception and distribution. The documents have to be received and distributed. There, that is my opinion.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chair, I completely disagree with this provision. Past experience has taught me that this way of doing things gives a way out to witnesses who make no effort to have their documents translated and sent in time. Canada is a bilingual country. This way of doing things would not be accepted in the House of Commons. Therefore, we should not accept it here. I am in total opposition. No document should be tabled unless it is available in both of the country's official languages.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: We need a rule. There is no reception rule. We do not tell the witness. He finds out the day before or at the table.

• 1150

Mr. Benoît Serré: That is the problem. If the witness is notified by the committee clerk that his documents must be available in both official languages, and if he is unable to have them translated—I realize that this is not always possible—the clerk can do it for him. The committee can do it, give assistance, support, etc., but the documents should not be tabled if they are not available in both official languages.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cardin. And if I didn't pronounce your name correctly, I'll get it right next time.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Earlier, it was suggested that we should insist on getting the documents as quickly as possible in order to have them distributed to committee members so that they can read them and ask the witnesses better questions when they appear. Therefore, the clerk should insist, at least initially, on receiving the documents as much in advance of the appearance as possible, and insist on receiving the documents in both languages. Otherwise, if the clerk receives the documents early enough, he should have them translated before the witnesses appear. That would demonstrate the committee's willingness to provide the documents as soon as possible in both official languages, even if it means offering certain services to witnesses who are unable to take care of the translation. We could also set up a schedule for appearances based on the availability of the documents in both official languages. Those whose documents were not available in both official languages could be last on the list, in order to give either those witnesses or the clerk time to have the translation done.

[English]

The Chair: I have Mr. Keddy and Mr. Marceau on my list.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: With regard to the issue of translation, I think we're all in agreement here, but we're looking at it a bit backwards. We should assume that most people don't have the expertise or the finances to get translated copies of any documentation before they get here.

I think we should put the onus on us and the committee through the clerk to make sure the translation occurs prior to us getting the information and prior to any witness appearing before the committee. If we look at it that way, it totally takes the onus off the witnesses who are appearing and puts the onus upon us, and that's where it really belongs.

The Chair: If I can just add something to that, if it is sent to the clerk, then the clerk will have it translated.

Next is Mr. Marceau, and then I'm going to mention a couple of points.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I agree with what Mr. Keddy and Mr. Serré just said. All of the witnesses, with the odd exception, are human beings and have a tendency to submit their documents as late as possible. The more time they have to prepare them, the more time they will take. Often, witnesses submit the documents on the very day of their appearance.

I think it would be good to require them to send their text four or five days before their appearance. This would allay Mr. Keddy's concerns and would require us to translate them, because as Mr. Benoît Serré said, we live in a bilingual country. The witnesses need the requirement to send them in advance in order to allow them to be translated and distributed. This gives us the time required to see them, to have them translated and this eliminates the problem of having texts placed on the table at the back, which is a ridiculous way to skirt around the fundamental rules of Canada, a country which has two official languages.

I would therefore propose that witnesses be required to send their text to the clerk four or five days in advance. The clerk could tell us which documents will be translated and, if they are not, they will not be distributed to the committee. If people are aware of this, they will send them beforehand. Four days will not make that much difference.

Mr. Benoît Serré: May I make one last comment, Madam Chair?

[English]

The Chair: Just one moment. Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: My question is to the clerk. When a witness calls the clerk to tell them they would like to testify, does he send them a list of the rules?

• 1155

This is important. Imagine the case of a witness who is in Vancouver and who must take notes over the telephone! If we sent them by fax or by e-mail, the witness will receive the rules clearly outlined, and will be able to understand them easily.

Have you already sent a copy of the procedures?

Could I have a copy? I would like to read it, please.

[English]

The Chair: We made a note of that.

Next is Mr. Serré and then Mr. Cuzner.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré: I would like to make one last comment, Madam Chair. I find it somewhat ironic that I am a more ardent defender of francophones than our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, but I think that that is because of the nature of this country.

I say this because there are also francophones outside of Quebec. I am not doing this for me, because I am fluently bilingual. I can read any document without being disadvantaged. Some members barely understand any English. Others do not understand a word of French. Ninety percent of our witnesses are anglophones. Francophones are disadvantaged because it is quite rare that a document is only tabled here in French. Virtually all of the documents that are not translated are in English.

French members are always disadvantaged. Disadvantaged because they don't understand the nature of the document, and they cannot ask informed and intelligent questions. I agree with the committee. There seems to be a consensus. I want the record to show that I am against the distribution of documents that are not translated.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Just to go along with what Gerald was saying, I think for many of the people who would appear before the committee, it would be an intimidating event. But I think if we make clear in the initial correspondence our willingness to assist them with their translation, we will be giving them a comfortable timeframe within which they can provide their documentation. I think if we are clear on that with the groups, it would go a long way toward helping our own case and their case.

The Chair: Thank you.

The only difficulty I have with that is I'm being realistic about what I've seen happen in this committee. We already talked about the fact that some of those who will be coming before this committee are not even able to speak English. If they can't even speak English, then I know what's going to happen. If we take this committee and go to Yellowknife or Whitehorse, let's say, a lot of the people who will appear before us are not going to have sent their material to the clerk. They're going to appear with their material. I'm just being realistic, because that is what will happen in the small communities if we ever travel to other parts of the country.

I know this is a bilingual government, but the reality is that we're an aboriginal affairs committee, and that means a lot of our witnesses are going to be of aboriginal descent, as I've seen in the last three years. I just put before you that I don't know if we're going to be able to do this.

The other point is I have seen witnesses who get two days' notice to come to this committee, and that's reality again, depending on the situation. So I don't know how we're going to be fair to the witnesses. Is this a case where we as a committee are going to make unrealistic demands of the witnesses?

Those are realities that I put before you. We can go with what Mr. Serré is suggesting, that it all be bilingual, and we'll have to make some decisions if someone does come before us with documentation in only one language.

On my list I have Mr. Marceau and Mr. Keddy.

• 1200

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I presume that if we will be visiting the communities that you mentioned, this will not be decided tomorrow. A committee such as this one takes weeks to prepare. If we tell people that we will be visiting them in six weeks and that they have five weeks to prepare their presentation, there won't be any problems. If people know, if we tell them in advance, there will not be any problems.

However, if we provide two days' notice, it is our own fault. As chair, it is your responsibility to ensure, together with the clerk, that this type of thing does not happen. It is your responsibility to warn people with enough lead time. If this is not done, then it is a breech of your responsibilities on behalf of the committee and of your own, because as chair, you are the leader of the committee.

It will be up to us to ensure that this type of incident does not occur. We will have to warn people with enough lead time. I think that we are able to do so. I know that our clerk is quite capable. He will be able to help us to make sure that this type of unfortunate incident does not happen again. In any case, any witness that is given only two days' notice is going to end up doing a slapdash presentation, even if they know their area very well. Providing a witness with only two days' notice simply does not make sense.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I agree with what Mr. Marceau is saying, but at the same time it doesn't reflect reality, and I think that's the point our chair was trying to make. I certainly saw it on the aboriginal affairs committee in the last Parliament, and we'll see it again in this Parliament. When you're in remote communities and you're speaking to people whose first language is neither French nor English, quite often people are not even in the village when you get there, someone else might be representing them, and the documentation is not prepared. Quite often people speak without notes or any documentation whatsoever. I think we have to have some recognition of that reality.

I would propose that we just simply change the wording of number six to state that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents that are received from first nations members whose first language is neither French nor English. That way, we're specific enough that we won't open the door to every group in the country. Then it would read “...to the Members of the Committee in the language received, and to ensure that such documents are translated and distributed as promptly as possible”.

I think that's at least worth consideration. Maybe that's not the perfect wording, but it does reflect the reality of what this committee is about. If we have a witness who speaks in Inuktitut or Cree and that's the only language they speak, then we have to recognize that. How do we get around that?

The Chair: Maybe we can if we deal with it as a committee and require unanimous consent. I wouldn't go so far as what you're saying, identifying a specific group. I don't know how you feel about requiring agreement around the table under exceptional circumstances. We have to decide one way or the other. We've had two suggestions.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If I could comment again, Madam Chair, the issue is very much the responsibility of the chair. I agree with that. It just doesn't allow us the flexibility to adapt to circumstances that will arise in this committee, where people have 24 hours' notice, where they may only have 12 hours' notice, or where you get to a remote location and the person you are there to see hasn't come in out of the bush yet.

The Chair: I have Mr. Harvey and Mr. Godfrey on the list.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I would like to add to the recommendation that the clerk should receive the original documents one week before the official tabling of the brief, for the purposes of translation, in order to allow him to do his job. This would provide the clerk with one week to ensure that the document, no matter what language it's in, English, French, or an Aboriginal language, be translated. This would give you one week.

• 1205

As Richard said, travel takes some lengthy preparation. Therefore, a one-week deadline would allow the clerk to... I would add: “Ideally, the clerk should receive the brief one week before the official tabling, for the purposes of translation, if required.”

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: My only concern with Gerald's proposal is that it would allow for a document to be circulated in Cree, which would be great except for the fact that none of us could read it if it hadn't been translated into English or French.

My suggestion is that I think that every committee is master of its own rules. Right now we're simply trying to anticipate how life is going to go. I don't think we have to put down what to do if something exceptional happens. We can simply deal with the reality, and if by consensus and common sense we say “Oh, well, we've got this, and we didn't anticipate that, is it agreed that for this time only we're going to allow the witness to do X, Y, or Z?” I think that if we're people of goodwill and reason, we can suspend our own rules. They are rules, right? We're not locked into some constitutional arrangement. Is that fair? Is that a reasonable...?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand what John Godfrey said, it's...

[English]

The Chair: Just one moment. I have Mr. Serré, who wants to interject something here.

Mr. Benoît Serré: My comment is a bit in the same vein as John's here. I think that common sense again must prevail and that the chair should have some discretion under exceptional circumstances, just as we were talking about a while ago. But I think that the rule should be—

Mr. Serge Cardin: The rules are clear.

Mr. Benoît Serré: —clear on both official languages. If we don't set the rules, we are giving everybody an out. If they say we don't have to, we won't do it. But if it's the rule—and let's say we fly to Iqaluit and somebody gives a presentation in whatever language—we say that we accept the documentation as it is and that as a committee we have agreed on that. However, I want the rule to be there so people who can do it will do it. They will be compelled to do it.

The Chair: Did you want to add anything, Mr. Vellacott?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Maybe you could just simply add at the end of this motion “and distributed as promptly as possible, exceptions to be settled by consensus of the committee”.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think that would apply to all the rules, whether on time allocation—everything.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I would suppose so, but I'm just trying to protect the chair here. At some point she, in her good judgment and in good faith, will go down a certain path, yet members on the committee will express great consternation and she'll the target of somebody's displeasure or whatever. That's why I think it's better and a protection for her that we just.... This is a situation you presented to us, where we get an agreement or a consensus that we proceed without a translation in view of a difficult circumstance.

The Chair: Yes. What I'm understanding is—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'd like to put forward that motion, if that's possible.

The Chair: Okay, just let me try to summarize what I feel is the consensus: that we talk about reception, that reception is important; that we give a week as our desired notice of meetings, which will also give an opportunity for documents in only one language to be translated; and that the witnesses will then be told that if they don't get it to us one week before their date, they run the risk of not having their work translated. As a result, it may not be distributed unless the committee agrees that it can be.

So I think we agreed that there has to be some date by which we have to receive the documents so we can do that. We will also have a general understanding not written in the rules that the committee can decide what to do by unanimous consent.

Mr. John Godfrey: We'll deal with the situations as they arise.

The Chair: Again, I'm being realistic. Last session, all of a sudden and on very short notice, we were in B.C. working on the Nisga'a Treaty. From one day to the next we did not know whether we were travelling or not, and we had to scramble for witnesses. That's the reality.

I know we're now a combined committee, and we're going to deal not only with aboriginal affairs issues but also with natural resources. That will also change the witness list a bit.

Mr. Vellacott, I see we haven't gotten to the one about motions yet. So I think we have to go through the routine motions, because we haven't decided how we're going to deal with motions yet.

• 1210

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In proffering that, I was suggesting it as a protection for you, so that you don't feel you have to.... I think to bring it to us is a good thing in most cases, and there may be exceptions to that. But rather than for you to feel you have to carry the responsibility of making these decisions, when in fact maybe somebody's going to dispute the judgment.... It leaves you a little open, I guess, and I think it's better that it be discussed at the start of the meeting. I think we're reasonable people and would say to proceed, in view of what you described to us.

The Chair: I think John was saying that we have the rules established, and as a committee we have the ability to use common sense, based on the situation. So I would rather we lay out the rules, so that every witness knows they're being treated the same, in that they know the rules. We're going to make sure they have copies of the rules, but if someone comes before us and states otherwise, then we'll deal with it at that time.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay.

The Chair: Number seven is in camera sessions. Again you see asterisks there, because we had the steering committee ask the clerk to find out what is the normal practice in other committees.

One question that came before us was whether votes can be done in camera. But if you want to deal with what is there right now, all we're talking about is that, for in camera meetings, transcripts be kept. We're not dealing with how we go in camera. I know that was a big concern.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: There's a motion that I think everybody has a copy of, and you probably want to deal with that after this one here.

The Chair: Yes. We were talking about how you go in camera, and you wanted notice of being able to go into in camera, unless there was unanimous consent.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But if you want to proceed with your transcript one first, that's fine. I'm in agreement with it anyhow, this one here, and then I guess we can go to that one after.

The Chair: Okay. There's one missing in there, I believe.

The Clerk of the Committee: It's at the end.

The Chair: Okay. Let's deal with number seven, in camera meetings. We know there will be times when we'll have to go in camera, so this one just deals with the transcripts being kept in the office of the clerk. Any comments on this one?

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: We agree. It is unanimous.

[English]

The Chair: There's a question from Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Are those minutes then available through the Access to Information Act? That would defeat the purpose of going in camera.

• 1215

The Chair: I think this is a routine motion that they are kept in the office. From what I understand, we keep one copy with the clerk until the end of the session, and then the minutes are archived for 30 years. When they're with the clerk, any member can see them by asking the clerk. These will be very basic minutes. For example, if a motion was made, the name of the mover would not be included. If there happened to be voting, there would be no recorded votes. It would just be very basic information.

Any member who sees the minutes of an in camera meeting could not disclose them. Otherwise the member is abusing member privileges. After 30 years, the minutes can be accessed.

The other point to remember is that if after our last meeting a member has the opportunity to address an issue again, and wants to destroy the minutes or transcripts, they would be stored with the clerk for the duration of this committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I agree.

[English]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Agreed.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Does that answer your question?

Number eight is the working meals. The one word that we had changed is.... It's too late for me to order lunch.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Number nine is the 48-hour notice. I know in other committees we have said 24. Ours is 48. You give 48 hours notice if you're going to introduce a motion in this committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Number 10 is the one that I jumped into because I thought it was covered in number seven. It was put forward by the Canadian Alliance that they would like 48 hours notice before an in camera meeting. I don't know if you want to add there “unless there is unanimous consent”.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't agree.

The Chair: I'll just let Mr. Vellacott speak to this first, please.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I didn't realize that number 10 had come from the Alliance. I wasn't aware of that. In fact, the one we were proposing was the one that I think everybody has in hand now. It just simply said that a vote be required before the committee can meet in camera, which means you can move quickly into it on the very same day with a vote in the—

The Chair: That was one we talked about at our steering committee—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, right.

The Chair: —that we were going to bring before the committee. This is your opportunity to change it.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There are three motions. One motion, number seven, deals with in camera meetings and the information that comes out of them. Another motion, number nine, says that unless there is unanimous consent, 48 hours notice has to be given.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, that's not on the in camera issues.

A voice: Nine is for general committee.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This is an internal committee.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Number 10, then—“Unless there is unanimous consent of Members of the Committee, forty-eight (48) hours notice must be given to the members of the committee before in camera proceedings take place.” How do we deal with the case of a witness who has sensitive information to impart to the committee? That information may come up during the committee hearings. We need an opportunity to vote and to go in camera to hear that information. We don't have 48 hours. The witness may not have 48 hours to stay, number one, or we may be on video.

• 1220

Somehow we need to be able to vote as a committee to go in camera to hear sensitive information if that occurs. To have the 48 hours' unanimous consent for in camera meetings—and I tend to agree with that ahead of time.... For specific instances, I think we have to be able to vote to hear that information.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think that was your point.

The Chair: If I can just clarify it, if there's unanimous consent, you can go in camera right away.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But what if there's not unanimous consent? If you have everyone on the committee except one member saying they want to hear this information, and the witness is returning to wherever tomorrow and is not going to be here in 48 hours, how are we going to hear the information that the witness has? I'm willing to allow the majority to say yes, we want to hear that information now.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, then Mr. Serré.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's why I was suggesting that I think just a simple majority should in fact carry it, but that you do need that vote required before it can move in camera. You could do it right away then because of the exigent circumstances mentioned there.

The Chair: Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: The bottom line, Madame Chair, is that we have two motions here, number 10, which was presented by the clerk, and the Alliance motion.

There seems to be a consensus from the PCs—I don't know what their stand is—that we need a vote. I would agree with that. I would support Mr. Vellacott on that, so that the committee decides by a simple majority vote if we go in camera or not.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Not unanimous?

Mr. Benoît Serré: No, it's majority rule, that's what it is.

The Chair: Did you still want to say something, Monsieur St-Julien?

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I agree.

The Chair: Okay, so my understanding is that by a vote of the majority, we'll go in camera. He'll word that in such a way that....

Mr. Benoît Serré: Let's carry the motion.

The Chair: Okay, I'll change number 10 to “That a vote be required before the committee can meet in camera”.

Mr. John Godfrey: Perfect.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: A majority vote.

The Chair: That's all I have for routine motions, so unless anyone has.... Mr. Vellacott?

Mr. Richard Marceau: Fifty percent plus one.

The Chair: I have one more motion: that votes not be held in camera, but that voting on matters discussed in camera take place in the committee's public meetings without further discussion. That's number 11, and it was put forth by the Canadian Alliance or Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I don't see the reasoning behind the motion. I'm not for or against it, I just would like to have Mr. Vellacott explain to us the reasoning behind it. Maybe we could also learn from the clerk if there is normally a vote at in camera meetings, and how the process works.

The Chair: If I can just interject here, we talked about that. A vote can take place, but you cannot disclose how it went. You would just come out saying that.... When a decision is made during an in camera meeting, the minutes simply state “it was agreed that...”. Recorded votes may be taken if the members so decide, but divulging any part of the proceedings has been ruled a violation of the members' rights of privilege. That's our note on that, but I'll just give Mr. Vellacott a chance.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, in talking to our clerk later, I'll want to clarify what I think to be the understanding of note 294, on page 838, in the House procedures volume that he was referring to.

For Benoît, the intent there was simply that you can have that free, wide-ranging discussion in camera on issues if there's a security matter or secret witness that you want there or whatever. You can have that free-ranging discussion, but then, if you're actually bringing something to a vote, you have to be transparent and before the public. You would bring it out into a subsequent public meeting, but no more hashing it over again and protracting it by members of the opposition or members of the government side. You have to go with how that motion was framed in the in camera meeting. Then you have to have that motion put immediately without further discussion and just bring it on to an end.

• 1225

So that's the intent of it. That way, you're not perceived to be doing any secret voting in camera. You frame that motion very carefully, bring it out of camera, go right to the vote, and dispense from there.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I understand the intent here to be transparent. But does it not defeat the purpose of going in camera? How can you come out of camera and vote on something when you're not even telling people what you're voting on? If you do tell them what you're voting on, you basically disclose the matters that were discussed in camera and it defeats the purpose of going in camera in the first place. So I think there's no common sense here. It doesn't make sense.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You can frame it very carefully. You would want to frame it carefully. This is fairly customary with municipal levels of government where in camera stuff is not untried and unproven. But it's very common in municipal levels of government, city councils, and so on, where they in fact bring that motion carefully framed out to the public. It's voted on there without further debate and they proceed from there.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy and then Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm fine. I didn't understand how you could take a motion that was decided on in camera and vote on it out of camera. I suppose it could be worded carefully enough that you could vote on it. But I think that would be a challenge in most instances.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I just want to understand the rule. Though anything relating to the actual discussion, and indeed who voted which way, is not known, is it automatic that the vote, the decision taken in camera, is then made public when we come out of camera, or does the decision stay secret? That's the part I don't understand by the rule.

The Chair: All I have here, and I'll read it again, is “When a decision is made during an in camera meeting, the minutes state simply it was agreed that...”. Then the decision is printed. The mover of a motion is not mentioned. Recorded votes may be taken if the members decide to. But it's also saying “divulging any part of the proceedings has been ruled a violation”. So it doesn't quite seem to say that by recording them you're divulging something.

Mr. John Godfrey: I would interpret that to mean the decision would be public. That would come out of camera and the decision would be public. Otherwise it would just simply form part of the transcript, right? So the actual decision, the bare decision, inevitably makes no sense. You can't take a decision and act on it because nobody knows what you did, right?

So I'm trying to remember. People perhaps with more experience can recall this. But it may be that—I hate to put it this way—there's some horse trading going on between the parties. They're trying to figure out how they're going to saw things off. That's where a certain amount of dealing goes on and then you just want to announce what the result was of the dealing. But you may not want to. I don't know. I'm trying to recall when that actually happened.

The Chair: I've got Mr. Bagnell, then Mr. Harvey, and then Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I don't agree totally with the motion. I'd be happy to have a compromise motion where you voted by majority vote, whether or not it was made in public. But for some reasons already said, I've actually fought for a long time to try to change the municipal requirement in this country, where they have to do that because provincial levels of government and federal levels of government do not have to say in public what they decide at cabinet, for instance.

If it's a sensitive issue, and you've made your decision and you're going to go on, there's no use stirring things up. Cabinets at all levels of government do that. I think we should have the ability to do that. If we want to make a decision public, or make the decision in public, then I would be happy to vote on that majority vote. But we should still have the option, because I'm sure there are things we'd like to decide in camera and just not let the public know about.

The Chair: Okay, the issue we're talking about is whether votes be held in camera or not. That's all this motion is doing. I think, Mr. Harvey, you wanted to interject.

Mr. André Harvey: No.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Vellacott.

• 1230

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Just picking up on what John said, that was what I was trying to get at here, too. Let's say you're going to announce some decision coming out of this committee, X, Y, Z, or whatever it's going to be. Why not just frame as the motion whatever you decide is going to be the decision of the committee or what you hope it to be, for which you put out the bare bones in a discreet manner? So basically there's no other announcement of a decision other than the motion that carried. Do you understand what I'm saying, John?

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes, but what I am trying—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Otherwise, what decision do you announce? It's a vague, ambiguous....

Mr. John Godfrey: But we seem to have in place a rule that says that the bare bones of what you announce afterwards was “it was decided that”, and then you give the motion. That seems to be standard operating procedure, as I understand it. What you're proposing is a bit different. But if that's the rule and people presumably have it there because they've needed it in the past, why not go with that rule?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We could do the motion “it is decided to”, and then have the vote, and it's one and the same.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Cardin and then Mr. Serré.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Myself, I am leaning towards this motion because I experienced an incident when I sat on the former Natural Resources Committee.

I tabled a motion, without really knowing the procedure. When I arrived at the committee meeting, my motion appeared in the in camera part. As we all do in politics, I had already announced, in my riding, that I would be tabling a motion on gasoline in the hopes of having a clear and specific policy on gasoline. A decision was therefore made in camera. Technically, I was not able to discuss it. However it was already known that I was to table a motion. I had announced it publicly, however, in committee, we had discussed it in camera.

Obviously, there are times when discussions should be held in camera, but the decision... We know full well that when we take action publicly, we say so. However, when a decision is made in camera, we can no longer talk about it.

So there I was, essentially forced to talk about something, isn't that right? We are all in politics.

If an issue is worthwhile to study, to make a decision about, I think that decision should be known. It may not be necessary to reveal all the details of the thinking behind it and the argumentation that goes on when an issue is discussed in camera. However, when there is a concrete result, a “no” to notices of motion which are often on important issues... If we cannot publicize the decision because the discussion was held in camera, it seems to me that there's a problem, a problem with transparency. I therefore believe that some discussions can be held in camera, but it is best if the results be known.

[English]

The Chair: The motion before us is that votes not be held in camera. Even if you voted outside of the in camera situation, you still could not discuss the discussion before the motion because that's still violating.... So the motion before us is whether votes would be held in camera, and this motion is saying no.

I have Mr. Serré and Mr. St-Julien on my list.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Madam Chair, although I think the intent of this motion is noble, I cannot support it for two reasons. I think it would not stand the test of rights and privileges. I don't think we've passed that test at all. Any member can challenge it, and it's going to die anyway. Also, I think this committee and every committee should have the opportunity to take votes in camera on certain things, which could not be done in the manner they're talking about. I think the strongest argument against it is that we can pass the motion today, but it wouldn't stand the test of rights and privileges of members, so it's an exercise in futility.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not sure what Benoît is saying. It's not clear.

I would have to differ with our clerk. If you read note 294 on page 838 in the volume to which he refers, it's rather different. It simply says that if in fact you have a vote in committee, then it's a prima facie matter of privilege to divulge that. But this doesn't say you cannot have matters voted on outside the in camera meeting, right? We'll discuss that later. All it says is that if you do have a vote outside committee, you cannot divulge the content and nature of it. That's the point you have before you on draft routine motions and so on.

• 1235

I was going to say, with respect to what John says, as the Liberal or government side, you still have the option to shape that motion. You can do that in camera. So you don't lose control; it just then becomes a matter of public record.

Larry had mentioned and acknowledged that this is the customary way of doing it at the municipal level. So it's not anything new; it's not strange and weird.

He did express something that concerns me a bit, which is the fact that there may be things we want to hide from the public and that's why we, as federal and provincial politicians, would want to do it differently from municipal politicians. I'm a little uncomfortable with saying that we want to hide anything. If we frame it carefully, why are we hiding things from the public? I like the municipal-level model, and I think it's appropriate here as well. I think it would stand the test to which he refers.

The Chair: I'm going to give Mr. Cardin a chance, and then we'll wrap this one up.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I'd like to come back to Mr. Serré's comments. I think it is relevant to discuss which subjects or which motions should be discussed in camera. Should the results of these discussions be made public or not? If the committee is to take a position on an issue, it would seem to me that it should be known by the public, or at least by the larger committee.

I believe that it is only necessary to go in camera if there is personal or confidential information being discussed. However, I don't see why the results of our consideration should be hidden from the public, as was said earlier. This makes me very uncomfortable. There are elements of the discussion which may, obviously, be of a private nature, or confidential, and which therefore should be discussed in camera, but the results should be known by everyone.

[English]

The Chair: I don't know if we have consensus on this one.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I don't think so. I would suggest we go for a vote, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Yes. We only have about twenty minutes, and we still have future business. Is this something we can say we have no consensus on, and deal with at a later date?

Okay, we'll go with the ten motions we've agreed on. We do have some future business to decide today. I want to make sure we know what we're going to do when we come back from the break. I have a feeling that we're not going to be able to get very many people together on Thursday. I will be travelling, and I'm sure some of you will be.

Before I get into future business—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Just so that I understand, we're tabling this for some point in the future?

The Chair: The clerk has some material I think we should—

Mr. John Godfrey: Sorry, he just wants to understand what has happened to his motion. We are tabling it?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We're tabling it to read, examine, and look more closely at.

The Chair: Yes. I think we can bring it back at a later date. Some information the clerk has would be useful—it talks about an earlier case in which someone felt his or her privileges were violated. I think that will help committee members to understand better how to deal with this issue. I think it will help to clarify this sensitive situation, and we'll deal with it at a later date.

• 1240

Just before we go into future business, because we have no witnesses, it might be more appropriate for the rest of this meeting to be in camera so that you're free to discuss the future business without every word being put on the Internet. That's your decision, I guess, but we have....

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Proceedings continue in camera]