Information & Ethics Committee on July 26th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We're voting on the subamendment.

I presume there's a general desire for a recorded vote, so go ahead with the vote, Madam Clerk.

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

Chair, we see that Madam Brière has logged off. I think she's having technical problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'll invite her to contact technical support, but I can't stop a vote once it's commenced. I'll have the clerk continue with the vote, and we'll hopefully get Madam Brière back on.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

Has anybody been able to find out what happened to Madam Brière?

[A voice]

The technical team is reaching out to her.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm going to carry on with the meeting because we simply don't have a lot of extra time available to lose to a technical issue like this. Hopefully she can get back on as soon as possible. I see her image appearing, so that's good.

With that, we are now on the amendment itself. Moving to the amendment as amended, I will ask the clerk to read it now for clarity on the amendment.

[The Clerk]

It's just the first line, “That the committee undertake a study of no more than 2 days beginning no later than Monday, August 8th, 2022,” and the rest remains the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

There seems to be no further discussion on the amendment, so we'll go to the vote on the amendment.

Are there any opposed to the amendment?

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

I'm sorry, Chair. My Internet went out, and I missed exactly what the wording of the motion was. I offer my sincerest apologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We are voting on the amendment as amended.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

“That the committee undertake a study of no more than 2 days beginning no later than Monday, August 8th, 2022,” and the remainder of the motion remains unchanged.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Is there discussion?

Seeing none, we'll go to the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now on the main motion as amended. Is there any further discussion on the main motion?

Ms. Khalid, please go ahead.

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

Chair, please let me know if I'm frozen on the screen. There's a lot of Internet use happening in my constituency office today and I notice that it's lagging at my end.

As I mentioned earlier, I've been having discussions with a number of our colleagues with respect to where we are going with this motion and what our objectives are.

I agree with my colleagues that it's important to hold institutions to account, but it's important to ensure that trust in public institutions is maintained at the same time. We, as committee members, are obligated and responsible for ensuring that we're walking that balance. We have great responsibility for not only protecting this public institution, but also for holding it to account. This is why I agree with the principle from Mr. Villemure and a lot of the conversations that have been happening today with respect to this debate.

I did mention to all of my opposition colleagues that if we really do want to get to the crux of what we're trying to accomplish here with the RCMP and holding them to account—and I've suggested this in an informal setting to all of the members here—the study or certain aspects of it may be better suited if they're indeed placed in NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, where classified documents can be looked at. Classified conversations can happen while still maintaining the importance of public trust in institutions and while still holding organizations like the RCMP to account.

I understand that members would like to have that conversation in a more public forum, which obviously restricts our ability to ask those classified questions, which we may not get answers to, or to receive those classified documents, which we may not receive because of the sensitive nature of this.

I have had these conversations with members of the opposition, specifically when it comes to two paragraphs in the main motion. I will move that we remove those two paragraphs from the main motion. I would love to hear all sides of this conversation in this meeting. Therefore, Chair, without further ado, I move that the main motion be amended by deleting:

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, as well as the scope of the warrants and the reasons for the monitoring;

That the Committee also request, by Thursday, August 4, 2022, a list of warrants or any other information related to the wiretapping of Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Assistants, or any other employee of the Parliament of Canada.

I would like to draw your attention to a number of issues that I think are pertinent here. One is that this is overly broad. I could go through a list of members of Parliament in the past who have had warrants against them, but the list would also include Bruce Carson, Arthur Porter, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin. There are a number of senators like Finley, Gerstein and Mike Duffy. There are Michael Sona and Jack Layton. I could continue on and on.

I really think we need to understand where we're trying to go with this. Having a list of all members of Parliament who have ever had a warrant put out for them or have gone to jail in the history of our Parliament is not going to lead to the objectives that we're trying to get to. The objective is, from my understanding—I would love for Mr. Villemure to correct me if I'm wrong—to make sure that the RCMP is respecting the privacy rights of Canadians.

It's kind of a long stretch for that to happen based on the wording of this motion.

Obviously we have the ability to add witnesses, as may be, depending on how this warrants section plays out, which is something to be considered at a later time. I also think this really hits at the crux of our public institutions and the trust in them.

I've heard members today talk about Pegasus like it was a fact of usage. I'm not saying it is or isn't. That's what this whole exercise is about. If there is information out there that members are privy to about the usage of this, I would like to know about it, because the text of the motion seems really direct—that yes, this is happening and we would like this committee to see a list of all the warrants that have been put out. To me that seems a little disingenuous in that we haven't received that information yet from the RCMP.

At the same time, I understand that we've not had a pleasant experience with the RCMP with respect to the facial recognition study that has been going on. I am in no way defending their practices. In fact, I agree with members who say the RCMP should be held to account. However, at the same time, I don't want to create a fear frenzy, or to use fear to put forward or expand partisan issues, or to have somebody's head, as other members have said to me off the record.

What I would like to see those two paragraphs removed. On principle, I would like to see that moved to NSICOP so that we can have fulsome, truthful discussions in a setting that is good for our public security, our national security, while also holding the RCMP to account. I don't think this committee is the right place for that.

Mr. Chair, given all the arguments I've made, I put it to you to let me know if my amendment is in order. I'm looking forward to debate on this from other members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Your amendment is indeed in order, so we will debate the amendment henceforth.

If you're finished, I will go to Monsieur Villemure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment that has been proposed strips the motion of any substance. There would be nothing left.

Certainly, if we transfer the investigation to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the RCMP might answer the questions a little more freely. However, as members of Parliament know, trust doesn't thrive in the shadows. If we want to maintain, increase or restore trust, we can't work in camera, in the shadows. That is impossible. It has no meaning.

Documents produced by the House of Commons confirm that the RCMP did not obtain warrants in ten or so cases. Those documents are available and the committee can consult them. I have access. They are official documents of the House of Commons.

We aren't asking for a list of all parliamentarians who have been wiretapped since the dawn of time, just since the Pegasus software started being used. We want to know what is going on, whether there is a problem. I think the two paragraphs should be kept in, because the heart of the motion is to study the possibility that the RCMP engaged in warrantless surveillance of Canadian citizens and maybe of parliamentarians. If we remove the part about warrants, we may find out who was under surveillance, but nothing more. We will not be able to find out whether the surveillance was legal or illegal. I think the amendment strips the motion of any substance. For that reason, I certainly cannot support it.

There is also another point.

We all agree to work in the public interest, and since the meeting started, we have all confirmed that. However, I see amendments being proposed by our Liberal colleagues that move us away from the public interest and aim to protect who knows what. There may be nothing blameworthy in it, and if that's the case, I will be happy to shout it from the rooftops.

However, we can't start limiting the scope, the number of witnesses or the rest of it, and hope to have the desired effect. For that reason, I would like us to work in good faith, and not try to use delaying tactics to move us away from the spirit of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Next we have Mr. Bezan.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to keep these two paragraphs intact. I do believe that, if we talk about trust in public institutions, as Ms. Khalid has presented as her argument as to why these paragraphs should be deleted, I think it actually undermines our democratic institutions. People want to know that when parliamentarians ask for the production of documents, especially from the RCMP, who, as Ms. Khalid pointed out, in our study on facial recognition technology and on their metadata monitoring that's happened in the past.... We also talk about the Public Health Agency of Canada monitoring movements of Canadians using technology.

We need to know what's happening. We have to be completely transparent here. By removing these paragraphs, it will look more like a cover-up rather than being accountable. I want to make sure that we bring this all forward. The parliamentarians and parliamentary staff, the Liberals pointed out, are all... It's public information. It's out there. People know about it.

I don't want to be undermining any active criminal investigations that are happening right now. That is something that I am cognizant of, and I don't want that information public. That's why this is going to be submitted to the committee. The committee can decide what we release to the public. I think that's covered off through the motion. I think we want to be very cautious on how we deal with it, including on issues of national security, but we don't want the RCMP to use the guise of national security or public safety as a way to pull a veil over this information and hide it from parliamentarians and ultimately the findings that we have in this committee and report back to Parliament and to Canadians in general.

Let's leave it as is. Then we can move forward on how we best discern that information and put it into our report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Chair, to be completely honest, I didn't really understand where Mr. Bezan was going with that argument. As I've said before, it's really important for us as parliamentarians to be responsible for what we're saying. It's one thing to make accusations and then recall them later. I think it's more responsible for us to actually ask these questions of the RCMP before the committee before we say, “Okay, now produce these documents.” We don't know if these documents exist.

I know that members have spoken of Pegasus, or these documents or those documents, or those warrants, like they're matters of fact. We in fact don't know that they're matters of fact. I think we are able to revisit whether or not these documents are needed after we've had those conversations in our committee, in a public setting, with the RCMP before us.

There's a second thing I want to outline about something Mr. Bezan said about the potential confidentiality of these documents being covered in the motion. I don't think the confidentiality of these documents is indeed covered in the text of the motion as it is presented before us. If that is a conversation that we need to have, then we should definitely be having it.

There is a responsibility that comes with parliamentary privilege. I think we should be very, very judicious in the accusations we make without proof, without a shred of evidence, before making these accusations or saying that this is actually a matter of fact. In reality, maybe we should be bringing in the RCMP first and saying, “All right, guys; these are our concerns.” Based on what they respond with, we can then say, “You know what? We need these documents from you guys.” Then we can discuss under what circumstance and what parameters we'd be receiving those documents.

I absolutely agree with my colleagues that we need to hold public institutions to account within that whole framework of privacy and ethics and access to information. I think we should be doing it in a more responsible way, in a more reasonable way, as opposed to whatever sticks first and then ask questions later. I think we should be asking the questions first and then requesting what documents need to be requested.

We try to be as collaborative as possible on this committee to ensure that the non-partisan important work for the protection of rights of Canadians is maintained through this committee. I hope we can continue to work in that way as these two days progress for this study specifically.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Williams is next.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, I have taken French courses in Quebec.

Mr. Villemure, I'm in your province and learning a little bit, not too much.

I want to add in a word we haven't used or heard yet, which is “regulation”. We heard about general operations, and we just came off of a study where we talked about regulations. I think, from our perspective, the whole purpose of this study is to look at regulations that may not exist at all, the use and perhaps the exploitation of privacy. That's why some of those witnesses have been called forward and the public safety minister, because that still is under his purview.

I disagree with the notion that this is a witch hunt. Our whole premise in this committee is to look at what regulations we can recommend to Parliament to protect Canadians as a whole. We've seen from the last study or two that, when technology advances, the government does not keep up with it. We do see exploitation, and we see problems with that, and that affects Canadians. That's the whole committee's work.

To that end, when we have witnesses, and we ask for certain witnesses or evidence, that evidence becomes part of what we make for recommendations to correct that and to correct any exploitation or anything else that may be perceived as happening or may be happening. I don't agree that we should be putting that aside, on a back burner or taking it away from public view. The public is absolutely entitled to see what is there.

Further to that, the premise and the background of the actual ask for this committee report is from already public information that was reported. To that end, keeping that main topic of regulation at the forefront and looking to make sure we as parliamentarians are making recommendations of regulations to protect privacy of Canadians and perhaps parliamentarians is the reason for the study. I think we need to be cognizant of that. It needs to be public in that regard so that when we make recommendations the public understands why and where they came from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Go ahead, Mr. Villemure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to correct one point. We aren't accusing anyone; we want to understand. It's not the same thing.

The statements made earlier are taken from a House of Commons document—it's on House letterhead—published on June 22, dealing with wiretaps carried out between January 1, 2020 and May 6, 2022, so it's not a witch hunt going back indefinitely into the past. In that 132-page document, a number of things are explained and we learn a lot of things. In some passages, we also learn that warrantless wiretapping was carried out. The reasons are not provided. They may be good reasons. However, for the moment, that document should be clarified, and the questions I will ask flow directly from it.

The motion therefore does not make any accusations; it allows a study to be done. It is not groundless. It is based on the report submitted to the House of Commons on June 22. We need the information requested in the motion to answer the questions raised by the document. I urge the committee to retain the two paragraphs in question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor.

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

Chair, I want to read out a portion of what I'm proposing be deleted from the motion:

That the Committee also request, by Thursday, August 4, 2022, a list of warrants or any other information related to the wiretapping of Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Assistants or any other employee of the Parliament of Canada;

To me, that is not a question. That is a statement that says, “RCMP, you have been doing this. Now show us the paper trail or the paperwork to go behind this.”

When I read this motion—and please correct me if I'm wrong—I see that this is making a statement of fact, or that's how it reads.

I again stand by what I'm saying. This is not seeming to be a fact-finding expedition. It seems like opposition members have already set their minds on what the facts are and are now looking to back them up with documents that we know are not going to be provided. We know that this is not the right forum for these conversations to happen.

Again, to the members, folks, we need to walk that fine balance. Trust in public institutions is important to Canadians. Yes, we need to hold them to account. I do not think we should be making these kinds of accusations, because that is what it reads from the motion, without first having those discussions, those conversations, with the RCMP, the people involved. Based on those discussions, we can ask for whatever documents we want. I feel that those discussions need to happen first before we make these accusatory comments about them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Villemure.