Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 24th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

You can move it, but it can't be discussed. You have to deal with one motion at a time.

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

No, I want to discuss this motion.

I certainly agree that this is important to have, because it was very concerning, in Mr. Dion's testimony, that he said he was interfered with in his work as an officer of Parliament. It is up to us as this committee to ensure that the officers of Parliament have all the tools they need. So I certainly support having him come.

I'm a little uncomfortable saying that he has to speak for 30 minutes. I don't know why that's necessary. Also, with the law clerk, traditionally, I've been very wary of putting the law clerk in a position to be on the record of taking a political position. The law clerk tends to advise our committee and sometimes we have brought the law clerk in camera to give us advice. I think the law clerk would be very wary about getting caught out on this, so I think we should hear from Mr. Dion, and then if Mr. Dion's testimony raised other concerns, we would consider bringing in other witnesses.

So, I would say that we don't need 30 minutes for Mr. Dion. I would give him more than 10 minutes because of the complexity. I would ask my colleague to consider maybe 20 minutes. That allows us more time to question. As for the law clerk, I'd be more comfortable if we invited the law clerk to give us advice but not necessarily in this format of public testimony, so that we can hear if the law clerk thinks there's something that we need to look at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Madam Gaudreau.

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

Can we take the time to even know the steps and catch our breath? We've just run, we need to settle down. I didn't catch the first five minutes of the conversation.

I'd like to jump in, but… I could speak very quickly in French, and you'd find that the interpretation would be difficult. Have a little respect, please.

So, where are we, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Here's what I would suggest, if the committee will indulge me. We have 12 motions that have been presented and put on notice. None of these motions have been moved at this point, with the exception of Mr. Barrett's. I understand that all these motions have been put forward and that they are all fair game for discussion.

What I might suggest, for the sake of efficiency as well as to honour the spirit of collegiality, which we have committed ourselves to based on our first meeting, is that we perhaps do the following. I can suspend the meeting for five minutes, which then would allow you, in your parties, to converse with one another and decide on a motion that you feel is your top priority. It would also allow you to talk across party lines and discuss what we as a committee might see as our priorities.

There are also some places where the different motions that have been presented are similar, so there may even be an opportunity for some collaboration to take place.

That said, if I were to suspend the meeting for five minutes and allow you to discuss among yourselves, then bring the meeting back and allow each party representative at this table to bring forward their top motion, that would give us the opportunity to discuss four motions in detail today and to vote on whether we accept them. My suspicion is that you will find everyone around this table to be quite collegial and quite collaborative.

We would proceed from there in determining the order in which we study these and the length of study granted. That said, that decision could be made also at the subcommittee, which of course has been set up through our routine motions. That may be the best use of time. That subcommittee, then, would determine the length and the order of study and then bring back a proposal.

A proposal always comes back to this committee, and you ultimately are given the final vote on that proposal. If you find it favourable, then of course you would vote yes, and if you felt that some changes needed to be made, at that point of course you would have the opportunity to make changes.

If it's agreed that this could perhaps work well at this committee and help us get the maximum amount of work done today, then I would move to suspend this meeting.

Yes, Mr. Barrett.

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

Madam Chair, on a point of personal privilege, if I may, I'd like to acknowledge Madame Gaudreau's comment, and I'd like to apologize. My thinking was that because the motion was in front of us it was translated. In reading it quickly, my intent wasn't to be disrespectful of anyone else at the table. I was just looking to get the reading of it into the record out of the way and was not trying to out-talk anybody.

I expect that I'm at a greater disadvantage when hearing my colleagues speak in the official language of their choice if it's not English. I'd have a challenge if you spoke as quickly as I did, so my apologies for placing you at that disadvantage. I just wanted to recognize that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much for your intervention, Madam Chair. I think it's a good idea to take a five-minute break, so I commend you for that.

Going back to the point Mr. Levitt raised and the commitment we made at the last meeting of this committee, we will have the opportunity today to determine or discuss whether there will be a second vice-chair. At the end of this discussion, I'll advise you that I would like to raise the issue of a third vice-chair, which would be discussed at our next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

If I may, because we have a motion on the floor that must be dealt with before moving any further motion, my suggestion to the committee again would be that we proceed with moving to suspend for five, come back and discuss motions with regard to study.

I believe we can move through that process fairly efficiently, and then, at the end of that process, we will have dealt with all the motions on the table, so another motion could come forward to work on the second vice-chair and the third vice-chair, should you wish to move that motion.

Would that suffice?

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

I understand you very well. I don't want to seem uncooperative, but we made a commitment at the end of the last meeting, which was the first meeting of the committee, that we would discuss and respond to this issue.

My only concern is that, if we take the time to discuss motions, there may not be enough time at the end to come back to the issue of the second vice-chair. That's my only concern.

Can I make a slight change to what you just presented?

Perhaps we could talk about Mr. Barrett's motion, because that's the one on the floor. Then we could come back to the matter of the second vice-chair and then move on to the other motions after the break.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I am at the will of this committee. We do have a motion on the floor. That motion does have to be voted on before moving forward to any other motion.

At this point, I am going to move to suspend this meeting for the next five minutes. When we come back, we are going to discuss Mr. Barrett's motion, and then it is the will of this committee how we proceed from there.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

In the interest of speed, I'd like to make a friendly amendment to Mr. Barrett's motion. I would say, “that he be given 20 minutes for a prepared statement.” I would drop “and that the Committee invite a Law Clerk of the House of Commons to provide a brief on the principle of the Cabinet Confidences and that he be given 20 minutes for a prepared statement.”

Or, we ask the law clerk to give us a separate briefing, so it's clear that it's not part of the normal record. I'm worried the law clerk will be constrained in what he can or cannot tell us. We could say, “and that the Committee invite a Law Clerk of the House of Commons to provide a separate briefing on the principle of the Cabinet Confidences.” Is that clear enough?

The rest of it is fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I'm not sure what the words “separate briefing” are in reference to.

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

If we have to be more specific, we could say, “that we invite a Law Clerk of the House to provide an in camera briefing”.

What I'm wary of from past practice is that the law clerk is very.... If we bring the law clerk before us, where we can ask a whole bunch of partisan questions, we may not get the answers we want, because the law clerk will be very constrained. If we invite the law clerk to provide us with a briefing on the roles of cabinet confidences, to give us a separate briefing, which would be in camera, he or she may feel more inclined to provide us with perspective, and we're not putting the law clerk on the spot.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Barrett.

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

In the spirit of collaboration that you referenced, Madam Chair, I'll support Mr. Angus's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

We will now deal with the main motion as amended.

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

Can I get a recorded vote, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Yes.

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

I had some questions to ask, so I'm not in a position to answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

You're going to have to ask your specific question, then.

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

I simply want to know what impact this will have, given that other motions may take precedence. I think we absolutely must study them one at a time, and not as a whole, so that we can get an idea of the work we'll need to do, which will be quite significant.

We'll need to prioritize because there are several motions. I'm uncomfortable right now. I could say it all makes sense, but we have to make a choice, and I'm not able to do that right now.