Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
He asked me if I could get some clearer language. I said I would like to do that, and we tried to figure out how we should do this. I said, “I will make one suggestion. I feel that everyone is in favour of the amendment you are proposing”. I was speaking to Mr. Angus. I said, “Would it be possible to set it aside for the moment and work on it”, so we could take some time to try to get the language right.
Then let me get right down to the crux of the issue. It's that we decided to carve out a little exception. We said that we needed to trust each other, that we were going to bring forward information and use that information correctly, and that we were going to make sure we didn't abuse these situations. We tried to make a bit of an amendment. I suggested, Madam Chair, that we would want to make sure that when we do go in camera that we would do so—and we added the proviso to our standing order—to “protect the privacy of any individual”. We had that debate and eventually we adopted that.
I think this is relevant, Madam Chair, because when we take a look at the motion before us that is being brought forward
it fits precisely within the framework and responsibilities of our standing committee. I would like to quote it —as submitted by Mr. Barrett:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contribution and other expenditure policies; and that, to provide a case study for this review, an Order of the Committee do issue to Speakers’ Spotlight (the company that made the bookings for the speeches by members of the Trudeau family) for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau—including, in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it—provided that these records shall be provided to the Clerk of Committee within one week of the adoption of this Order.
I agree with that. It's excellent. Not only that, but please note the use of the words "a case study".
Madam Chair, I am not a lawyer, but I did have the pleasure of studying some Latin. The following well-known principle:Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per oliquum, means, "What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly".So what we are in the process of doing is skirting the parameters of our responsibilities here at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
The evidence was in Mr. Barrett's comments. I will quote you the passage in English.
He said, let's get a look at these documents. We're going to call it a case study.
We can't do that. It isultra vires. It's not within our mandate. One must not indirectly do that which we are prohibited from doing directly.
In her presentation, my colleague Mrs. Brière rightly said that we need to trust our institutions and our parliamentary officials, whose mandate is to examine these types of questions.
What needs to be avoided is the disclosure of the private information of persons related to politicians.
Madam Chair, I am prepared to do so for myself and even for my wife. It is clear and it is among our responsibilities. That is the reason why we all, as members of Parliament—