Your weekly in camera committee roundup: What really went down behind closed doors?

No, I'm not about to unleash a blistering parliamentary privilege-breaching barrage of ill-gotten inside information -- really, by this point, I'd like to think that y'all know me well enough than to expect anything like that.

As it turns out, any need for such subterfuge has been mooted by release of the most recent minutes from Government Operations and Public Accounts, which are, of course, the two committees in which Conservative members successfully passed motions to go in camera at meetings originally slated to take place in public. Fortunately for those of us curious about what transpired after the room was cleared, however, the minutes record all decisions that were taken by the committee while sequestered away from the prying eyes of the public, albeit without any colour or context from the accompanying debate.  

Still, it's better than nothing, right?

For instance, after the doors closed at Government Operations, one of the government-baiting opposition-backed motions that likely provoked the blackout maneuver mustered sufficient support to survive the meeting, although not quite in its original form: Liberal MP John McCallum's bid to study Shared Services Canada was sent to the agenda subcommittee for "further consideration," although it's not clear whether the modified proposal would still see the committee request a copy of that internal report from PriceWaterhouseCooper on the projected costs and savings.  Still, at the moment, that's a distinctly more optimistic prognosis than the various G20-related motions, not one of which appears to have even been brought forward for debate. 

The committee also agreed to issue invitations to the Procurement Ombudsman and the President of the Public Service of Canada to present their annual reports, with those meetings tentatively scheduled for September 29th
and October 29th, respectively.

Meanwhile, over at Public Accounts, the committee agreed to grant the publication waivers requested by the Comptroller General of Canada for the annual public accounts, which would allow those reports to be printed without certain identifying information related to payment of claims against the crown, although with the stipulation that they -- the committee, that is -- "may, at any time, request additional information related to these payments, including but not limited to holding hearings with officials, but by doing so while in camera so as to protect the privacy of the individuals named or involved."

Which seems like a reasonable compromise, really, although I'm still not entirely sure why the mere discussion of confidential material -- in general, as a concept -- should automatically take place in camera as well. After all, it's not like names were being named or specific details discussed; from the minutes, it sounds like it was more a debate on how such information would be handled in theory. Why not let us all in on the conversastion?

The committee also passed its routine motions, which were held up in June due to a dispute over the aforementioned request, which, for the most part, seem to live up to the first part of the name, although it should be noted that they seem to have agreed to limit opening statements from witnesses to five minutes, a move that I can't possible endorse strongly enough. Heck, if I'd been in the room at the time, my cheers of delight might well have made it onto the official record.

Elsewhere on the closed-door committee circuit,