Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 7th, 2020

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Before the witness leaves.... I'm honestly very confused by the motion that we're going to vote on because I'm not sure if the witness said a clear no and refused to turn over those documents, which would make the motion necessary. I don't see it as necessary if the witness is willing to offer these documents. I'm just a little confused.

Through you, I just want to clarify with the witness whether he's okay or not okay to respond to Monsieur Gourde's request.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's a very good point, Mr. Dong.

Before Mr. Daraiche leaves, we will ask him if he's okay to voluntarily comply with the request.

[Martin Daraiche]

Mr. Chair, we'll wait until we see the motion, if a motion is carried.

As I said earlier, the document to which the member referred contains sensitive trade information. If the committee agrees that we should send a document, the committee can forward the motion to us and we'll look at it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

The witnesses can be excused. Again, go with our thanks and our apologies for any unintended consequences.

We'll suspend again.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Gaudreau, go ahead with your comments again, now that we're back in session.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I carefully read the motion moved, which corresponds exactly to Mr. Gourde's wording. Given where we are and all the time we've had, we're ready to vote now. I, for one, am ready to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I appreciate the motion because I was very confused this morning when I was trying to get an answer. It's nothing against NATIONAL PR. I just want to get clarification because they said their job was communications and media, which is very different from doing actual outreach and building the organizations in Quebec. However, at the August 13 meeting of the finance committee, WE said:

NATIONAL PR was hired to assist us in the process to reach out to francophone and Quebec organizations especially in the area of engagement of not-for-profit organizations.

By that it seems that they had a very specific mandate of doing the outreach, but when we were told they were there for communications and media, which makes sense because they're a media company, there's a gap that I'd like explained.

I understand that they were only involved for a month, but when only 4% of the young people who signed up were from Quebec, something went wrong. I don't think this was probably something that went wrong on NATIONAL PR's end, but I'd like to know what they were mandated for. We have to understand why, in the space of a month, 96% of the people who signed up came from other parts of Canada and only 4% came from Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Shanahan.

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

Chair, I wonder, because you had made it clear earlier that any documents that would be submitted to us would be treated with the same care and confidentiality, and so on. Therefore, I am suggesting a friendly amendment regarding the same type of in camera consultation of the documents that we had for the Speakers' Spotlight documents. Would staff be permitted to see them? I would say it would be members only, as we had before. Will electronic devices be banned and so on?

Again, this seems to be a rush job. We're having trouble between the English and the French. What are “any communications”? What does that mean? What types of documents are we talking about in that case?

I feel that this is rushed. In another way. I certainly don't want to stand in the way of the committee receiving any documents that we would want to have for our consultation. Therefore, I am looking for some further discussion with colleagues on this issue before we vote.

Chair, is that what you were intending, that the documents would be consulted in camera?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We had a specific motion around Mr. Perelmuter's documents, which listed out a bunch of things. Generally when we request documents, we would guard any trade secrets exactly the same as we did with Mr. Perelmuter's.

Clerk, please correct me if I'm not right.

As Mr. Angus has just said, anything that pertains to the management of the WE contract is obviously what members want to have access to and is part of the evidence that they're concerned about. That would be generally the way I would see them manage that. Any trade secrets that would harm the business, we would obviously treat exactly as we treated the documents from Speakers' Spotlight.

In regard to operations, on the specific issue, that would be part of our general evidence.

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

Does that need to be included in the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No. It's on record right now that it would be the way we would manage it. In this case, because there are trade secrets, I think having only the members view it would be acceptable, unless Mr. Gourde or some other member of the committee has a problem with that.

I'll go to Mr. Dong now, who has his hand up, and then I have Mr. Fergus and Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Chair.

To my colleague, Mr. Angus, I am not trying to obstruct the process. I'm just purely trying to get some clarification because it seems to me that every time I raise my hand to speak, that's the label I get.

I have some questions similar to those Madame Shanahan asked. Listening to your explanation, I get it. It's on record. The question is this: Who's going to make that judgment on whether or not they're trade secrets? Are we allowing the witness to make that judgment for parts that would be for MPs' eyes only and others are more a general pile of evidence? I want to make sure, because it's not covered in this motion. As well, there is no specific time frame. I see that it has to do with the WE organization. I want to make sure of that. There's no specific time frame.

I'm okay with it. I'm just raising with my colleagues whether that needs to be considered. Judging from what the chair was saying, we're giving that judgment power to the presenter or the witness to make a determination on what documents fall under trade secrets and which are for MPs' eyes only, no electronic devices, the same parameters we set to protect those documents in our previous or larger motion. I want to clarify that and make sure of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, what you'd said before Mr. Dong's comments, if that's the procedure, then I'd feel very comfortable with that. I do believe that we should extend the same courtesy to NATIONAL as we extended to Mr. Perelmuter and Speakers' Spotlight.

If Mr. Dong's interpretation of your comment is correct, then I'm quite happy to go to a vote immediately

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

MP Angus.

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

One of the reasons we put all these parameters on the first set of documents was that we were told we shouldn't be dealing with the Trudeau family, and these were individuals.

I think it's a different thing when we're dealing with a contract and a mandate about how the federal government contract was going to be spent. I am very wary about saying we could only see it without staff. It's something we should be able to discuss in camera and then decide if it belongs in our committee report. If it has to do with the mandate of what they were given and what they were supposed to deliver, we have to be able to report whether they were asked to this job and it didn't seem to have been done.

On the issue of trade secrets, I think that would be very specific.

As for emails with names, if they're people who are involved directly with WE, we want to know. Who were the civil servants? We want to know. We can block out their email addresses. I think maybe it could be done, if the clerk can do it, but I'm very wary of saying nobody else is allowed and we have to have this top secret agenda.

That wasn't what was done with the finance documents. They were turned over to finance and the government redacted many, but I think we have to have a reasonable approach to this. I say we look at it in camera and decide. Considering our respect for the privacy laws and the fact that as the privacy committee we have to respect those, I think I can trust my colleagues that we can agree to do this in a proper manner However, we have to be able to report on whether there's something in that mandate that should have been dealt with or shouldn't have been dealt with. We have to be able to put that in the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to suggest an amendment. I'd like to move an amendment that the words “the federal government” be removed and that the words “that by Members only with no recording devices be present in the room” be added after the words “in camera”.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to make a comment.

We'll certainly be delayed. However, I'm against the idea of amending my motion. If there's any type of communication between the three organizations, I want to know about it. I understand that Ms. Shanahan wants to protect the government. That said, I think that we should stick to the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

The amendment to the motion has been moved. Mr. Gourde has just spoken to it. Are there any other comments on the amendment?

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I thank my colleague MP Shanahan for putting forward that amendment. If it's the will of the committee, could we vote on Ms. Shanahan's amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Dong, did you want to speak?

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

It's exactly what Mr. Sorbara said. I'm ready to vote.