Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to third party confidential information, it depends on what they are willing to disclose, as Mr. Drapeau said earlier. At our meeting on October 17, Mr. Guay said he was willing to disclose all the information requested. So I don't see how that would apply.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the timeline and November 14, I think that's a lot of time. That's three weeks. Depending on the volume of documents that we're dealing with, it could take some time in translation. I understand that's going to be a bit of a bottleneck that we'd be dealing with.

I have a question for the clerk, Mr. Chair, on documents requested of the government and whether the expectation is that those come translated. I'm not clear on that. When we give a production request or order to the government, if that motion is passed and it's for November 14, do the documents come from the government translated on the 14th? Is that the expectation? Otherwise, if they're coming from a private business, they're likely to provide them in their working language, and then translation would engage. Is my understanding correct on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's a question I'll ask the clerk. It's a good one.

[The Clerk]

Thank you. The expectation usually is that they are provided to us right away in the two official languages from the government.

Private entities don't have to provide the translation. We do it. When it comes from departments, usually the expectation is that they will provide it to us in the two languages.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

To follow up on that, we're dealing with three weeks, which is four weeks after that initial testimony. As Mr. Villemure rightly pointed out, Mr. Guay did say at that time that he was prepared to provide us with that information.

We're also likely going to lose, for lack of a better word, a week in translation. I'll invite you to correct me if I'm wrong on that, Mr. Chair. We wouldn't even get to public discussion or distribution amongst committee members of those documents until November 21. That's a lot of water under the bridge between now and then. I wouldn't have an appetite to go past the 14th of November.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Ms. Khalid is next.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I really appreciate that clarification. That was an excellent point by Mr. Barrett.

I still respectfully feel that as we are continuing this ATIP study, there is no time lost. We all unanimously voted at the last meeting or the one before that to end that study and to not continue with it, so I don't see there being a sense of urgency with respect to collecting these documents or to putting out a report. In fact, if we all felt that there was more here, I think that we would not have unanimously agreed to end that study.

Perhaps in the interest of not putting undue pressure on Mr. Guay and to ensure that departments are able to get us the documents we need, I would propose that we delay the document request until the end of the month of November, or whatever is good for Mr. Villemure on that front.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just to be clear, are you moving that as an amendment to Mr. Villemure's motion?

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

No, sir, I am not. I'm very humbly asking Mr. Villemure if he will perhaps take that as a friendly amendment to his main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll go to Mr. Villemure in a second.

On the issue of the meeting, yes, you are correct that the committee decided no further studies were required, but the document request is still in play. What Mr. Villemure is trying to do is to put a date to it.

I hear what you're saying about November 30. I'll turn it over to Mr. Villemure to see if he will accept that. If not, we'll either have further discussion or we'll agree to the date.

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

I can't accept the date, because I don't want to assume that someone is simply not capable of responding. The request must be made according to our instructions, and if there is an issue, it will be raised in due course by the person. We will not presume to know their response.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Again, so that I'm clear, you're proposing November 14. Is that correct?

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

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That is the proposal that is on the table right now.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Kurek, do you have anything to add on the date?

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

No.

The testimony referenced in the discussion in the first hour of this meeting talked a lot about reasonable deadlines. I think one should acknowledge that this request was made during the testimony that took place at the last meeting. When it came to the motion that was passed, I think it was made very clear to this committee that it was to adjourn debate on the study, pending the production of some of the very relevant documents that will allow this committee to chart a path forward. Getting these documents, I think, is vital for the future work of this committee.

That request was made at that meeting. I hope that it was taken seriously at the time. Certainly it would suggest a bigger issue if it wasn't. However, I think Mr. Villemure in his motion has rightly said, as we've faced some challenges in this committee before by not having absolute clarity in things like document requests and whatnot.... I appreciate the discussion around timelines and translations. That's all very important.

I think it's quite reasonable to expect these in a time frame that would allow the committee to make a determination on a path forward. The next steps, of course, will be to determine whether the committee is satisfied, and the report is produced and things move on. If there is something that requires more digging into, it's up to the committee. All of us around this table are collectively able to determine that path forward.

Being reasonable, we shouldn't expect that the maximum deadline is always what's required. As I mentioned, I hope the request was initially taken seriously. This information should be available in an expeditious manner.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Over my past seven years here as a parliamentarian, sitting on various committees, I've seen that departments do indeed take committee requests very seriously, as they should. I think we heard directly from the departments and witnesses that they would be providing the documents we have requested. I just want to make sure that we give them reasonable time to be able to make those productions.

For example, for Mr. Guay, it's a private entity; if we're asking him to produce a report on the use of the Hotel Saint-Bernard, does he have that time? Does he have the time to translate it? Do we have ample time to translate it before the committee circulates it?

Proposing the date to be a little bit further into the month has nothing to do with giving more leniency to the departments or to the people who should be fulfilling their promise to provide the documents that they have indeed already promised this committee. My concern is the practicality of it, to ensure that we are not putting undue pressure or unreasonable timelines on people who may not be able to meet those deadlines. I don't want to put our witnesses in a position of having those unreasonable timelines forced on them.

Having said that, I realize that the committee is not unanimous on moving it to the end of November. I understand and appreciate Mr. Villemure's leniency on November 14, that we're okay to go with that, but I do think that we need to clarify specifically what documents we are requesting. For example, there's the report on the use of Hotel Saint-Bernard. If that is specifically being expected from Mr. Guay, then I think the motion should say that. I don't anticipate that any of these witnesses would be able to provide all three or any one. I just think it's better to have clarity.

As we work through this motion, perhaps we could iron out and clarify exactly from whom we expect what documents, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Are we okay? Are we clear on November 14 being the date, and then we can move on to this other issue? Are there no objections?

To the members on Zoom, are we good?

Okay, it's the 14th, then, Mr. Villemure.

I don't know how we're going to propose moving to some clarity here. You've heard some of Ms. Khalid's concerns. Is there a possible way to address those?

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

Earlier, I gave the example to my colleague across the way. I don't think the people we're talking to are that stupid. I don't want to restrict the scope of the mission by putting in too much detail; in my opinion, it's amply clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Villemure's point is that his motion is clear enough. Are there any other questions on that? Is there any discussion?

Mr. Fergus, I see your hand.

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

I thank my honourable friend for making that clarification and changing the date of his motion. However, I would like one other small clarification.

If possible, Mr. Chair, I would be grateful for a few minutes. I would like to propose an amendment to Mr. Villemure's motion to clarify who will be responsible for what and for producing which document. In doing so, I would like to make sure that I do not undermine the purpose of Mr. Villemure's motion. If you give me two minutes, I can draft my amendment in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I will give you two minutes, Mr. Fergus. There is some other business that we need to discuss as well in terms of a work plan going forward. I was hoping to get to that under committee business, but I'll give you two minutes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have two minutes. That's it. Thank you.