Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 13th, 2022

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate the opportunity.

I want to take this moment to welcome all the members back. I'm sure that many of us would be on our other work in our constituencies, but here we are, given the timing and the sensitivity of the issue.

Mr. Chair, you'll note that I've stayed relatively quiet throughout this debate. I'm really keenly interested in the substantive points of debate from the members around the table.

I will ask this, though: In following up on Mr. Kurek's comments around points of order, I've experienced this in other committees, so I would ask, through you, in consultation with the clerk, and referencing House of Commons Procedure and Practice in chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”, that at some point in the near future, you as the chair provide all members of this committee with a clear and defined example of what does and doesn't constitute a point of order.

You'll note that the second paragraph under chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”, states, “Although Members frequently rise claiming a point of order, genuine points of order rarely occur.” It's been my experience in past committees that points of order are used to disrupt proceedings and jump the line. Very rarely, when asked what their actual point is, does a member's point actually align with what we have in our Standing Orders.

Rather than see that be used as attacking this committee, I would ask, for the purpose and expediency of our debates, that a clear definition be provided to all members, sir, and that, through you as the chair, when a point of order is raised by a member of this committee, they actually state the point of order they're raising rather than launch into debates or other kinds of tactics that might cause a delay in the proceedings of this committee. I think if we can clear that up, then we'll know, on a move-forward basis, what actually defines a point of order and what doesn't. Hopefully, it will then be used in instances that are genuine.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to make that request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Green. You make some excellent points, and this is something that is—

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

On a point of order—no, I'm only kidding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

All right, there is no point of order from Mr. Brassard.

That being the case, I have Ms. Saks next.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague Mr. Green. These are challenging times for all of us on Zoom and in hybrid meetings, and, Mr. Chair, I appreciate your taking all of this feedback and ensuring that we have successful debates that are respectful and that everyone is heard. I see today as a learning curve for all of us as we begin to work together, and I look forward to the debate as we go forward.

Mr. Brassard expressed concern about ensuring there are witnesses, and I'd like to emphasize that there is consensus here among all of us that this is an important issue that needs to be explored and that witnesses do need to appear.

I'd also like to make it clear that ministers are currently working extremely hard for Canadians in the middle of the fifth wave of this crisis and that we care deeply about the safety and health of Canadians right now and that we want to make sure there is a focus on this important issue. Our ministers, who are doing the day-to-day work that needs to be done, and their departmental officials and support teams, are really doing the work that needs to be addressed because Canadians are anxious and concerned about their safety and well-being and privacy.

During this fifth wave, indigenous communities are being crippled. Major urban centres, like my riding of York Centre in particular, are seeing tremendous numbers during this wave, and we need to balance that out. We need to make sure we are answering these important questions in a timely manner and also ensuring the confidentiality of these motions as they're presented and debated and discussed here. We also need to ensure that we work as much as possible with consensus and unanimity to ensure that the witnesses we need are here to answer those tough questions and to serve Canadians during this crisis time.

I appreciate and want to thank my colleague Ms. Khalid for suggesting that we start with, as key witnesses, Minister Duclos for Health Canada, and perhaps other witnesses, and Dr. Tam from PHAC or someone else who can speak to PHAC's decisions, so that we start the conversations and ensure there is a focus on the immediacy of the crisis and we make sure we do the thorough study that is needed.

I'd just like to express, at least from where I sit here in Toronto and also in the committee, that we truly want to open the door of this discussion together, as a committee, to make sure we answer the tough questions that are being asked by Mr. Brassard and by the members of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Next I have Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Given that this isn't a point of order, I'll make a couple of very brief remarks.

I believe expedience on this issue is incredibly important. I think—at least I hope—that there is a willingness by all members to ensure that this issue is dealt with in a timely manner.

Over the course of the last couple of months and over the course of the entire pandemic, many constituents and folks from across Canada have shared their concerns with me about the privacy of their information. When some of the news articles broke about how mobile data was being collected by the Public Health Agency of Canada and what that looked like, I heard a lot of feedback suggesting that Canadians want answers on this issue. They want to know what steps were taken. They want to know exactly what the decision-making process looked like. Who was responsible? What processes were or were not in place to ensure that their information was safeguarded, especially, as has been mentioned, in a world where, increasingly, tech and online data and whatnot....

We've seen headlines around the world about users' online information being misused. There is a need for clarity so that Canadians can trust their government. This is really an issue of trust, of ensuring that Canadians can trust that their government was not taking liberties with their information, especially at a time when, I would suggest, there has been a significant erosion of the trust that is needed for a government to effectively operate.

Those are more general comments. I thank you for indulging me on that.

Specifically to the amendment, we Conservatives have discussed that we would be willing to move forward with the amendment that Ms. Hepfner has brought forward. However, I hope that she would be open to a friendly amendment to the amendment. Instead of adding the date of January 14, I would suggest that it be replaced with “the day following the adoption of the motion”. It's perfectly in line with what I hope the spirit of the amendment is and just adds a bit of flexibility to ensure that this can be processed in a manner that respects both the committee members' time and, of course, the witnesses' time.

I can't see her on the screen right now. Is there a willingness for that friendly amendment? With that, I think the Conservatives would be—

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

If I may—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

—there truly is not such a thing. You can move a subamendment or, by unanimous consent, her amendment—

[The Clerk]

It would be a subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

If it were the will of the committee by unanimous consent, could the amendment be amended, or does it need to be moved as a subamendment...?

I'm sorry. I'm going from addressing the committee to addressing the clerk in midstream. Give me one moment.

The only way to address this is going to be with a subamendment. Is this a subamendment now, Mr. Kurek?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Even though this amendment changes the witness list somewhat, as members of the official opposition we've been heartened to hear the comments from Ms. Khalid that suggest that if we don't get the answers that Canadians are expecting from this study, there is a willingness from the Liberals—and, I hope, from the rest of the committee—to make sure that we call those who would be responsible and who are able to give all of those answers.

I would move a subamendment that would simply replace the words “January 14” in the amendment with “the day following the adoption of the motion”.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

The subamendment is in order.

Resuming discussion on the subamendment, I have Mr. Fergus next on my speakers list.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have to say again, I feel very encouraged when we all work together.

The subamendment moved by Mr. Kurek seems quite reasonable to me, so I hope it will pass. The problem with attending a meeting in hybrid mode is that you can't feel the atmosphere. I would imagine that consensus is building to adopt Mr. Kurek's subamendment, Ms. Hepfner's amendments and Mr. Brassard's amended main motion. I feel that is a good thing.

I hope the members attending in person will confirm this, but I believe we can move quickly to adopt the subamendment and the amendments. That way we can begin our work, which is very important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

I have no more hands up. To be clear, is there anybody who wishes to speak to the subamendment?

There being no other speakers on the subamendment, we will proceed to the vote. Until someone requests a recorded vote, I will proceed by asking if there's anybody opposed to the subamendment.

I will do so now. Is anyone opposed to the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Seeing no hands up and no one in the room, we will go to the vote on the amendment. Are there any members opposed to the amendment?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I'm opposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Villemure is opposed.

If there is nobody else opposed, I will declare the amendment carried—

It's been pointed out to me that in the absence of unanimous consent, we must go to a recorded vote, which I will ask the clerk to do now.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Can I get clarification on just what the amendment is, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Yes. I will allow the clerk—

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

First let me address Mr. Brassard. I think it's valid that we clarify the amendment we are voting on, and I'll ask the clerk to do so.

[The Clerk]

The subamendment was agreed to. The subamendment was to replace “January 14” with “the day following the adoption of the motion”. Therefore the amendment, as amended by the subamendment, would be that in paragraph (a), following the word “statement”, the word “immediately” before “following the adoption of this motion” would be deleted.

Then in paragraph (b), after the word “Health”, the words “and the Minister of Indigenous Services” would be removed, and following “including five-minute opening statements”, the words “from each, immediately following the appearance referred to in paragraph (a)” would be removed.

In paragraph (c), as amended by the subamendment, instead of “Friday, January 14”, the wording there would be “the day following the adoption of the motion”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Madam Clerk, for clarifying that.

I have a point from Monsieur Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I will plead beginner's ignorance. I didn't follow the voting process properly and I was in favour of the amendment. I had mixed up the amendments.

I sincerely apologize to the committee.