Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 88 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

The clerk and I will maintain a consolidated speaking list of those wishing to speak.

Before we start the discussion of committee business, I would like to remind all members that our next meeting is on Wednesday, November 1. It's an informal meeting with a parliamentary delegation from the European Parliament, as agreed to earlier this fall. More details will be sent to you.

I'm going to start our committee business today. One of the challenges.... When we passed the original motion for the accounting report on the SDTC and the green sustainable technology fund, we didn't put a date to it. The clerk and I have been attempting to get this report in front of the committee. What I'm going to ask the committee to do is put a timeline on when this report should be presented to the committee. I'm going to ask for consideration of that today.

I did receive a copy of the report. It was sent to me by email—not by anybody official. I've seen it. It's redacted significantly. I think that, for the benefit of the committee, we need to see that report before we proceed, based on the motion. I think there's enough information in that report so that it would not just pique the interest of the committee, but also be significant to that study.

I need a timeline, a date for that from the committee. We didn't do that. It was a mistake that we made in the original motion, so we need to do that today.

That being said, this is why I called committee business today.

Mr. Villemure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On a point of order.

I'd like to table a motion, which replaces the motion from last week. Consequently, I'd like us not to consider the motion on the RCMP that was tabled last week. I'm going to read the motion that I'm moving today, which I will send to the committee in both official languages.

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the committee undertake a study of the RCMP’s decision not to pursue a criminal investigation into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau following the reprimand issued by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner regarding his involvement in the SNC‑Lavalin affair; that the committee devote three meetings to this study; that the committee request to appear, for one hour per witness: (a) the former Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Mario Dion; (b) the acting Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Konrad Winrich von Finckenstein; (c) the RCMP Commissioner, Mr. Michael Duheme; (d) Mr. Frédéric Pincince, Sensitive and International and Investigations, Federal Policing, Ontario Division; (e) representatives of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2019; and (f) the former advisor to the Prime Minister, Mr. Gerald Butts; that this study commence after the end of the current study of use of social media platforms for data harvesting and unethical or illicit sharing of personal information with foreign entities; that the committee report to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a comprehensive response from the government.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Did you send the clerk the motion in both official languages?

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

We'll send it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, thank you.

The motion is in order, and it's based on the notice of motion that you put forward.

Do you wish to add something?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

The motion states that I'd like the study to commence after the end of the current study on TikTok. So, I'm not asking to postpone the TikTok study.

However, I'm asking for this new study to have priority, because it's a very important matter. The media have reported on it extensively and the public is asking questions. My goal is to start this study quickly without torpedoing the TikTok study.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead on the motion, please.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I absolutely appreciate Monsieur Villemure's commitment that this potential study start after our TikTok study. I know how important it is to me. It's been three years since we've been able to get a study going. So far we've only had maybe an hour and a half on this study. I am quite adamant that we move forward with our TikTok, social media and privacy study before we go into any other business.

I do have a couple of amendments to propose to Mr. Villemure's motion.

Chair, I'm wondering if you want to canvass the room to see if anybody else wants to speak before I propose those amendments to the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Is there any other discussion on Monsieur Villemure's motion?

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I want to bring in my former hat, not only as parliamentary secretary at public safety but also as someone who was on the public safety committee for eight years.

We need to bear in mind the role of the RCMP as being independent with their investigations and not blend a whole bunch of other things into what we want to have here.

I fully support the RCMP coming and discussing what they're doing and why and everything else, but I think that, as we're looking at this motion, we should bear in mind that the RCMP is independent. We need to hear from them, but let's not blur what we're talking about with this motion and include people who probably don't have any bearing on what the RCMP has decided.

That's just a general comment, Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Is there any other discussion on Mr. Villemure's motion?

I'm going to go back to Ms. Khalid.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to confirm that the text we received as a notice of motion is the same as what is being talked about today.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It is not. Mr. Villemure added to his notice of motion. We're working on sending that out to members of the committee right now.

Iqra, I know you still have the floor, but I think René might have something to add.

Go ahead, Mr. Villemure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are two changes.

The first is that we're withdrawing “representatives of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2019;”. Second, we have added that the study will commence after the end of the TikTok study.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Thank you.

Does that clarify things for you, Ms. Khalid?

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

Yes, thank you very much, Chair.

I'm wondering if perhaps we can suspend while that language is being distributed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes. The clerk should have that out in one minute, so we'll take five.

We'll be back here just before 3:50.

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

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to suspend for a bit.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to resume the meeting.

The email has been sent in both official languages. There are two changes, as Mr. Villemure has indicated. One is eliminating “2019”, and the other one is about the end of the TikTok study.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid. Do you have an amendment?

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

Chair, first and foremost, I just want to reiterate that we have never opposed the committee's will to have the RCMP come to this committee to testify on this or to speak to us about this.

I think it is very important to note that the last meeting we had on this was really about the process as to how this was done. That's a very important point for us to note because I think our committee is really all about openness and transparency. The more we can do that, the better it is, not just for us as a committee but also as a government, as a Parliament and as Canadians as a whole.

Specifically, we have heard from a number of the witnesses who are listed on this motion that they don't have anything to add. They don't have anything to say on the specific content and the matter that this motion is addressing. For example, Mr. Dion has said in the past, when he was asked, “Seriously, I have no opinion on that.” I don't know how it would be beneficial to our committee for us to have a witness who has proactively said, “I don't have an opinion on that,” and to spend so much time listening to what he has to say, knowing well in advance that he really doesn't have anything to say at all.

One thing that I think we should be addressing is the importance of bringing in witnesses who actually do have things to say or contribute to the matter that is addressed in this motion.

Second—and I can just go down the list—Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein has said the same. In fact, they appeared together. They really don't have much of a comment on this issue.

Finally, I don't think Mr. Butts has anything to add to this issue, either.

I realize that we want to spend three meetings on this. I'm also very grateful to Mr. Villemure for adding the amendment to his original motion to say that the TikTok study takes precedence over this, but I think we can nuance this.

We can say that this decision was made by the RCMP and it should be the RCMP that comes forward to explain why they made that decision. We should not include people who had no impact on that decision. We can be efficient with the time that we have in our committee and absolutely hear from the RCMP, to hear what they have to say, to hear how they came to the conclusion they did. We need to understand, however, that inviting people who really don't have a say in any of this, who didn't have any say in the decision-making and who don't have any jurisdiction in the decision-making either is not a good use of this committee's time.

First, in the body of the text where it says “devote three meetings”, I would delete “three” and add “one”: “devote one meeting to this study”. I understand Mr. Villemure's point about including the former conflict of interest commissioner, but again, as I said, he's gone on record saying that he has nothing to add to this, so I would further amend this motion by deleting part (a). Then, I would also further amend this motion by deleting part (f).

Sorry, I have the previous text. I'm not sure if that's the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

As a matter of process here, can we deal with one amendment at a time? Your first amendment is to go from three meetings to one meeting, Ms. Khalid, so can we deal with that?

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

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have explained your rationale for that.

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

Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chair.