Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 19th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Order, please. A motion is on the floor.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Chair, we asked for the complete new version of the translation, which includes the new sentence. Do we have it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I believe you do. It should look like this.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

No. Something was added and we do not have the new version. It seems that it is being distributed now.

[A voice]

I have it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Okay, excellent. It has red on both sides.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I will also need that, please.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Excuse me, madam, I realize that we made a mistake about a change needed on that line. Has the translation been done correctly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Ms. Shanahan, are you folks ready to go on your side, or do you need another minute?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

It's all fine, we do not need more time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

This motion has been put forward by Mr. Angus with regard to in camera proceedings. At this point in time, I would ask if there are any comments from the floor with regard to this motion.

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I had a discussion with Mr. Angus, and I feel that he would be in favour of adding a fourth paragraph, paragraph (d), which would deal with protecting the personal information of those testifying before the committee.

There are occasions where we have to mention personal information of individuals in our discussions, and we do not want that to end up in the committee minutes. It is something that we must protect, and I feel that Mr. Angus would agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Ms. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I agree with the addition.

I have just one question. When we are talking about individuals, does it mean the witnesses appearing before the committee, or can it be any individual present at the meeting?

The educator in me wants to stress the point that, in French, we have to correct (a), (b), (c) and (d).

I see that it is actually a list of conditions. I am just afraid that there could be another condition. I would like to see a fifth point. Certainly, the committee is free to decide to hold a meeting in camera should that fifth situation arise. It is at the committee's discretion, of course. It can be anyone or any combination of members present.

I dread lists that are too defined, because one can never think of everything that might come up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I'll just offer a comment on that before moving to Mr. Angus. Anytime the committee puts a motion in place—any motion—the committee does have the ability to overrule that motion with unanimous consent. This would be the standing motion for most cases, but should there be a case where we feel that there's an exception or the committee feels that there's an exception then, through unanimous consent, that could be overruled.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm very supportive of my colleague. However, I think we need to be specific. I'm trying to think of the language, because anything that happens in this committee could embarrass someone because we deal with ethics and breaches, etc. If we have to have discussions that affect the private information of individuals in extraordinary circumstances or that are not germane to our study.... Sometimes we will get information on a person and will want to talk about whether or not a witness is appropriate, and we have to talk about that amongst ourselves. However, we can't use in camera to avoid discussing certain people who may have to come. I just want to get clearer language on how that would be used so that we're very clear on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

We'll hear Ms. Shanahan and then Mr. Fergus.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I'd like some clarification. Is my colleague asking or requesting that we discuss potential witnesses in public? I would have a big problem with that. There is a difference between embarrassing somebody and protecting their confidentiality and privacy. There's an extreme difference, and I know this committee has studied that. Discussing people in public is not on for me.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Certainly when we discuss witnesses, we do that in camera because we have to set priorities and we don't want that information to be misused or misinterpreted, but we do discuss people here. That's part of what we do with ethics. Issues are brought forward. We name people we think should be brought. That's sometimes done in public. I think the issue is being able to say, “I think we should go in camera” if we're going to discuss something of a personal nature that should not be germane to the committee. How can we just define that a little more clearly so that we're not abusing that, but we're saying that if we're going to go in camera on something it's because there is specific personal information that should be brought to committee but should not be in the realm of the public?

Can Mr. Fergus give us some clearer language?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I would like to do that, Mr. Angus, but you have caught me off guard, because you are much more experienced than I am at this committee and with the matters we are discussing.

I will make one suggestion. I feel that everyone is in favour of the amendment you are proposing. Would it be possible to set it aside for the moment and work on it—it could be done by the chair, yourself and the analysts—in order to find the right way to express everything? We could discuss it at our next meeting.

It is simply that Mrs. Shanahan has just raised an important point.

But I am in favour of what you have just proposed, Mr. Angus. We don't want to shy away from discussing appropriate committee matters in public, but I do want to avoid situations where things are not appropriate. It would be better to have a little more time to work on those amendments some more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

We'll hear Ms. Shanahan, and then Mr. Angus.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I'm open to my colleague's suggestion, but perhaps it will be helpful for Mr. Angus to just add three words—it certainly will be helpful for me—to part (a): to discuss administrative matters of the committee “and witness selection”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Ms. Shanahan, with regard to the amendment you've made to (a), we would have to put that on hold for a moment, because we can only discuss one at a time at the table. I have to take a vote for (d) before being able to move on to that.

Before I call the vote, Mr. Angus had his hand up to comment on (d).

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I think we should vote on this. I don't think this is all that difficult. I will just offer this. It's always important to remember that a camel was a racehorse that was designed by a committee. The more we talk sometimes, the further away we get.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!