Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 28th, 2022

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

Okay.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'll hand it back to you. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek. You're under time, which is appreciated.

The next two and a half minutes are for a final intervention.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. White and Associate Dean Francoli.

I'll be very brief with my question. I have asked other witnesses this.

We heard, in this committee, that the majority of ATI requests are individual file-based—within the immigration department, for example, or others where there are concerns related to individual claimants, etc.

Associate Dean Francoli, I want to know this: How do you think that impacts the overall functioning of the ATI system? Does it take away from the function of ATI when there are thousands upon thousands of claims filed? Does that impede access to information for people who may actually need that access?

[Prof. Mary Francoli]

I think it creates a huge stress on the system.

It's sad that people can't have access to their information without going through an access to information request, which can be very complicated to navigate. If we think about who's filing a lot of the requests.... IRCC is one of the biggest recipients. CRA is one of the biggest recipients. I'll go back to Mr. White's point: In many cases, we talking about vulnerable people who need to access that information, so I think it's a very sad state that people feel they have to go there.

I'd be curious to hear what IRCC is doing, in particular, to help ensure people can have the information they need without going through this process.

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

Thank you.

Is there a recommendation you would propose to this committee, to include as part of the report, as to how to deal with requests for access to information that maybe shouldn't have to go through that process or that could be deemed vexatious or malicious in their intent?

[Prof. Mary Francoli]

I think those are different things.

To me, if you're trying to access your own information, or access information about a file you have with IRCC, for example, that's not vexatious. You're trying to get something done and move something forward yourself. If you can't do that, I think there should be a complaints mechanism in addition to being able to launch an access to information request.

Vexatious requests are obviously a very specific thing. There is a mechanism—as I'm sure you know—under the current legislation for the Information Commissioner to step in there.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Ms. Francoli and Mr. White, thank you for your appearance today in front of the committee. On behalf of all Canadians, I want to say thank you.

Mr. White, I know it has been said several times, but thank you for your service to our nation. On behalf of a grateful nation, we very much appreciate that service.

We have some committee business we need to get to. I'm going to suspend for a minute to give our witnesses an opportunity to leave.

The committee is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to call the committee back to order.

I understand, Mr. Green, that you have a motion you want to present. I'm going to get to you in a second, if you don't mind. There are a couple of things that I want to bring up.

First of all, we have study budgets that need to be adopted. There are two of them that have been put before you: Roxham Road for $2,425, and the ATIP study for $10,150. I would like to include the ArriveCAN study in that approval process. According to the clerk, it has come in at $8,950.

Can I have consensus on the part of the committee members to adopt those study budgets?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, we'll consider those budgets adopted.

Before I get to you, Matt, for the sake of the committee, as far as the upcoming meetings are concerned, here is what we have scheduled so far.

I will admit to difficulty in procuring some witnesses. I don't know whether it's the time of year. Obviously, there's been the American Thanksgiving. We've had some challenges with some of the requests for witnesses from Amazon, for example.

This Wednesday, we are scheduled to continue with the ArriveCAN study. We have one witness who has been confirmed. We did invite Amazon. They said no. We have invited a witness, to be confirmed as well, from TEKsystems.

On Monday, December 5, we're scheduled to recommence the ATIP study. We have ATIP coordinators from Global Affairs Canada who have been confirmed. To be confirmed, but who have been invited, are ATIP coordinators from the RCMP, Public Safety and the PCO.

On Wednesday, December 7, is the ATIP study. We have three witnesses confirmed who are going to appear in front of the committee on December 7.

I just wanted to bring that to the committee's attention.

I have Mr. Green first.

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

I have a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. I'm going to go to Mr. Barrett, if that's okay.

Go ahead.

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

My question is about what you just raised. In talking about getting witnesses, you said that one of the witnesses we invited said no.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I received confirmation tonight that they said no.

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

Chair, I'd like to take a quick second here, if I can.

We requested that a witness appear. The witness is a contractor for the Government of Canada. They've received millions of dollars of taxpayer money. To not say, well, you know, we have some time challenges.... To say no to a parliamentary committee is absolutely unacceptable.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead on your point of order.

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

It's common practice for us to discuss individual witnesses while we're in camera. I just want to note that we are in public right now, and I think it's improper to talk about specific witnesses in public.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I would agree with Ms. Khalid on that.

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

Well, I'll move that we take the meeting in camera, then, to discuss this.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Barrett, I'm going to go to Mr. Green first. I appreciate your intervention, but Mr. Green did acknowledge to me that he did want to go first. I thought it was on this.

Mr. Green, go ahead, please.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I say this with the utmost respect for your guidance in this committee. You brought this issue to the committee in open forum. Nothing pursuant to our Standing Orders would require us to go in camera.

What we have is a refusal of an organization to come before this committee. I'm not sure there is anything within the parameters of a discussion that we would have.... These are procedural questions. We talked about parliamentary privilege. We are the grand inquisitor of the nation. We have the power to send for people, documents and evidence.

I would say, sir, that if it is the intention of a motion to move in camera, which I believe is what is required in order to be procedurally in order, the motion be brought to this committee and we vote accordingly, because I would like to go on the record and say that I have no interest in having any conversations about Amazon in camera, given their reluctance...not their reluctance, sir, but their refusal, to come to this committee.

I would ask for that vote to happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just to be clear, Mr. Green, and for Mr. Barrett's benefit too, it wasn't an outright refusal. They indicated scheduling issues as being the problem for this Wednesday. I would ask the committee's indulgence to perhaps ask them for another opportunity to come to committee. I think that would be appropriate. The indication I have from the clerk is that they had scheduling issues. So I don't want to go too far into the weeds on this one.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair.

I am willing to take a step back on this, but then I would ask that in going back to them with another date, the clerk be asked to remind the witness that the committee does have the powers to send for people, papers, and evidence, and that we do hope they respond to our invitation so that it can be on those terms.