Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 26th, 2020

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in the last few days. In fact, at the outset, I sensed a unanimous willingness to shed light on this, and a compromise was proposed to allow us to move forward. I can see today that we will be ready, and I hope so, because there are people waiting for us to look at issues that affect them as well, such as fraud and privacy, among others.

By the way, I won't take much time this morning because I'm ready to vote on the amendment. I just want to point out to the clerk that motions have been tabled. I sent three other motions several weeks ago, even before the committee was reconstituted, and I sent them back afterwards. I don't know if I have to do it again, so I'd like to know what their status is.

One of these motions concerns measures to prevent conflicts of interest. This is something that is very relevant for the future. Another motion asks the committee to undertake a study of the commissioner's powers and make recommendations. We talked about this for hours. Finally, the last motion, which was discussed in the last session, is about the need to end the correlation of social insurance numbers and to find ways to protect the identity of our citizens.

I just want to make sure it's still on the agenda. I'm ready to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Madame Gaudreau. Of course, we have to dispose of the amendment and the motion first before we get into.... There are lots of motions on notice that we have to deal with, but we will.

Now we'll go to Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can you hear me all right?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Not all right; we can hear you, but it's quite broken right now.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

I'm just working on some connectivity issues here. I think I'll allow the next speaker to go ahead of me—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Madame Gaudreau, on a point of order.

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

I want to make sure that I get an answer to my question about the motions that were tabled beforehand. Perhaps the clerk could answer me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Is your question, Madame Gaudreau, whether or not you have three additional motions that you've tabled? Okay.

I will ask the clerk to check on that. We'll let you know how many have been tabled. I know you had tabled one motion and that we began a debate and the debate was adjourned on the one motion. We'll get back to you on the total very shortly.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Warkentin, am I correct that you want me to pass over you and come back to you once your connectivity issues are dealt with?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

Then we'll move on to Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members. I enjoy listening to all of your input, whether on the main motion or on the amendment.

Over and over again I hear from opposition members that there is a need to vote. I almost feel as if I'm being rushed into making a decision on the main motion; there's such a hurry and rush. I want to remind the members that it is through debate that we listen and share our individual perspectives on the motion on the floor, and then we consider it.

Sometimes we act to improve the motion through amendments for it to best fit the mandate of this committee. In fact, we've seen from Mr. Angus that this is true. I think all of our points are being heard, whether we're in the opposition party or are government members. Our points are being considered.

Debate is very important. No members of this committee should feel they're being rushed into voting or into being on the record taking a position on a motion without being properly heard or completely understanding the motion.

I go back to my main point about my concerns regarding the original motion, which is not only about the time frame of 24 hours, but also about opening up access not just to members but also to staff. All of the safeguards from the previous motion in July have not been kept in this new motion. I kept asking these questions in the last few meetings, and I have not heard any solution put forward to address them.

I'm very pleased that Mr. Angus' amendment is going to address at least one of the four main concerns I had, which is to leave Margaret and Alexandre out of this motion. I think that's the sensible thing to do. It's a result of the debate by committee members that we come to this step today. I'm very pleased with this.

Going forward, obviously I'm going to support that amendment, and I urge all members of the committee to support it as well. I think it's much better for the committee's work if we can try to reach a consensus, and I know that the chair works really hard to get us there. Yes, I'm pleased with the amendment, but there are other parts of the main motion that I still feel need to be addressed. These are quite important points to protect one's privacy and also to make sure it's possible for the motion to be executed by those involved.

With that, I want to voice my support for and urge all members to support this amendment. I think it's a good improvement to the main motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dong.

I will go to Mr. Fergus now.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I would like to express my support for this amendment. It is not perfect, and I would have proposed some changes. However, I think Mr. Angus moved this motion in good faith. It deserves the consideration and support of this committee. It allows us to continue our work more effectively.

I must also say that I had some concerns, in that we should not get into the habit of investigating our colleagues. However, we have to accept this situation, since some members of the committee are totally committed to this bad idea. I participated in a little debate with my colleagues Mr. Barrett and Mr. Angus, I believe, a few weeks ago on the radio. I gave the example of an argument with a neighbour. In such a situation, the neighbour's husband or wife is not asked to act as an arbitrator. Rather, one turns to a third party, who is impartial and has no vested interest in the outcome.

Despite everyone's good will—that of all my honourable colleagues—the temptation to play our cards right and seek political advantage is enormous, if not irresistible. People will pursue their own interests instead of thinking about the interests of all members of Parliament, not only current members of Parliament, but also those of future generations. That is why I insist that we should give this responsibility to the Ethics Commissioner, quite simply.

Having said that, I don't want to sacrifice the good for the ideal. So I'm in a situation where I have to choose between two evils. I will certainly choose the evil that is less far-reaching. So I commend Mr. Angus for proposing this amendment.

Today, Mr. Barrett began his remarks by saying that we had debated the main motion in committee for 15 hours. That's funny, because it took him several minutes to express his opinion, while the clock was ticking. Also, at our last meeting, which ended unexpectedly, Mr. Angus moved his amendment. Several members of the official opposition then took a long time to express their opinion on this amendment. They did so until the end of the meeting, which was 20 minutes early because of a technical problem.

I assure you that I will vote in favour of this amendment. When everyone has had a chance to make their point, I hope we can proceed to the vote. I implore my colleagues from each political party to vote in favour of this amendment so that our vote will be unanimous on this. Then we can move on to the main motion. I hope that we will take the time to consider this properly so that we can then make a decision.

In closing, I would like to remind you that Ms. Gaudreau has tabled several other motions in the past. I am not only talking about recent motions, but also motions that are several months old. I consider them to be very important, since they concern facial recognition and the software that enables the development of this technology. A lack of guidance on this issue could cause a lot of trouble for many Canadians. I hope we will have the opportunity to look into it. In order to do so, I recognize that we must first deal with the motions that are now before us. With time and good faith, I am confident that we will be able to deal with this issue. It is truly in the best interests of Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fergus.

We're now going to double back to Mr. Warkentin. I see he is back on the screen, and we'll see if he has some good audio and give him the opportunity to speak to this amendment.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

This is very good.

Mr. Chair, I do believe, having heard Mr. Fergus' demand for us to move expeditiously on this, that I wouldn't want to take up as much time as he did in delaying this vote.

I would suggest that we move to a vote. There have been day after day after day of delays by the Liberals on this motion and the amendment. I would suggest that maybe we move expeditiously now to the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I canvassed the committee before. There are three speakers left: Madame Shanahan, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Dong, who is back on the list.

Is there any consensus to move to the vote right now, colleagues?

No, there is no consensus, Mr. Warkentin.

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

On a point of order, my understanding is that we have an amendment on the floor and that the amendment has not been voted on yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's correct.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

That's what I am suggesting we vote on.

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

I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Warkentin's suggestion is on the amendment, and not on the main motion.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Chair, I may not have been clear. If I was not clear I would suggest that we move on—

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

I'm sorry, Chair, but there are still sound issues.