Information & Ethics Committee on June 19th, 2025

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that the members opposite may have had advance notice of the motion they brought forward and the studies that are considered therein, but to the best of my knowledge, on this side of the table, we received the motion during the break in this committee only a few moments ago. I think we are really interested in getting down to business with the work of government.

As a point of clarification, maybe I would address a question to the clerk as to whether or not, to Mr. Thériault's point about the 120 days, this requires a retabling of the report. If so, would that occur now, or is that more likely to occur in the fall? In that case, we're on essentially the same timeline, whether or not we are given an opportunity to actually review these reports before being asked to report on them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to allow the clerk to clarify that. I don't believe it requires a retabling of the report.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Yes, if the committee adopts the motion as it is now, the chair would have to present the report to the House again.

That being said, the report has already been prepared. It's not like we have to review all of the report, because it's already written. This would be a one-page report with the report attached to it. It normally does not take long for us to prepare it, and the tabling could most likely take place this week.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Which I would do tomorrow during Routine Proceedings?

[The Clerk]

Most likely.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, it's very likely.

You still have the floor.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Well, Mr. Chair, it doesn't change my view. I would like an opportunity to review the reports, and that's where I would sit on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Saini.

Go ahead, please.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

As a new member, I have some difficulty when my friends say that it's the same tactic as the Trudeau government's. I was not part of the Trudeau government.

I'm a new member. My responsibility is to make sure of the work I do, because I am responsible for that, rather than getting into the tactics of Liberals, Trudeau's.... This is what we hear in the House of Commons every day. Trudeau is not the Prime Minister. We have a new government, and I'm part of that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't have any other discussion.

Oh, wait.... I have Monsieur Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Let's try to put forward objective, not partisan, arguments. Otherwise, we are going to get off track.

What I care about, as a new committee member, is the government's response. Reading the report is one thing, but without the government's response, I can't figure out how I want to approach committee business when I come back in September. When we're back in September, I would like to have the government's response as soon as possible. That way, we would have both the overall vision and the government's response at the same time. Then, we could decide whether to study the matter or not. Right now, we are in limbo, and that is the problem.

I understand what Mr. Sari is saying, but that is the language customarily used in the House. In many cases, the House's customary language makes me cringe, but that is the language that was established to describe the situation we are in. Committees have adopted motions with this language. That is the language that has been used for years, and it is what it is, unless we want to change it. We can do that, but it would have to be proposed for every committee.

I know that members come here to do serious work, that they want to know what they are agreeing to, but this is simply about agreeing to receiving a response from the government. That will give us an overview, and my fellow members will have the whole summer to read it all. I imagine that we would have the government's response in September, and we could then move forward with our work.

That is how I suggest looking at this. I hope I've convinced my fellow members, because the goal is not to insult anyone. The goal is to work together.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for your comment, Mr. Thériault.

We are on the amendment. I don't see any further discussion. The amendment is a motion to hold off until September, so that we can revisit this in September. That's the motion on the floor right now.

I'm going to ask if we have unanimous consent on that, which I always do. If we don't have it, then we'll go to a vote.

[A voice]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

There is no unanimous consent, so we'll need to go to a vote.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

The result is four yeas and four nays.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I vote no.

(Motion negatived: nays, 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on the motion presented by Mr. Barrett.

I see no further discussion on that.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Barrett, if you want to present the second motion now, I'd invite you to do that, please.

I'll remind committee members that there is some other business we have to deal with as well.

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

I move, given that committee members, staff, the clerk, analysts and witnesses worked hard to produce the report entitled “Oversight of Social Media Platforms: Ensuring Privacy and Safety Online” during the first session of the 44th Parliament, and given that the government did not table a response because of the prorogation of Parliament, that the committee deem that it has undertaken and completed a study on the oversight of social media platforms ensuring privacy and safety online, pursuant to Standing Order 108; that it adopt that report as a report from this committee; that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request the government to table a comprehensive response to the report; and that the Chair present the report to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. The motion has been moved.

I'm sure Ms. Khalid would be very happy if we received a response from the government on this.

Is there any discussion on this?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

This is one of many motions that will get consensus at this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sure it is.

There is some other business that we have to deal with.

Members of the committee are aware of a third party ATIP request that came in. An email was circulated, and any discussion on this should take place in camera.

I'm going to ask the committee if they're in agreement to go in camera.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead.

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

I have a question, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, go ahead.

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

It is a requirement that this item be dealt with in camera. Is that correct? I just want to be clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

If there's discussion—

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

I just want to be always clear about our reasons for going in camera.