Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from the Sherbrooke riding for her presentation to the committee. I found her comments relevant and accurate, with perhaps one exception.While it is true that the University of Sherbrooke is certainly among the best in Canada, I believe that the University of Quebec in Outaouais is at the top of the list. I take pride in being the MP to represent this university in the House of Commons.
Ms. BrièreRaised some very important points. She reminded us of the importance of our work here, and the responsibilities of this committee. It is up to each and every one of us to ensure that we have a sound and lasting system that can review ethics-related issues and function not only during this Parliament, but future parliaments too.
Madam Chair, I have only been sitting on this committee since the beginning of this Parliament, but would like to congratulate you on the manner in which you have been chairing this committee in such a balanced and sensible manner. You have demonstrated a great deal of flexibility by allowing people to express their points of view, but also made sure that we do not descend into partisanship. This is particularly important when dealing with ethical questions. I applaud your efforts.
I recall that from the very outset we discussed the rules that we would be following around this table. One of our earliest meetings was held on February 19, 2020. The pandemic had not yet been officially declared and we were able to meet in committee more closely with the participation of a much larger number of assistants and in the presence of members of the general public who were interested in attending our public meetings.I found that once we had developed the committee procedures, we made good decisions. One such decision had to do with how we would treat the private information of individuals when dealing with matters of ethics. There was a constructive discussion between members of the opposition and the government. Indeed, I should not be making this distinction because in my view, you have always tried to encourage people to act as MPs, as parliamentarians, rather than people who represent the narrow interests of their particular political party.
These discussions included one between Mr. Angus and myself about how to treat the private information of individuals. I would like to quote this discussion in the language of Shakespeare, because the documents I have here are in that language.
We were having a debate, Madam Chair, about how we deal with material and witness selection for individuals.
I guess we should start with what Mr. Angus said, after you gave him the floor. We were talking about what to do when the committee...and I'll quote. You said:
Any time 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.
Then you turned the microphone to Mr. Angus, who said he was “very supportive” of this; however...and I will quote:
...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.
I just wanted to make sure I quoted that correctly. That's an excellent point, and I think it's particularly relevant to what we're doing here today in terms of what we're trying to get at here.
My colleague Ms. Shanahan had talked about a number of ways we want to get that. How do we discuss? We shouldn't discuss people in public, and she expressed that this wouldn't be on for her.
Mr. Angus said:
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.
Then he said:
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?
Then, Mr. Angus, if you remember correctly, we had a great little back and forth on this issue.