Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 26th, 2020

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

Thank you.

I moved my previous amendment in good faith. My amendment to the motion was put in good faith, as an attempt to break the logjam. If we're going to see the Liberals interfering with questions about how many days are seven days, to claim that they're being bullied over the fact that one of their own members brought forward an amendment to the motion, I think it's going to burn up a lot of goodwill.

I offered this motion and my amendment in goodwill. I would never have bothered if I had a sense that they were going to just filibuster and filibuster. Either we're going to get to this vote, or they're going to make it clear that they have no intention of working with us in trying to get this committee off the ground.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Fergus, I have one other person on the speakers list—Madame Shanahan—but you wanted to make a point regarding your amendment, so I want to give you a moment.

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

Thank you for that, Mr. Chair. I would simply say that I meant seven calendar days. I did not mean seven business days.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, then we have some clarity around that. Very good.

Madame Shanahan.

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

Mr. Chair, I think we're ready to move to a vote. I'd like to call for the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I think that is correct. I don't see anyone dissenting, so I'll leave it to the clerk for a recorded vote.

This is on Mr. Fergus' amendment, to be clear.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

The amendment has passed. Now we will return to debate on the amended main motion.

Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

My apology to Mr. Angus. I wasn't prepared to rebut my own member's amendment, and as I said, I was ready to support it. It was just that I listen to all members very carefully—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I wish to receive clarification that Mr. Fergus' amendment did pass.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Fergus' amendment did pass. We are now on the debate of the amended main motion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

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

I was saying that if we can restore some respect during our debate, that would be very, very helpful. I have more to say, but I'll surrender the floor to others to share their opinion now. I won't hold the floor any longer, Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Since Madame Shanahan is next, it reminds me that I should give the speakers list as Shanahan, Sorbara and Warkentin.

Go ahead, Madame Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I also thank those members of the committee who voted in favour of the previous amendment, which did go toward the principle that I think this committee upholds, which is operating with the good faith that, when we ask for the production of documents, not only the third parties but also our clerk and team are able to work not only in timely way but also for the safe and secure production of those documents.

Mr. Chair, you heard me earlier talking about my other major concern here with this motion now amended for the production of documents. Indeed, once they are received, they must be treated with the utmost care. Again, I think this goes to the core principles of this committee on access to information, on privacy, and on ethics that we in turn treat the private information of Canadians, regardless of their place in society, regardless of the context in which the documents were produced when they're received here, with the utmost care. To that end, I move the following amendment. Bear with me because I'm just pulling it together here.

Mr. Chair, would you like me to proceed?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, please do.

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

In order to ensure the privacy and security of Canadians, I move to amend the motion on the floor with the following text after the words “reviewed in camera”:

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.

Mr. Chair, I think I can send that text to the clerk if that's helpful, but we would need to suspend for five minutes, because I can't be on too many screens at once. I'm not good with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We have quite a number here, but I can understand why that would be a challenge, Madame Shanahan.

I will suspend for five minutes. Right now it's 12:26 in our parliamentary system, and we'll come back at 12:31.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, we're back in session now.

I will go to Mr. Sorbara to speak to the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, everyone.

I'm going to be very brief with my comments in support of the amendment.

My understanding is that this text that my friend and colleague MP Shanahan put forward was also in the amendment back in the summertime, and that's why we'd like to put it in there.

Respecting people's privacy is obviously of paramount concern to me, and the nature of these documents speak to that.

The amendment is pretty straightforward. I'm sure others will have some comments on it.

My understanding, again, is that it was agreed during the summertime in the prior motion when the committee voted on it and approved it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll now move over to Mr. Warkentin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that the amendment includes information from the former amendment. The challenge is that when this text was first presented, the committee was meeting in person and we've now moved to virtual meetings. The challenge is that it will reduce the availability of these documents to many members of the committee because of the requirement that members must go to the clerk's office or be in the same room to review these documents. I suspect this is another attempt by the Liberals to reduce the availability of these documents to committee members. The cover-up appears to continue.

I do believe that reducing the ability of members to see these documents is what in fact the Liberals are attempting to do yet again.

Therefore, I oppose this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I share Mr. Warkentin's concern about the fact that MPs on the committee who are not in Ottawa now have to put themselves at personal risk. Before I thought it was perfectly reasonable for us to have one of our legislative assistants be able to see the documents. I think aspersions made by the Liberals that these would be untrustworthy people are just not credible. However, I don't want to hold up our getting these documents any further. This was the original text that we agreed on. I do have a concern about some of my colleagues being forced to come to Ottawa to see those documents, but if it means our being able to get this thing voted on so we can actually get on with our work and have no more tactics from the governing party, then I would say I will vote in favour.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

We'll now move on to Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have read the amendment. The changes address almost all of my concerns. I still question whether or not we should have a parallel investigation by members alongside the investigation taking place right now by the Ethics Commissioner.

I still question that, but I see that the changes try to address some of the logistical, or maybe technical, differences among members of this committee. Limiting the access of these documents to members only in person shows that the committee has gone the extra mile to protect individuals' privacy and that these individuals are just like us, like public office holders and their immediate family members. As colleagues, this is sensible and reasonable to consider.

I also heard Mr. Sorbara point out that this amendment was previously brought forward and passed by the committee in the summer. We had a COVID situation back in the summer and still have it, so the circumstances in that context are pretty consistent and there is a reason we should include these measures to protect people's privacy.

I trust my staff. I discuss a lot of policy issues with my staff. I don't think the amendment has any indication that we question the loyalty or the professionalism of our staff, but it shows clearly that the committee is willing to go the extra mile to protect people's privacy. It makes a lot of sense.

I am a Toronto member. I am in Ottawa this week to do my House duty and I'll be joining some of you in the House of Commons. It's been a while. I look forward to it.

It will perhaps be a little burden on members of this committee, but in exchange each person has access to these documents while protecting people's privacy. It's the right thing to do, so I would not only voice my support for this amendment, but would also urge members to reach a consensus on the changes, or the improvement to the main motion made by putting them in this amendment. These changes definitely address one of my concerns—I listed two of them—so I am happy to see the progress that would be made by this amendment to the main motion.