Government Operations Committee on Jan. 30th, 2023

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I completely agree. That’s what I was about to suggest.

I’ll speak in English.

I was not suggesting that the committee wouldn't get the information. The committee should get everything we ask for, but what they may be saying and what I think they are saying is that they don't want it to be in the public domain. I think that's perfectly legitimate. Their email addresses, their cellphone numbers, certain things that they may have in there should not be in the public domain. We haven't seen it yet, but what I was suggesting is that we should see everything, and then we'll reasonably consider all of the requests they make based on what we see in the document. I think we should get everything, but I just think we should not automatically say everything is going to be in public, because of course there may be things in there like private information that shouldn't be. That's all I was suggesting, Mr. Chair.

Anyway I support your request.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mrs. Block.

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

Could we handle it the same way we handled the information that we received from GC Strategies? Is that, in fact, what you are suggesting, Mr. Housefather?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

What I am suggesting is that I don't know exactly what they are going to request, but there may be things, like I said, that are beyond just emails and phone numbers. We'd have to consider them as a group once we've read the documents and seen whether they are truly trade secrets. For example, if they have a trade secret in there, we should not make that public, because that is not fair. However, if they're just saying, “Oh, we don't want to be embarrassed because of this or that”, well, that's ridiculous.

We need to understand their objections, and we definitely need to get everything, but we should take the objections they have and talk about them as a group before we automatically say everything goes public—so generally, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It almost sounds like it’s a choice of two. We could write to them now asking for them to be more specific on what these privilege issues are, or the other option is to say give us everything and we'll decide later.

Is there a preference between the two?

Go ahead, Ms. Block.

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

I like the second one where we ask them to send us all the things we have asked for and then we take that opportunity to determine—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I agree.

I think you should ask them, Mr. Chair, for precision and say that we're going to look at everything. We want it unredacted to the committee, but if you make a very specific list of all the things you want to be redacted, we will reasonably consider them as a group and we'll get back to you, but you still need to give us, under our powers, the documents that we requested.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are we comfortable with that? I think we have our marching orders.

Really quickly, because I'm trying to get out, on the work schedule, we're going to try to organize—although that is very difficult with everyone's schedule—a working committee, a subcommittee, but right now, because of difficulty with witnesses and juggling ministers, we're going to try to fill the February calendar with this study. Then we'll have the estimates popping up. In the meantime, we'll work toward that, and if something else that is more important comes up, we'll handle that.

We'll discuss the trip. I texted everyone. There is the ever-outstanding shipbuilding trip. I think the Conservative side is checking whether they will consider travel during a sitting week. I don't have any indication from the Liberal side if there's a desire to continue the trip or from my Conservative colleagues if there's a desire to do the trip.

The Conservative side, I believe, is going to see if they will allow sitting-week travel. I don't think there is a desire for non-sitting week travel because of Mr. Johns' schedule. It's unfortunate. It's just the reality of Mr. Johns' schedule and the fairness side of his being in a very difficult to get to place.

I will ask each party to go back to the whips to see what their decisions are. Then we'll spend a few minutes on Wednesday at the—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. Could I just have the floor?

At the very least, we have an existing budget from last time. February 8 is our drop-dead date for submitting it. I would suggest that we at least submit it as an interest from the committee. Then, if the parties have other plans for our time, so be it, but we don't want to miss the February 8 cut-off.

I know there is a strong desire from Ms. Vignola to do it, and it is probably going to be $300 billion to $400 billion over the next 20 years, so I think there is some value. I've been to them several times. There is a lot of value to it, but we'll leave it at that.

Everyone, thank you for bearing with me for this. I appreciate everyone's time today. Thank you.

We are adjourned.