Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you very much. I'm a little lost. All that altar stuff is lost on a good Jew.
4:25 p.m.
An hon. member
It's a mystery.
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm deeply sorry to cause you so much chaos, Madame Chair, in your second meeting.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
I will have the clerk read the motion as it is stated right now with the amendments. Bear in mind that when I take a vote, we are voting on the amendments first, and then we are voting on the motion as amended. I will let the clerk proceed.
4:30 p.m.
The Clerk
The motion is this: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in light of recent media reports of inappropriate partisan consultations over judicial appointments, invite key actors named in those reports to testify before this committee and to study the current selection process and how it compares to previous allegations of partisan interference.”
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I was asking the clerk to repeat the motion. I was taking notes, and I wasn't able to read all of the text she just read. I'm sorry.
4:30 p.m.
The Clerk
The motion is this: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in light of recent media reports of inappropriate partisan consultations over judicial appointments, invite key actors named in those reports to testify before this committee and to study the current selection process and how it compares to previous allegations of partisan interference.”
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I was asking if it could also be read in French before we adopt it.
4:30 p.m.
The Clerk
In the French version of the motion, it is proposed that, “en accord avec le règlement 108(3)(h)(v), le Comité permanent de l'accès à l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'éthique, à la lumière des récents rapports de consultations partisanes inappropriées sur la nomination des juges, invite des acteurs clés nommés dans ce rapport, et que le processus de sélection actuel soit comparé avec les anciennes allégations d'interférence partisane”.
February 24th, 2020 / 4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before going any further, I must say that I don't know if I can stay. Given that I have been involved in this kind or process before, either I withdraw, or I ask the House of Commons' legal office what I should do in such a situation. I'm in a real conflict of interest.
I have participated in this process, I have signed confidentiality documents, I have voted, and I have participated in this kind of study. Maybe I should withdraw from the committee. I have no idea, legally speaking, what I can do with the documents I signed several years ago. There were a lot of documents, I may have signed 22 of them. I don't remember exactly how far I can go and what I can do about it.
I may even be called as a witness in this study. Participating in it really bothers me. Either I ask the committee to postpone its decision so that I check with the lawyers of the House of Commons, or I withdraw from the committee. I will not be able to participate in this kind of study if I don't have more information about my conflict of interest, given my personal involvement in the process of appointing judges to the court.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I think it's well possible for us to vote on this. Mr. Gourde has very specific issues that he may or may not be able to participate in, but I would certainly suggest, in light of Mr. Gourde's advice, that probably before we begin, we want to get the law clerk to advise us, so that, when we do questions in public, we know where we're at. I would feel very comfortable inviting the law clerk to advise us.
This is not uncommon at our committee. We take on some very sensitive political issues and we have to be careful, so Mr. Gourde may or may not be able to participate. There would be someone who would stand in if he's signed documents. I don't know what he's signed, but I would certainly prefer to invite the law clerk. I don't think it needs to be in the motion. This is something we can simply ask for his advice on prior to our beginning.
Again, as I said, on the issue of the overall judicial appointments, we have to be careful. We can't step into other areas that are not ours, but we have a very specific window, so what would that window be? The office of the law clerk could advise us.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
I'm new to this committee, but given that there seems to be some uncertainty and that one of our colleagues across the way has raised an issue of concern and has asked if he can take the time to seek legal advice, I'm inclined to say that I support taking that extra time so that he can do that and so that every member at this table can get a vote. Otherwise, it's going to be incomplete and he's not going to have an opportunity to be heard on this.
Again, I'm new to this, but it seems to me that a colleague has asked for some time, and I would suggest that we grant him such. I don't think that's going to change anything in a material way.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
I certainly agree with that, because I would like to move a motion that I think is of a broader interest to everyone here, if we're ready to move forward with a motion. I think there are other topics that the different groups have expressed interest in, and I think it would be more worthwhile to move forward. I certainly would be in agreement to a delay.