Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You're going to have to.

I would deem that a substantive amendment, considering that we need it in both official languages. That's to accommodate Mr. Villemure here.

That's without forgetting Ms. Fortier and the chair.

Hopefully, we can get this done in five minutes. Let's see what we can come up with.

I'm going to suspend again, because I want this to work out for the betterment of everyone. I'm going to suspend for five minutes. Let's get this in both official languages, and we can proceed from there on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

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

An amended verison of the motion by Ms. Damoff has been sent by email. We are waiting for the printed copy. You all have a copy of the amended version of the motion.

Before I turn the floor back to you, if you can, just read the amended version for the benefit of the committee.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

Thanks a lot, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for your patience in trying to get this right.

This is slightly different from what I originally read. Because it's asking for an unredacted copy, I want to get on the record that all of us want to protect the identity of private individuals and anything that would identify sensitive business information and make them identifiable. I think we're all agreed on that.

The motion would now read, “That the Committee, considering the government's unsatisfactory response to the order adopted on October 18, 2023, and its failure to respond to the order adopted on October 30, 2023, orders the Department of Industry to provide an unredacted version of Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton's “Fact-Finding Exercise Report” for Sustainable Development Technology Canada, in both officials languages; review the appropriateness of any redactions; and where redactions are deemed necessary, an explanation be provided for each redaction, within 24 hours.”

I think the wording may still be a little awkward, so if someone has an idea, the intent is that we get this within 24 hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Is that from the adoption of the motion?

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

It's after the adoption of the motion.

We've asked for an unredacted version. If they have to redact it, they have to tell us why. That's the intent of it, Chair.

Yes, it's within 24 hours after adoption.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

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

Thanks for the revision. I just have one question to ask.

The French says “examiner la pertinence” or “review the need”. Something is either needed, or it is not. Then we ask that an explanation be provided, but I just want to make sure we will get one. I agree with the content, but I think it's slightly vague here and I'd like to clarify that. Redaction is either needed or not needed, and I want to make sure that an explanation is provided if redaction is needed.

There are two parts to this motion, one about necessity and one about explanation. I just want to make sure they go hand in hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Do you want to address that?

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

I agree, Mr. Villemure. If there is wording that's more appropriate, that's the intent of what I'm trying to say.

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

I could specify the wording in French without changing the meaning. I would write that the need to redact should be reviewed when redaction is needed, and when it's needed, an explanation must be provided. That doesn't change the meaning, but it does remove any potential loopholes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Villemure, if you could write it out as you would like it written, it would be clearer for me. We don't need to suspend the meeting for that.

Mr. Kurek, you have the floor. Go ahead, please.

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

Thanks, Chair.

To highlight what I shared before, I think the time has passed—in light of the precedent of the government and the department that is meant to be held accountable—for us to demand anything other than answers. I think the key here is that had the government been forthright and willing to work with this committee and responsive to the body of which it is a function, we wouldn't be here.

I understand the nuances in the discussions around redactions. However, the point we've come to is that I am unable to trust that the government will do anything but continue to hide behind any mechanism possible to keep this information from coming forward. We hear time and time again before this committee about the culture of secrecy that exists and that there's a refusal on behalf of the government to acknowledge that it is a function of Parliament. I'm certainly unwilling to do anything but ensure that we use the tools available to us to get the answers Canadians deserve.

When it comes to the information that is being talked about and the sensitivity around it, Mr. Chair, the government could have been forthcoming in the beginning, but they weren't. This lays at the feet of the department and ultimately the minister who is responsible: that they failed to heed an order, the consequence of which is that they very well could be putting Canadians' privacy and whatnot at risk. They failed time and time again.

Forwarding this to Parliament, which the department is meant to be a function of, is a reasonable step, and I think it is entirely reasonable to send the message from this committee, for which there are now, I believe, both the previous motions that were supported unanimously by all parties. This is a chance for us to ensure that we put our words into action and not simply allow the government to skirt around a very forthright and important issue that needs to be discussed.

I think we need to see that document. With the minister coming on what sounds like will be Monday, we don't have the time to allow them to equivocate or hide behind some declaration that we don't have a chance to litigate further before the minister comes.

Chair, through you, I urge all members of this committee that the time has passed for anything but for this committee to demand what I believe it deserves—the answers that the department seems to be hiding.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

I don't have any other speakers on the list, but I know that Mr. Villemure is going to come up with a suggestion....

Ms. Fortier, I'm going to go to you quickly. Hopefully, we can go back to Mr. Villemure soon.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I think the proposed amendment is good, especially because we need to cover the whole issue of the Access to Information Act, protecting personal information and protecting corporate data. They can make the effort to explain which parts were redacted. With this amendment, the redacted content will be explained to us within 24 hours.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the minister was quick to agree to appear before the committee. So he will be available. I believe that also shows that he is taking this seriously. One thing we've heard in the media is that the minister is concerned about this issue, and he himself has confirmed it. We will be able to ask him the hard questions we want to ask him, and which the committee is very concerned about at the moment.

Moreover, I feel we should announce to the public and at some point address the fact that the Auditor General has decided to investigate as well. That's another issue the committee might want to look into eventually. It's not possible at the moment, given that the Auditor General has just begun her investigation. With this amendment—I hope it will be adopted—individuals' personal data and corporate data will be protected. We will also be able to meet the minister next week. That's what I wanted to say, for the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Fortier.

Mr. Villemure has the floor.

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

I've sent the document.

I made an amendment to change certain terms. I'll let you translate it rather than read it out. It's the same in both languages.

I can explain it, if you like.

We changed the language in the part I was talking about.

Ms. Damoff, as per what we had discussed, I simply added the content from the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

When I read the amendment, I don't see many changes, it's just—

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

I made a very minor change to the wording of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

All right.

Can you provide more details on the amendment you are proposing, Mr. Villemure?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

First, the clerk is going to email the changes to all members, in French only.

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

It's about reviewing the need—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We'll send the amendment to the interpreters. Then we'll know the wording in English.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.