Evidence of meeting #1 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I propose:
That, during meetings, the Chair, if necessary, uses his prerogative to suspend the meeting to maintain the order and decorum necessary to ensure the application of the House of Commons' policies on workplace health and safety.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.
That concludes the routine motions.
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
Thank you, Madame Lapointe.
As I was saying, other committees have requested that previous reports get a response from the government. There were two reports, in particular, that we did in the last Parliament for which, because of prorogation, we never got responses back. I think Mr. Barrett would like to move a motion with regard to that.
Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks, Chair.
As it's the matter at hand, since it's our first meeting and for the reasons that you outlined, I move:
Given that committee members, staff, the clerk, analysts and witnesses worked hard to produce the report entitled “Federal Government's Use of Technological Tools Capable of Extracting Personal Data from Mobile Devices and Computers” during the first session of the 44th Parliament, and given that the government did not table a response because of the prorogation of Parliament, the committee: deem that it has undertaken and completed a study on “the federal government's use of technological tools capable of extracting personal data from mobile devices and computers” 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.
I have a second motion, but I'm not sure if you want to deal with them independently.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I would rather deal with them independently, if that's okay.
On the first report, do we have any questions?
Go ahead, Madame Lapointe.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Chair, can we have that motion written in both languages?
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
If we want to study it, we would like to have it written, please.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
Can we get those two motions sent to the clerk for distribution?
In the meantime, why don't I suspend for a minute or two to give the clerk enough time? We'll do that and we'll come back.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm going to call the meeting back to order.
I will say that this is a teaching lesson for all of us. If you're going to propose motions, make sure that they're proposed and sent in both official languages, so we don't have further delays.
Before we left, Mr. Barrett read the first motion. It's been circulated among committee members in both official languages.
Are we in agreement with the first motion? Is there any discussion?
Ms. Church, go ahead.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While I recognize the very good work that the committee members, staff, clerk and analysts have put into this report, certainly as a new member and also as it's a new Parliament, I feel it's incumbent on me to familiarize myself with the report before we adopt it as a report from this committee and on behalf of this committee. I would certainly prefer to have an opportunity to review it and its recommendations before we adopt it and send it beyond here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
That's fair enough. I appreciate your comments.
The motion is on the floor. Is there any further discussion on this?
I will go to the vote. I assume that we don't have unanimous consent on that.
Would you like a recorded vote on whether we adopt this motion or not?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
That's okay. We're going to come to a vote on the motion.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I would like to request a clarification.
Personally, my understanding of the motion is that the report has been adopted. If the committee has adopted the report but there has been no response as a result of prorogation, it is not up to committee members to revisit the adoption of a report that the committee adopted in a previous legislature. Our goal today is to ensure that the committee, once it has adopted its report, may pursue the motion that led to it, namely, that a response from the government is still needed.
It is possible to read the report and receive the response. If we wish to continue our work or tone it down, that is still possible. I do not think that we, as new committee members, can hold another vote on a report that has already been adopted. To my mind, that would amount to going back on the work that was done before. The goal is not to lose the work that was done and to ensure continuity from one session to the next. It is the parties who decided not to put the same players around the table, but the committee as an institution has already done its work.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I completely agree with my fellow member. There needs to be continuity in a committee's work. That said, the motion, as written, clearly says that the committee is asking the government to table a response. Before that, it says that the report was not adopted. It needs to be now that the study is complete. We are at the adoption stage.
I'd like to talk about that briefly, if I may. Since the committee completed the study, what we are being asked to do now is adopt the report. What the member is asking now is that we look at the report. Then we can proceed with adopting it. There is a distinction because the report wasn't adopted, unfortunately. The study was completed. This was brought to the committee's attention a week ago.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, when I spoke a moment ago, I asked initially whether this dealt with a report that had been adopted, and I was told that it did. If that is the case, I regret to say that the member's comment doesn't apply. It's fine with me if the language in the motion has to change to reflect the reality.
Conservative
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The report the motion refers to is committee report number 13 adopted during the 44th Parliament. The study was conducted from beginning to end. The report was adopted and even tabled in the House. In the report, the committee requested a response from the government pursuant to Standing Order 109. However, because of the election and the fact that Parliament was dissolved, all committee work came to a halt. A response was therefore not provided, which is normal.
Motions like this one are fairly common in committees in order to again adopt reports that were adopted in the previous Parliament. With the committee being made up of new members, it is considered to be a new committee. That is why the motion is asking the committee to again adopt the report, as is, for the purpose of again tabling it in the House and obtaining a government response. The request in the previous Parliament for a government response no longer stands because Parliament was dissolved.
Does that answer your question?
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
Again, similar to what other committees have done as they formed, given the past work they've done at committee, in several cases, reports were presented to Parliament—as this and the next one were. We did not receive a response from the government. All this does is seek a response to a report that was already presented.
There's no nefarious thing going on here. It's just that the first report we're looking at, which was a study proposed by Mr. Villemure, and the second report, which was proposed by Ms. Khalid, were adopted by the committee, and the recommendations were adopted by the committee and presented. That's what we're asking for here.
Is there any other discussion on this?
Go ahead, sir.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
As a new member, I am not familiar with the work that was done. I would like to have some time to look at the work that was done before I agree to vote on it.