Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, sure. Just let me finish speaking, and I'll certainly recognize you.

We're circulating the mandate now—thank you very much, Clerk—to everyone via their P9 accounts, but I will reassert that any committee can recommend anything they like, whether it's within the purview of the mandate or not, as long as there's consensus on the committee to do that.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Dong?

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Yes. I respectfully disagree with MP Angus' assertion there a bit, because we do have new members on this committee. I remember when I was a new member here, and I tried to understand. It's not a matter of whether or not we've done homework, because we are talking about a continuation of motions, suggestions and decisions made in the previous session, so I think it's only fair to constituents and new members to help them make informed decisions on whether to vote yes or no on various issues. I think it's not a matter of doing homework; it's a matter of respect for members.

Thank you.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

After I presented the motion, Chair, I wasn't afforded the opportunity to speak to it, so just very quickly, being very respectful of your time and members' time, if it pleased all members of the committee that an amendment was made to my motion that any MP or staff member could review the documents in the clerk's office, as opposed to electronic distribution, and if all members were amenable to that, and if this could come to a vote in the next 10 minutes, then I would be pleased to amend my motion to that effect.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

If I cut you off, you have my sincere apology. I thought you had finished your motion and I went on to discussion.

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

I always have more to say, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm getting that message. Thank you.

Madam Lattanzio, were you motioning that you wanted to say something?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I was. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not speaking to the last amendment made by Mr. Barrett. I just wanted to chime in with my comments as a new member of this committee. I'm all for efficiency and I'm all for moving along, but I think, colleagues, you need to appreciate that there are two new members on this committee.

Decisions were made in the previous mandate of this committee, and discussions and motions took place that I was not a part of. I understand the scope of Mr. Barrett's motion. I have no issue with whatever motions come through this committee, but I think it would be incumbent upon us to give ourselves a chance to look at them and study them.

If I heard correctly, Mr. Barrett moved to adjourn my colleague Gaudreau's motion because it merited time to be studied. There's a consideration here in terms of private individuals, private documents, and I think that it wouldn't be fair to move in such a very quick fashion without giving us the opportunity to look at it, at least from my perspective, and at least get a sense of where all this is coming from and get a little bit of the history behind this motion.

I wasn't privy to any of those conversations. I came prepared today with the motions that I wanted to present, the mandate of this committee. These are the prepared documents that I have. I have no information, no document, that would make me understand or help me in voting on at least the next motion that my colleague, Mr. Barrett, has put on the floor this morning.

For all those reasons, just as my colleague Barrett decided to adjourn debate on my colleague Gaudreau's motion, I would move that we adjourn debate on his motion and give me at least the opportunity to look at it and come prepared to the next committee meeting to take an enlightened decision on his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Lattanzio.

By the way, there are three of us who are brand new. I'm also brand new, but there's been a motion now to adjourn debate on Mr. Barrett's motion.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adjourn debate?

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

Could we have a recorded vote, please, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There has been a request for a recorded vote on the motion to adjourn debate on Mr. Barrett's motion, so I'll leave the work to the clerk once more.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

Nay.

[The Clerk]

There are five for and five against, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

As I mentioned earlier, unless there are extenuating circumstances, the chair generally goes with the status quo.

(Motion negatived)

The status quo is that the motion is on the floor right now. We will continue.

The next person I have on the list is Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you—

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

Excuse me, Chair. I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We have a point of order from Madam Shanahan.

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

Could you clarify if are we speaking to the amendment or to the subamendment? What are we speaking to now?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I think Mr. Barrett had suggested a friendly amendment to his motion, if that was more palatable, and so I suspected that there was consensus on the committee in that regard, because it was one of the concerns that everybody had voiced. We're presently speaking to the amendment.

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

Could you clarify the speaking order? I put myself back on the list for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. You are next.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to try and bring together Madam Shanahan's original concerns, which I think should be very, very important for us to consider.

When we asked for these documents, we did have a major discussion. I'm sorry if new members didn't read up on it, but the major issue was to make sure these documents were handled properly. The agreement was they would be kept in the clerk's office, and I think that remains a very important principle.

What I think is important about Mr. Barrett's friendly amendment is that they would remain in the clerk's office, but because we are now meeting virtually and some members in different parts of the country may not be able to travel, the only people who would be able to see the clerk's documents—and Mr. Barrett may correct me if I'm wrong—is the MP on the committee or their designated staff, a single designated person who would represent the member of Parliament and who would be able to go to the clerk's office.

We've had that in other previous committees. This would then limit access so that we're not actually putting these documents online and we're not sending them out virtually, but for a member of Parliament.... For example, if I can't leave northern Ontario to see the documents, my privilege would be interfered with, but if I designate a particular member of my staff to go, that person could go and see the documents and report back to me. The documents would not be available virtually or put out in public. I think it would show that our whole committee understands the importance of respect of privacy and also of accountability.

That's my understanding of Mr. Barrett's friendly amendment to his motion. If that's it, then I am ready to vote on this so that we can get on and get ready for question period.

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

I am concerned that in the friendly amendment, the wording is not exact enough. I think that it's the reason that I asked for the suspension earlier and why we asked for the adjournment on this debate. It's because we would like to look at it more carefully.

I was able to find the in camera...the privacy motion that we passed this summer, and I'd like to read that out so people can understand that there was much thought put into this. It was passed by this committee.

It was as follows:

“That, in relation to the motion passed on Wednesday, July 22, 2020, to ensure the privacy and security of this personal information of Canadians, the committee adopt the following procedures for the handling of these documents:

“That the documents not be emailed to Members, staff or anyone else;

“That for the consideration of the documents during in-camera meetings, numbered, paper copies be provided to committee members by the Clerk at the start of any meeting at which they will be considered, and that they be returned to the Clerk at the end of the meeting;

“That no staff and no mobile or electronic devices be allowed for the duration of the in camera meeting;

“That the documents be held in the Clerk's office, and that outside of in-camera committee meetings, Members may only view the documents in the Clerk's office and that no mobile or electronic devices may be in the room when the documents are being reviewed.”

This, I think, shows the thought that went into this, and I understand that we have even the added difficulty, of course, of not all members being able to be here, which is why I would like more thought to be put into this motion and into the subamendment, the amendment to the motion.

I respectfully ask all committee members to keep this in mind. What we do here will affect individuals. I don't think it's the wish of anybody here to inadvertently hurt individuals who, as I said earlier, through no fault of their own, have been brought into this situation.

I don't know how to address the issue of staff. I'd like to understand who that staff would be. Are they bound in the same way that we would be? Do they have “secret” clearance? I think these are serious issues that need to be considered, and likely not just for this motion, but for anything else, for any other committee work where we deal with confidential documents, as we do from time to time.

For that reason, I cannot support the amendment proposed by Mr. Barrett.

Thank you.