Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 24th, 2020

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

While I was very interested in Mr. Levitt's comments, Mrs. Shanahan is saying that she has things she's more interested in studying. I don't think that's a relevant reason to suspend a motion. That's not a credible way. That's not how we can operate. We can't say, “Well, I'd rather do something else.” If we're on a vote, we're on a vote, and we have to respect that.

If we're asking to step down from this for Mr. Gourde, that's very specific. In fact, I've never actually dealt with that in all my years in all the committees. If Mr. Gourde is not ready to vote now, then we can't proceed, but I don't think saying “I'd rather do something more interesting” is a credible way of deferring a vote on something of this magnitude.

I'd ask Mr. Gourde whether he's ready to vote on this, and then we can get a legal decision, or whether he's not ready to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Monsieur Gourde, do you care to respond?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

If there is a vote today on the motion, I won't vote. I'll abstain, given the points I explained earlier. I don't remember by heart what I can and can't do under the 90-page agreement I have with the Department of Justice. I won't take any chances. I don't want to become a traitor to the country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Understood. Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

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

I withdraw my motion. I will withdraw for now. If Mr. Gourde's not ready to vote, then why are we voting on an amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Angus, if I may, in order to withdraw your motion, you would need unanimous consent from this committee to do so. Before I ask whether or not I have that, I will tell you that there is an alternative course of action. You can determine what you wish to do, Mr. Angus, with it being your original motion.

If you choose to withdraw your motion today.... As chair, ultimately, I have a responsibility to determine whether or not things fit within the mandate of this committee. This motion is, I would say, on the edge, so as chair, I would like to seek counsel as to whether or not this motion fits. At the same time, I believe it's appropriate for Mr. Gourde to have opportunity to seek counsel as to whether he would be able to participate in a study of this type or whether he would have to recuse himself.

Once answers have been found to these questions, which I believe are very important questions, then this committee could reconvene, and this motion could be further discussed and voted on.

We have Mr. Angus and then Mr. Barrett.

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

Well, I will put on the record that I think that if we've allowed a motion to go forward, we can't then go and say that we think it's not within the purview. I'm uncomfortable with your coming back and saying so after having allowed it. I think we're in an exceptional circumstance. I don't ever remember hearing of this coming to a vote.

However, out of respect to Mr. Gourde, I'd rather just withdraw the motion for now, and then we can decide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Okay.

So, you're asking to withdraw at this time.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Then I would look to the committee for unanimous consent.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

(Motion withdrawn)

Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Just on the subject of your comment about this motion and the committee's mandate.... I know that Mrs. Shanahan has said that she'd like to discuss one of the motions that she has on notice. I would raise the same question about some of those motions as well and their relevance to this committee. I'm not sure what the mechanism is before you receive the motions in committee, because there are identifiable issues with each of the three, so right now we're batting zero for two.

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

We're on a roll.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

We're on a roll, and we were just about to vote on a motion that everyone at the table agreed to, and we didn't vote on it, so now we don't know if everyone, in fact, agreed to it, but we had a motion amended by the government in support of the NDP member's motion. It was an accepted amendment, and on and on, and we didn't even get that done.

I guess my concern is that, perhaps, we just identify what the mechanism is. You mentioned that you would seek counsel on the relevance of the motions to the committee. Perhaps you could sidebar on that, or get that determination before we get too far down the road again with another motion and—lots of religious references here—before we get all the way to the altar and find out that we're standing there alone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Madame Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

So it's been withdrawn?

May I put forward a motion that we will all agree on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

The floor is yours.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

That, in accordance with Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics also study the possibility of reforming the identity system and decoupling the SIN from identity by recommending the deployment of a new solution and that the Committee study the solutions deployed in other countries such as in Europe with smart identity cards (eID).

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

According to the speakers list, I have Mr. Angus next.

Is that with regard to this motion?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Perfect.

Go ahead.

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

I really like this motion. My problem, though, is that we did a big study in the last Parliament. The study included updating privacy. We looked at the Estonian model. If anybody is interested, I feel that the committee did extensive work on the overall issue.

Again, there was a question of whether or not it was government operations, because we're not there to change how government uses services, but it was on the privacy rights. That's what we had to focus on.

I feel that it is a good motion, but the committee has just done a big study of it, and much of it would be in the same vein.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus.

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

Madam Chair, my comments were not on this motion, but rather on what we were discussing before Ms. Gaudreau moved a third motion.

May I continue my comments on that?