Information & Ethics Committee on April 16th, 2024

Evidence of meeting #112 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Main Estimates 2024-25: Vote 1 under Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, Vote 1 under Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Vote 1 under Office of the Senate Ethics Officer, Votes 1 and 5 under Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Konrad von Finckenstein Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Melanie Rushworth Director, Communications, Outreach and Planning, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Sandy Tremblay Director, Corporate Management, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Nancy Bélanger Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada

1 p.m.

Liberal

Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You are right; we would be dealing with a series of recommendations. However, that series of recommendations comes from the testimony the committee heard. I wasn't a member of the committee then. This is my third meeting and there's a bit of déjà vu, because I think we had this exact conversation when Mr. Villemure brought it up at my first meeting last week.

I'm very much supportive of what my colleague MP Khalid said about not shelving this. Certainly, Mr. Chair, no one sees you as trying to shelve anything. This is an interesting conversation.

We as a committee decided just last week that we would program this on Thursday as a continuation of the report. I'm 60 pages in and I plan to do my best to get the full 103 pages in. I would like to see us go forward with what the committee decided just a week ago today.

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Brassard

I appreciate that.

What's changed is the formality of the letter that we received from ISED. That's what has changed the discussion a bit—

1 p.m.

Liberal

Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

However, it won't change the recommendations or the testimony that was heard by the committee.

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Brassard

You're correct.

Mr. Green, go ahead, please.

1 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

I don't know—I feel like my Liberal friends doth protest too much. I think Mr. Villemure's motion is a rational motion. I don't see it as being an issue. When new information is presented to committee, particularly of this formal nature, it's something we should take into consideration.

The report is in our hands, ultimately, as a committee. We can decide to adopt additional information into our reporting. We can decide to recall witnesses. We can do all of those things. Given the complexity of this, there's value in addressing or at least acknowledging the work that's being done there.

For that reason, I support Mr. Villemure's motion. I don't see any downside at all at this point in doing the prudent thing and waiting to see what comes out of that.

I'm happy to see this go to a vote if there's no consensus.

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Brassard

Thank you for that, Mr. Green.

I don't see any further discussion. Do we have consensus? No.

We're going to a vote on the motion. The motion is to wait until the ISED report on the national security review comes out, and then to continue on with our report at that time.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That will change our scheduling for Thursday a bit. We have the Information Commissioner, and the notice will be published soon.

Seeing no other business, I am going to adjourn this meeting. Thank you to all who made it happen.

Have a good afternoon, everyone.

The meeting is adjourned.