Information & Ethics Committee on July 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Mr. Kurek, the floor is yours.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will keep my comments very brief.

The motion is certainly quite extraordinary. To hardly allow a calculator into the room is quite something when we are dealing with the issues that I believe Canadians have tasked Canada's Parliament and its political leaders to deal with. I have great concern that these limitations would be put on proceedings of this committee or would so specifically dictate what a specific outcome should be with respect to a committee's direction. It's very limiting. It puts a stranglehold on how this committee would be able to proceed within the context of dealing with a motion that was passed just the other day.

Mr. Fergus has referred to trying to preserve the integrity of this committee, and I agree, but I think that it's incumbent upon all members to ensure that the integrity of this committee is preserved and that there is a trust associated with that to do what's right. Ultimately it's Canada's Parliament that has to hold its government to account. Suffice it to say that I won't be supporting the motion, but I would say very clearly that in relation to the data, the information, that's been asked for, within the full scope of the motion that was adopted yesterday, it should be treated with respect, just as we should treat all aspects of the work we do in this committee with the utmost respect and care for the offices that we hold.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brenda Shanahan]

The next person on the list is Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Through you, Madam Chair, to the clerk if I'm able to ask, what is the precedent for this? It strikes me as a precaution that would be saved for a national security interest. I think of my honourable colleague Don Davies, who, when he was appointed, shared with me the level of security they have around those meetings.

Is there a precedent, in anybody's recent history, from the clerk's perspective, that you would lock down the ethics committee in that type of way? Has that happened here before?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brenda Shanahan]

The clerk has just told me that it's not unusual. It has been done in the past, particularly when this committee has dealt with personal or sensitive information—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But we would have no staff and no phones?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brenda Shanahan]

—and it's done—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is it done by a motion, though?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I have a a point of order on the speakers list.

No, I'm just kidding.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brenda Shanahan]

Indeed, the speakers list is moot.

Madam Chair, we just had a question from Mr. Green regarding whether this is a usual practice.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll save the agony of even going down that road and just suggest to you at this point that without having been able to confer with my colleague to be able to bind him in one way or another in terms of future meetings, I'm not comfortable moving forward with this motion and would suggest that there be a tabling of this motion until such time as we have the opportunity to confer, given that it was put here with relatively short notice, although we are in committee business.

I'll just share with the mover of the motion that I'm not comfortable at this point without conferring on where I'm going to go on this, so it would probably be in their best interest to table it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Ms. Shanahan, the floor is yours.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

The purpose of this motion is, indeed, to give us the parameters within which to deal with the request that was adopted yesterday for the documents. In fact, it is in the spirit of remarks that were made by our regular permanent member from the NDP when we adopted the Standing Orders, particularly the addition to the standing order that stipulated that any motion to go in camera should be debatable and amendable and that the committee may only meet in camera for the following purposes:

(a) to discuss administrative matters of the committee and witness selection (b) examine draft reports (c) briefings concerning national security and; (d) to discuss matters involving an individual's private information; and furthermore, minutes of in camera meetings should reflect on the results of all votes taken by the committee with the exception of votes regarding the consideration of draft report; including how each member voted when a recorded vote is requested.

I have here some of Mr. Angus's remarks from that meeting of February 19, 2020, wherein he says:

I think the intention of my colleague is fair. I think we have to trust each other that we're not going to abuse that. I'm fair with the language; I think there's an understanding here. We do not want to damage someone who has not done anything wrong but there may be information, so I think it's just fair. I'm willing to accept it. I don't think we can anticipate all the ways in which it will be used, and the language may get harder and harder, so I would agree with that. Also, I certainly think the amendment...is excellent.

I think it's in that spirit, and I certainly have seen with other committees that I participate in that the actual consultation on documents and so on is done in that way. Perhaps with the chair's permission, the clerk could speak to us about some of the ways in which the privacy of sensitive documents is safeguarded. I think that's what the motion is stipulating, so that it's very clear. Things have happened in the past, and that's part of the reason I am looking forward to having a briefing by the law clerk on what our duty of care is here, what we can and can't do. I don't think any member here wants to be treating sensitive information in a way that is harmful.

I wonder if my colleague would agree that our request for the documents—and I will ask the clerk for the email to see what the distribution looks like—should not go out if this is not resolved by the time the documents have been received by the clerk. I think we need to have clarity on how to handle these documents. Is this something that my colleague from the NDP party would agree to?

I'm sorry if I mixed up Green and NDP. I tend to do that with your name. Does that happen to you, Mr. Green, that we say you are from the Green Party?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Green is the new orange, and orange is the new green. It's all good. I've been called a lot of things.

I don't know whether I have the ability, through the chair, to respond to that or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Green, normally I would stick to the speaker's list, so I will continue with it, but you are on the list.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

The speaking list is as follows: Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Gerretsen, Mr. Scarpaleggia, Mr. Fergus, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Green.

Mr. Lloyd, the floor is yours.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

This is a very interesting topic. I don't wish to preclude any members from bringing this matter up again, but given that my colleague from the NDP isn't comfortable with the wording of this motion, as he has stated, I would move that we adjourn debate on this motion.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Chair, can we suspend for a few minutes just to caucus on this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I have a motion on the floor. I will suspend for one moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I call the meeting back to order.

A motion to adjourn the debate has been moved by Mr. Lloyd, so I will now move to a vote on that motion.

Would you like that recorded, Mr. Lloyd?Technical difficulty—Editor]

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Since we will continue to debate the motion in front of us here today as presented by Madam Shanahan, I will continue down the speakers list. The speakers list is as follows: Mr. Gerretsen, Mr. Scarpaleggia, Mr. Fergus, Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Green.

Mr. Gerretsen, the floor is yours.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I would like to raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

Yesterday, we adopted a motion as amended. The motion sets out the process for producing documents by deciding whether it would be in camera or otherwise. We decided all that yesterday.

It seems to me, Madam Chair, that it is contrary to the rules of procedure for us to go back on yesterday's decision today. I do not think we have any basis on which to continue to debate this proposal. In fact, it amounts to an amendment to yesterday's proposal, and it is too late for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'll withdraw. I don't need to speak, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, you have the floor.