Government Operations Committee on Aug. 20th, 2024

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I recognize that committees have the ability to set the terms by which they want to receive this information. I think it's highly unusual that when we call for the production of a document that was referenced by a witness.... Although the witness stated several times that she could not speak to the particulars of the appraisal report, in some of her responses to Mr. Bachrach's questions, she assumed that we had seen it.

We haven't seen the documents. We've asked the witness to produce those documents for the committee—for the committee members only, and for those who have been serving on this committee on a regular basis throughout some of these studies. I feel it's highly unusual to infer that members of Parliament would leak these kinds of documents for any purpose.

We receive confidential documents all the time in this committee. We make sure that it is understood that when we receive these documents in confidence, we will not speak of them. In committee, we've had those kinds of agreements ahead of receiving documents that are sensitive in nature. Requiring members of Parliament to visit the office of another MP in order to look at documents they've been charged with being good stewards of to begin with....

We deal with confidential information every day as members of Parliament. I think it undermines our integrity to insist that this document would not be held in the strictest confidence by the members of Parliament who are serving on this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

I saw your hand up, Mrs. Vignola, and then it will be Mr. Jowhari.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to clear up a few things to avoid any confusion.

First of all, we would not go to a member's office to see the document, but to the clerk's office. This kind of thing happens fairly often.

Secondly, the appraisal report that Ms. Bouchard alluded to today is the 97-page document that we received this week, along with a two-page letter from GAC. The appraisal report concerns the West 57th Street residence, the new residence. The current request concerns the appraisal report for the former residence, which is on the market now.

Yes, we work with confidential information quite often. Has confidential information ever been leaked to the media? Let's just say, there have been a few surprises in the past. To be polite, I'll leave it at that. I manage two inboxes, my personal inbox and my MP inbox. Nobody touches my email. My employees are well aware that I consider both to be my personal email boxes. I need to know the things that people want to tell me. I need to understand why people are in a good mood or a bad mood and exactly what they want from a given bill. That's why I check both my inboxes. That way, there's no chance that one of my employees, who's simply trying to help me manage my inboxes, will come across a confidential document.

However, this is how I personally like to manage my emails. It doesn't mean that everyone operates that way. I don't know how other people do it. I'm not saying that my colleagues aren't trustworthy, far from it. I know how I operate, and no one touches my inboxes but me. I might seem nice and easygoing on the outside, most of the time, but I'm very strict about managing access to my inboxes. However, it's not necessarily the same for everyone.

That's where my concern over potential leaks is coming from. I'm concerned that this document, for a variety of reasons, might accidentally fall into the hands of someone who shouldn't have seen it and who might not know that it's confidential. I'm not saying that specific people are going to cause leaks. We're not there yet. I just want to make sure that our approach is clear and consistent with our usual way of doing things, in other words, that we read the document in the clerk's office. I know that it's done that way because I've done it before for certain contracts. It's also a middle ground.

The last thing I want is to insult anyone. I'm not in the habit of doing so, and I have no intention of starting now, or tomorrow, for that matter. Like any owner selling his or her home, condo or land, I also want to make sure that we get a good price for assets that we put up for sale. It's that simple.

I hope these clarifications are sufficient and acceptable.

Thank you.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to confirm that my understanding of the conversation we had is exactly what Julie just reiterated, and I'll reiterate it again.

The document in both official languages goes to the committee clerk's office. A copy is provided for each MP and key associate members, as they call them—such as Michael and Larry, who have attended numerous times and who are actually considered permanent members of this committee—who will attend and review, with no notes and no cameras or anything, and then the copy will be destroyed after that.

Naturally, the analysts and the chair will have the privilege of looking at those documents as well.

Also, look at it as if there is always the possibility of a breach. There's a lot of phishing going on, and if this document were on somebody's P9 account it could get phished. That's why we do what we do.

Also, look at the precedent. The precedent basically looked at all the contracts, such as the one for EV batteries that we had. We went to the clerk's office. We looked at it. Our copy was prepared for us. We were given ample time to look at it, and then it was destroyed.

When you look at the precedents, when you look at the agreement we have, I think we have a winner. We're going to get to the answer. We're going to be able to see it in a secure way. It's going to be in both official languages. It's going to be in the clerk's office and it's going to give the answers to the questions that we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Barrett, go ahead.

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

We're certainly trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube after unanimously agreeing to something different from what's now being discussed. We need to have an understanding here.

Do we have people who are joining this committee from other parts of the country, or do we not? We do. It's 2024 and it's very easy to do remote viewing. For members who are going to have to schedule an appointment with the clerk to view this document, they should be able to do that from their secure House of Commons devices where the clerk, or the clerk acting in her place, can display it on her screen and share that screen with members. That technology exists within the enterprise solutions the House of Commons uses.

It's not 1995; we don't need to walk over to the clerk's office and read what got faxed over to her. It's going to get emailed to the clerk, so if members are worried about phishing, it's been emailed all around government email addresses and it's going to be emailed to the clerk. If it's only members of Parliament who can't be trusted, it seems that I have a lot more confidence in my colleagues than other members do.

However, it is what you said. You said you were worried about its being phished, so if that's the concern, then we could go back to just having documents hand-carried and not having them emailed. However, the document is going to be transmitted electronically, so it's going to be sent—and it has been—to the clerk. That's been done.

We should be able to view it. There are members in a variety of circumstances who have been permitted to join electronically. I won't enumerate what those reasons are. They should also be able to access this document from where they've been able to access this meeting. That technology exists, so we can let this go, even though it's absurd. If we can enable members to access the document remotely through the clerk, simultaneously, then I think that satisfies all of the concerns, although I don't agree with the arguments that have been posed. This would allow all members to see the documents from wherever they were joining the meeting from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Brock, go ahead.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I listened very carefully to my colleague Mr. Barrett. Remote viewing is exactly the solution that I was going to present. I'm also mindful that our colleague Mr. Jowhari indicated—not officially, but certainly clearly and loudly enough that I could hear it—that it is not what he was against.

Perhaps Mr. Jowhari can clarify the Liberal position on this, because, let's face it: we have hybrid Parliament and we have hybrid proceedings in committee. To deny a remote member who chooses, because of life circumstances or distance.... My colleague Mr. Genuis has some personal issues, and Mr. Bachrach, from the great province of British Columbia, is choosing to save taxpayer dollars and participate remotely. Are we expected to throw convention and policy out the window just to ensure that people are here in person?

I think Mr. Barrett's solution is a sound one, and I hope Mr. Jowhari thinks it would be an appropriate solution and an exception to the rule he's proposing. I'd like to hear from Mr. Jowhari about those members, whether they be permanent members or associate members who participate on a regular basis at the mighty OGGO, and whether they can participate remotely to review the document.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Do your point of order, and then I'm going to take the floor.

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

With respect to Mr. Brock's comments and Mr. Genuis's issues, I'd like to congratulate our colleague Garnett and his wife Rebecca on the birth of their sixth child, Isadore Carlo Richard Genuis. That's as good a reason as any to not join us in person. I just want to congratulate Garnett, and thank his wife for letting us borrow him for a couple of hours today while we deal with this important issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Yes, congratulations to your family, Mr. Genuis. I think your being with us is more of an issue for us than your baby.

Colleagues, I put this issue forward, looking for UC on it. We don't have it, so I am going to suggest that someone put it forward as a proper motion for the next meeting. Perhaps we can work out some arrangement before then.

I would have to agree with some issues that have been brought up. It's unfair to Mr. Bachrach and Mr. Genuis, and anyone else who is not coming in person, to not have access to it. Perhaps we can get it as a proper motion before I adjourn.

Mrs. Vignola, go ahead.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I have a quick question. I just want to double-check something, because I keep thinking and thinking.

The clerk sends us SharePoint links. Is SharePoint secure, confidential and beyond public access?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It depends on what's sent. For example, when we order documents, those are considered public unless deemed confidential. Some of the SharePoint documents we've received over the year we decided in advance to be confidential and not to be shared. With others, if they're too large to do the usual PDF and are put on SharePoint, if they're in an order for documents, they're considered public. For example, she could send that by SharePoint or PDF.

As I said, thank you, witnesses, for appearing today.

Mr. Quinlan, thanks for being here virtually.

We're adjourned.