Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

All right.

Next time, we will need to have the text of motions in both official languages. It will be easier that way.

We will now start discussing the motion.

Mr. Barrett, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, can we suspend for five minutes, like you said?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to grant the break, Madame Fortier. Hopefully we can get this in time, and then we're going to go to you, Mr. Barrett, when we return.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, everyone, for your patience. We're going to resume the meeting.

I want to point out a couple of things.

Number one, when a motion is moved like this, it's much more helpful if we have it in both official languages.

The second thing is this: I know, Mr. Barrett, that when you were reading it, you were reading it as unredacted. However, the motion itself said “redacted”. That has been corrected in the motion, just so you know.

I am going to Mr. Barrett and then Ms. Damoff after that.

Go ahead on the motion.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The committee has twice asked for these documents. In the first instance, the committee was not furnished with them in a timely fashion. The version we received was a redacted version. We know it was prepared in both official languages, so it would have been one the department could have sent to us.

The availability of a minister to testify at the committee.... Though I would like a minister to attend when it best suits the committee, we heard the parliamentary secretary in the House today say that the minister is attending the committee on Monday. This document production was requested weeks ago, and now the availability of the minister is such that he's appearing at our next meeting. We haven't had the opportunity to get the documents in the format they were ordered in.

The committee has a lot of options when its powers are disregarded. This motion is not one that exaggerates the necessary response. I appreciate hearing from the chair that although the committee set a deadline for the department, he used his discretion to offer an extended deadline. It is regrettable that this deadline was not met.

The motion before committee provides the respondent for the department with, again, an extended deadline. Should they not furnish the committee with the document in an unredacted fashion, as was ordered, the committee has then exhausted its powers. It then becomes a matter for the House. The proposal on how this is referred to the House is not inflammatory or hyperbolic; it simply allows the House the opportunity to discharge its powers. It's very important that when the House of Commons standing committees order the production of papers or the appearance of people, and this is disrespected, it is important this be upheld. That's why this is proposed in this way.

The redactions in the document don't appear to simply be seven-digit phone numbers or first and last names. There appear to be redactions that go beyond that. I don't know the extent of commercially sensitive information that could be contained in the large sections that are redacted, but the committee issued its order. I think it is important that the committee have the full information available to it before having the minister and his officials attend the committee on Monday.

That's the spirit in which this motion was put forward. I hope we can have resolution to it quickly.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Next we're going to Ms. Damoff on the motion. Everybody is receiving a paper copy of it right now.

Ms. Damoff, go ahead, please.

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

Thanks a lot, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague for bringing this motion forward and also for the way he has brought it forward. I think he's done it in a collegial way, which I personally really appreciate.

This is a serious matter, and the government does take it seriously. When these allegations came forward, the minister acted on them. From what I understand, we're going to have him here on Monday. It is a serious situation, and the committee asked for something....

Mr. Barrett enlightened me, when we were chatting during the break, that when you file an ATIP report, what comes back has comments as to why things are redacted. When that's not there, it's natural to assume that there was more taken out than there should be. We don't know, because all we have is a document that has some information with big blanks in it.

I don't think anybody on the committee wants to have personal information, such as people's names or phone numbers or anything that would identify the companies that were in this. I think we're all on the same page there. It's whether this document has only been redacted for that or whether there was additional information taken out of it.

My parliamentary intern—they are always particularly smart—printed out the “Access to Government Records” part of the Access to Information Act, which references “trade secrets of a third party”.

I think what we're facing right now is a department that has legal weight about what needs to be taken out and a committee that wants to have all of the information we should have to be able to look at this.

I was going to make a proposal that the committee send a strongly worded message from the chair that they review their redactions. It's not a motion yet; I just want to put the idea out there.

I see the clerk saying that she needs a motion.

The idea would be that the redactions be reviewed for their appropriateness, and for any redactions that are left in, an explanation is included with that redaction as to why. Whether it's personal information or corporate business information, they should also review whether they are appropriate. We would give them 24 hours to do that and get it back to us.

The only issue is that we have the minister coming on Monday. If we got that on Thursday by close of day and it's not satisfactory to members, I don't know what recourse we have to ensure that we have something for Monday.

I just wanted to put an idea out there to try to come to a compromise, because I think we all want the same thing with this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Oftentimes ideas, as much as they're in good faith, need to be in writing so that we are very clear.

I didn't hear you propose an amendment, but—

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

I didn't yet, but I can.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The floor has been given up at this point.

Mr. Kurek had his hand up, so we're going to go to Mr. Kurek, and then I see Mr. Villemure.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

It is disappointing that it seems that we are once again finding out at a committee that we are left with fewer options to ensure Canadians are ultimately getting the answers that I certainly think they deserve.

Having now spent most of my time elected to Parliament at this committee, I understand the rules surrounding why redactions can be and sometimes are needed and the need for the protection of that sort of information, but I think, Chair, that we are, as a committee, now confronted with the larger challenge that exists in terms of the culture of secrecy that finds it optional within the government to provide information that has been requested to ensure that Parliament, which government is a function of, and committees being a part of our parliamentary structure....

Government doesn't rule the country, and it is accountable through acts to Parliament. I find it very frustrating—very disappointing—that there is not a more forthcoming nature in the way the government conducts itself in terms of providing information. I certainly would have been very amenable had there been a willingness of the department to have an honest, upfront conversation about why redactions were necessary and about releasing the report in a manner that would have satisfied the demands of this committee, but instead we now have a defiance of the will of Parliament in responding to what I believe was a unanimous motion that was put forward.

Asking for this information was supported by all political parties. It hasn't been provided. I think it's frustrating and certainly very disappointing that we are now forced.... With the revelation that the minister is coming on Monday, I think that's a good opportunity to ensure that we ask some of those important questions, but not providing the information leaves too many question marks.

The motion Mr. Barrett has put forward I think is entirely reasonable. It does exactly what our parliamentary system is designed to do in ensuring that government, as a function of Parliament, is able to be held accountable therein.

The time, I would suggest, has passed for the department. The clerk has reached out, as you've described, Chair, many times, asking for this reasonable conversation to take place, and the department seems to have been unwilling. I think ensuring that the department knows from this perspective, from this committee, that they are to be held accountable, and if they are not willing to abide by that.... I am more than happy to be as reasonable as possible when it comes to making sure that phone numbers, personal names—whatever the case is—are omitted, but Chair, this is now just affirming that culture of secrecy that seems to dominate every time a request is made for government to provide answers to parliamentarians on behalf of Canadians.

I think this motion is entirely reasonable. I hope it can garner the support of all members of this committee to ensure that we are in fact able to access the information that Parliament should be entitled to access. Very clearly, a department is defying a very clear request. There could have been more inflammatory ways to go about this. I think this is entirely reasonable, and I would hope that we can find support around this table to take that next step to say, “Look, this isn't a option. This is about Canadians getting the answers they deserve.”

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Information Commissioner testified twice before our committee, and I asked her the same question. When I asked her if the government had a culture of secrecy or transparency, she replied that it had a culture of secrecy. Obviously, I don't mean that as a definitive statement on her part, but that was her impression.

One thing is certain. Personally, I believe that, one way or another, we will receive the documents. At some point, they will show what's been redacted. The question is when. The minister is due to testify on Monday, which unfortunately leaves little time. As Ms. Damoff mentioned, when a document is redacted, the reasons for redaction are usually provided. It helps understand why.

The problem I see with that suggestion is that we have asked for the documents twice, and we have been denied access twice. I find it hard to believe in the good faith of the people we would ask to explain redaction. Having seen it elsewhere, I know that trade secrets and national security considerations have a wide berth. I have no problem asking someone I trust. The problem arises when I don't trust the individual.

In this case, I think we are incurring unnecessary delays and the lack of trust, which leads to mistrust, is not likely to make our work any easier. I'd like to be in a position to question the minister knowing all the facts. I don't want to say things I'm not sure of.

In my opinion, we need to get the unredacted documents as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Ms. Fortier, you have the floor.

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

I need something clarified, Mr. Chair.

Have we in fact confirmed that the minister is going to testify on Monday? Will he instead testify sometime during the week? Someone said in the House that he would be testifying next week.

Mr. Chair or Madam Clerk, has the day he will testify been confirmed? Rumour has it that he will appear on Monday, but we need to have that confirmed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The clerk was told that the minister is available on Monday. Confirmation is still yet to come, but we are proceeding on the basis that he will make himself available to the committee, as will the deputy ministers and the ADM, as well as SDTC staff.

Thank you.

We need to proceed on the basis that we are going to have this meeting on Monday.

Ms. Damoff, go ahead, please.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have wording now. I don't know the best way to do this, because it's fairly extensive, Mr. Chair. Do you want me to read it here?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We need it in French, as well.

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

To amend a motion...?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It would be preferable to have it in both official languages.

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

Most of this is deletion. The words are not that substantial.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll get you to go ahead.

We will hear Ms. Damoff's words.

If we need to draft the motion in both official languages, we will suspend the meeting, but it may not be a very complicated amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I would echo Ms. Damoff's words that the changes weren't very significant.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We will hear what Ms. Damoff is proposing.

Ms. Damoff, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I say it's not substantive, it's because I'm deleting half of it.

It would 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...”

I haven't changed anything yet.

Now it would say, “take every available effort to provide an unredacted version of Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton's “Fact-Finding Exercise Report” for Sustainable Development Technology Canada, in both official languages, review the appropriateness of any redactions, and that an explanation be provided for each redaction and the reason for the redaction within 24 hours.”

It might be awkwardly worded.

I can send that to you, Mr. Chair, if you like.