Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 6th, 2023

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

I just want to echo some of the comments Ms. Hepfner made, just to clarify a couple of things.

Spyware is not used. That is malware or malicious code, which the Government of Canada does not use, so I think that needs to be clarified, number one.

I did want to talk a little bit about the way we're scheduling some of these things and how we're getting some of these departments to come before us. There are some challenges, as we all know, with ministers' schedules, and we often don't know what the minister's schedule is. I think it's important to hear...and this is a very important issue, of course. If the privacy impact assessments that have been set before them are not being followed by these departments, I think it's important to ensure that we speak to each department, understand what's been taking place and maybe just have the order of the witnesses who are being called changed around so that we get the departments in first and maybe have the President of the Treasury Board follow after that. Maybe just modify the scheduling of that so that we can hear from the departments first.

I'd like to move an amendment to what's been put forward here. If we look at Mr. Villemure's motion, it would be to remove, from part (d), “provided that the President of the Treasury Board be the first of all to testify”, and maybe have the president appear later on.

We're looking just at where it says, “(d) Any other expert witness the Committee deems necessary, provided that the President of the Treasury Board be the first of all to testify”. We would strike, “provided that the President of the Treasury Board be the first of all to testify”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just for clarity, Mr. Bains, because of the agreement among committee members to have Mr. Aylward and Ms. Carr appear, that would now be part (d), and then part (e) would be “Any other expert witness the Committee deems necessary”.

Then you're proposing to strike the part that says, “provided that the President of the Treasury Board be the first of all to testify”. Is that what I'm understanding you're moving here?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Where would you then have the President of the Treasury Board appear?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Maybe in part (e).... Oh, the new witnesses we've added are in part (e).

It would just be later...anywhere, depending on her schedule.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It doesn't have to be first. It can be somewhere on the list. Is that right?

It's in part (a) that the President of the Treasury Board will...so it stays there.

Just so that committee members are clear, you're proposing that the President of the Treasury Board appear at some point during the study, but not necessarily be the first. Is that correct?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Yes, because we don't want to delay the study based on her schedule by saying she needs to be here first.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think that's clear, unless there are other opinions.

Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I would highlight one troubling trend that we see with the Liberals, and it's the disconnect between Parliament and executive government. I think it would be entirely justified for the President of the Treasury Board, as a minister of the Crown, to be the first meeting that takes place. I think it is incumbent upon the position...as the one in charge. It speaks to the necessity of accountability and the fact of where that the buck stops, and then, quite frankly, to the practical matter that if more information comes up, this committee could pass a motion to have that minister appear again.

The disconnect between what Parliament wants, says and in some cases even dictates is simply not respected by the Liberals. I think the ability for that minister to attend the first meeting and to kick off this study makes perfect sense. If there is nothing to hide, that minister should not fear the questions that will be asked and, hopefully, answered.

I certainly don't think we should support the amendment. I think that the President of the Treasury Board can start, and if it necessitates calling the President of the Treasury Board back, then so be it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

We're on the amendment by Mr. Bains.

Not seeing any other hands up, do we have consensus on the amendment moved by Mr. Bains?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We don't have consensus. I'm going to ask the clerk to call the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I make a motion to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green has moved to adjourn.

I'll have to ask whether we have unanimous consent for that.

Before we do, I want to remind the committee that the notice of meeting is out for next Monday. The RCMP commissioner and staff sergeant will be appearing before committee. Next Wednesday, as part of our social media study, we have Twitter, Meta and Google YouTube appearing on that day for our study.

On the motion to adjourn, I'll call the vote.

(Motion agreed to)

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.