Information & Ethics Committee on July 26th, 2022

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

I reject the argument that we are making accusations.

We are not accusing anyone. We simply want to shed light on facts that were presented in a report that was made public and to which the RCMP will have to respond publicly. It is a question of pure responsibility.

Details could be kept confidential, but the very essence of the study is to find out whether Pegasus was used or not. If not, we want to know what system was used, for what purposes, when and for whom. That has a direct impact on Canadians' privacy. Since this is the privacy committee, it is the ideal forum for examining the question.

The motion does not contain any accusation. Members can see an accusation in it if they want to, but it doesn't contain any, properly speaking. What it contains is a request for a study, an examination, but not an accusation.

I want to start this exercise by saying that I want to know, not that I accuse. That is very important. Members have to be careful about the vocabulary they use on this subject. To my very insistent colleague, whom I hold in very high regard, I want to clarify that no accusation is being made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I think we've exhausted the speaking list, so I will put the question on the motion to the committee.

Are there any opposed to the motion?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I'm opposed, and I request a recorded vote.

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

Isn't the question on the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm sorry. We're on the amendment.

Mr. Villemure, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For clarification, I would like a recap of what we're voting on. We have to be sure of the implications of our vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I almost lost my sense of clarity around that too, so thank you.

We are voting on the amendment to delete the second and third paragraphs. I heard a request for a recorded vote, so I'll now turn it over to the clerk for a recorded vote on the amendment to the motion.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're back to the main motion. Is there any further discussion or amendments to the main motion?

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was wondering, in that case, as we look to submit additional witnesses as is contemplated in the motion, what the timeline is for getting those names. If I wanted, for example, to invite Mr. Harper to come to talk about his involvement in AI and Pegasus, how much of a time frame would we need to make sure he's available to come to this committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Given that you've suggested the intention to do so publicly, perhaps you're giving the maximum time that could be allowed, so thank you for doing so. I would suggest that, if anybody has any other suggestions for witnesses that they've already contemplated, supply them to the clerk as soon as possible.

As always, the sooner that is done, the better. I don't see a deadline for witnesses built into the motion, and I don't believe that one is necessary. I will put it out there to all members that you will have the greatest odds of getting your witness, I think, if you give the maximum amount of time for the clerk to contact them.

I'll leave it at that, although I do see Mr. Bezan and Mr. Villemure.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I know that in some of the discussions we're having there's a concern that this is a witch hunt and maybe we should limit the information we're getting. I would suggest, because of what's been made publicly available, that Pegasus started getting used by the RCMP.... It was using spyware starting in 2018. That's what they've said. Maybe we could set that as a time limit.

We know from public information that Pegasus has been around since 2016. We may want to use those as the dates to start with and just say that the information we're looking for starts at x day until the current time so that we don't have the RCMP going back historically through a pile of records and combing through them to see how many wiretaps it's issued since the advent of the telephone. It would be a more productive use of RCMP time, and better for us, to be more focused.

I'd like to propose the amendment that all information that's been requested by the RCMP include the time frame from January 1, 2016, until present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Are you proposing this as an amendment to the motion?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Yes. It would follow after the third paragraph.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm wondering if the third paragraph, “That the committee request, by Thursday, August 4, 2022, that the RCMP provide a list of warrants obtained, if any, for each use of such software”, almost has that built in, if we're talking about software that's existed since 2016, but never mind. I point that out just for clarity.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

That's in the second paragraph. That's not in the third.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I take your point.

Well, your amendment is in order. I'm going to ask you to repeat the precise amendment you're proposing.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I'm actually going to modify that. I'll just add “for each use of such software” into the third paragraph. It would read the same way: “a list of warrants or any other information related to the wiretapping, for each use of such software, of Members of Parliament”. It's right there. It's just so we adopt the same wording that was in the second paragraph and insert into the third “for each use of such software”. I think that would cover it off well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

After the comma, where it says “Members of Parliament”—sorry. I guess it could be at the end of that sentence: “wiretapping of Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Assistants or any other employee of the Parliament of Canada, for each use of such software”.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Okay. We have an amendment that is in order.

I see Monsieur Villemure, followed by Ms. Khalid.

Go ahead, Mr. Villemure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to mention that the motion already asked that a list of witnesses be provided within seven days of the adoption of the motion. That was already included, so I don't think we need to specify it.

I'm less familiar with the procedure. Since I don't necessarily agree with the date of January 1, 2016, should I vote against the amendment or should I propose another subamendment? I'm not entirely sure how to proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I'm not using that date in the amendment to the motion. I'm just saying that “for each use of such software” should be added to the end of the third paragraph. There's no date involved. Is that clear as mud?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Just a moment on the second point....

René, thank you for clarifying.

The additional witness list in your motion is to be submitted to the clerk within seven days of the adoption of this motion. If the motion is adopted today, members will have seven days to supply the names to the clerk, but the sooner the better, as is always the case.

You're not limited. If you have a witness already in mind who you wish to call, you may do so, but that doesn't preclude you from adding witnesses afterward. Of course, the clerk will do her best to give any potential witness as much notice as possible to have the greatest possible participation in our meetings.

For discussion on the amendment, I have Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Chair, I'm just trying to understand if there is or is not a timeline on this. Are there two...? I'm sorry, but could you read what is before us? I'd appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

With regard to the witnesses, or with regard to which—