SECU Committee Meeting

     Good afternoon, everyone.

    This is meeting number 33 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today is Monday, October 18, 2010.

    Our orders of the day require us to go in camera for the consideration of the draft report “Federal Corrections: Mental Health and Addiction”.

    Before we begin, I just want to say that at the conclusion of our meeting today, I'd like to take a few moments to look at a couple of things regarding future business.

    We have a budget for bringing witnesses here for the G-8/G-20 discussions. It is in the amount of $28,400, which works out to $1,200 per witness, with a per diem as well. So we will discuss that at the end, as well as a little bit about the Wednesday meeting.

    Before we go in camera, however, Mr. Davies has asked to make a statement, and we certainly welcome Mr. Davies to do that.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to address an issue that arose at the last meeting, on October 6, 2010. On that day I issued a news release that dealt with my motion to hold G-20 meetings. I released that news release after we came out of our in camera status but before the minutes of the meeting were issued by the committee. I also indicated in that release that all four parties implicitly supported this initiative.

    I'd like to offer a brief explanation and, more importantly, my unqualified apologies to all committee members for any breach of their privileges as committee members or as members of Parliament that my actions may have inadvertently caused.

    As members know, I had been pursuing my motion for G-20 inquiries since the summer, and in fact I did file a motion to do so on September 13, as my release said. It simply stated what had actually occurred.

    Due to the leadership and wisdom of the chair, the parties met out of committee informally and without in camera status on October 5 to try to agree on a committee agenda, and we indeed did secure agreement on that day. The next day, on October 6, I drafted a release indicating that my motion had been agreed to by all parties, and what was in my mind at the time was the meeting we had had the previous day, at which we had agreed.

    I waited until we came out of the in camera status before releasing my release under the sincere but erroneous belief that this was the proper time to do so. I was wrong in that, but I did think I was in order. For my error in breaching your privileges, I apologize.

    With respect to referring to all parties supporting my motion, because I did not want any party to be singled out as far as credit for this went, I thought I was informing the public that all parties had worked together on that. But of course, inadvertently, I think what I portrayed might have been perceived as being the result of deliberation in the meeting, and I was wrong on that as well.

    Once again, I now realize what I did was a breach of the privileges of the members, and all I can do at this point is to offer my unconditional apology. I would point out one thing. The information did become public 24 hours after that--not that this fact excuses what I did--but it wasn't as though something was breached that was meant to be secret forever.

    In any event, I have nothing to say except that I am sorry to all committee members, and I trust that it won't happen again.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Davies.

    Mr. Rathgeber.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    First of all, I accept Mr. Davies at his word and I accept his apologies.

    The members might remember that I too, some time ago, in the spring of 2010, posted a message on my Twitter account that dealt with matters that were discussed in camera. Subsequent to that, I apologized in the House but never apologized formally to the committee. Obviously, it was the members of this committee whose potential privileges might have been breached.

    But what I want to say is quite simple. Often these committees go in camera and then in public, and there's almost a seamless transition. Members have to be absolutely vigilant regarding when they are in camera. I made a mistake, but it was an innocent mistake. I just wasn't mindful of the discussions that actually were in camera.

    So I accept Mr. Davies' explanation and reiterate that all members need to really be mindful of when we're in camera.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Rathgeber, and thank you, Mr. Davies.

    I think we're going to cut this off here. I don't want to feel like we're in a confessional booth and I don't want to open it up for everyone to--

    An hon. member: Who's next?

    Yes, who's next?

    We thank you for bringing that, Mr. Davies. We accept that apology and we appreciate it.

    Now, if we can, we will move in camera. We'll suspend for just one moment to allow us the opportunity to do that.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]