Evidence of meeting #15 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I don't think so. I can check with my team up front to see if there's anything handy, but I don't have anything handy here.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Please check with them. That may assist. If not, if you end up not being able to find anything, then speak closer to the microphone on your computer. That may help as well.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
What I'll do, if you give me a moment, is check on that. Then what I'll do, if that's not the case, is find out where exactly the microphone is on the computer and try to be close to it if I can.
If you want to give me a moment, I'll do that.
May 7th, 2020 / 11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's ironic that the Conservatives are asking for less transparency, but let me make this point. The House of Commons has given us an order. I think we can say that the objections of our colleagues have been noted. Their comments have been noted, but we know what the terms are and, therefore, we should just proceed. We have to complete this report by a certain time, and I think we should proceed. We've noted the objections and concerns, but we are limited in what we can do.
Thanks.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Quite frankly, I'd like to be spared the sanctimony, because I think we're dealing with a very serious issue here, and that is the unintended consequences of that April 11 motion. Perhaps at the time that it was negotiated it wasn't thought of, the fact that we were going to be dealing with reports like this that are marked confidential and are meant to be dealt with practically and consistently, as is House practice, in a confidential manner.
The privilege issue notwithstanding, although I think there is a valid concern for that, the concern I have is that we have had individuals and organizations who have come before us and provided testimony. If any of us, including me, Mr. Gerretsen and Mr. Alghabra, call into question, for whatever reason, the testimony of any one of those individuals—say, like Mr. Robert, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Dufresne or Mr. Patrice—if somehow the discussion comes back to the fact that maybe we don't agree with their testimony, my fear, in not dealing with this in camera and being able to freely as a member of Parliament share my views and my thoughts, as other members can share their views and their thoughts, is that it could potentially affect the working relationship that any one of us will have with the House officers.
When we go over to organizations like Zoom and Microsoft, even the Westminster Parliament and some of the testimony that we received from the Scottish Parliament, what we're effectively doing and what we're saying to ourselves by not being able to discuss this confidentially is that we're going to have to be mindful of what we say so as to not impact the potential of those working relationships that we have with people, not just in our Parliament but perhaps those companies that provide services to the government or those individuals who provided testimony from either the Scottish Parliament or the Westminster Parliament.
I think this speaks to a much broader issue of that unintended consequence of what that April 11 motion dictates and the direction that it set out to the committee to deal with all meetings publicly. I don't think it was intended to deal with what is a confidentially marked report that hasn't been put out there in public. There are individuals and organizations we are going to be speaking about, and we can't be critical of anything they said for fear of the impact and effect that would potentially have on the relationships, or of creating a level of disrespect for the companies or whatever the case is.
That really is my broader concern on this. I think we should be able, Madam Chair, to have a free and open discussion, because we are dealing with a very significant issue here, as directed by the House, about virtual sittings. Maybe one of us has something that we know about, a business platform that we don't agree with. How am I going to share that here without the risk of, first and foremost, affecting that relationship, and second, of saying something that may potentially put me or others in a position of liability?
The unintended consequence of that April 11 motion, Madam Chair, is that I don't think it took into account the situation that we find ourselves in right now.
Listen, I want to get on with this report because I think it's an important report, but I think we also have to be mindful of the impact of anything we speak about here. Otherwise, let's just say, “Okay, we'll accept it as is and not discuss it”. Not being able to discuss it openly is not the job of this committee, and I don't think that we, as individual members, should be putting ourselves in a position where we can't openly and freely discuss the contents of this report without fear of affecting those personal relationships that we've developed with people we work with or those organizations that we respect, including other parliaments as well.
That's all I have to say. I think we need an answer to this, Madam Chair, frankly.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Yes, I mean, really all I wanted to do is.... I have a set of earbuds here with a microphone. I want to see if they could check to see if the sound quality is better for them now.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
They are in, and I am speaking on them now, so I am trying to determine whether that has solved the problem for you.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I think so. Let me just confirm, though.
Yes, apparently it is good, Mr. Richards. When you speak, when it is your turn to speak, just try to hold on to the wire there.
Next we have Mr. Turnbull.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I have just a few comments here. I have absolutely no reservations about moving forward in public here with the discussions over this report. I understand it's important work, and I think it needs to move ahead.
I know Mr. Richards said he didn't have a chance to go through it in depth, but many of us got up at seven in the morning to read through this report extensively and get prepared for this meeting. I really feel like we're being held back significantly by this.
I know that I'm a new MP, but I've read up on committee proceedings. On the Our Commons website, the third edition on committee proceedings stipulates that committees do occasionally move forward on deliberating over draft reports. Although they usually proceed in camera, they are able to proceed in public.
Even from a rules perspective, there are other examples of committees proceeding in this manner. I wonder why this is such an issue now, when it's clear that we've been given the direction to do this. It really seems to me that this is an attempt to hold us up, and I think we need to get down to business, to echo my colleague Mr. Gerretsen's point.
The other thing I wanted to say publicly is that I believe Ms. May has made a request to join this meeting. I have absolutely no issue with that either. I think she is a really provocative thinker. She thinks in depth about this. She's been to several of our other committee meetings, and I want to express my support for her participation in the deliberations over this report.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor.
Sorry, you've been waiting for so long that you forgot, I think, that you were on the list. My apologies. It's the first time we've had so many hands raised, and I think I did fudge things up a bit. I just want to remind Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Brassard to lower their hands so in the future there's no confusion. Thank you.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
There's no need to apologize, Madam Chair.
My simple comment was with respect to Ms. May as well. I absolutely feel that she has an awful lot to contribute to this study. She has taken part in many of our meetings, and I really welcome her participation.
Thank you.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I was going to throw it out there, since it's come up, that there's some concern over this. Why didn't my colleagues raise this earlier, when they saw the order that had been given to us by the House and, in particular, raise it with their folks who were in the House and voted in favour of it, to understand what their rationale was in supporting this motion that was sent over to us?
It's been well over a month; there was tons of time to look into this. To be surprised by the fact that we're dealing with this now makes it seem like a lot of people are caught off guard by this. The reality of the situation is that, if you had read the motion that we were given in terms of what to do in this study, you would know that this was right in there. The fact that people seem to be shocked by it now is a sign that they didn't do their proper homework before, and as a result everybody else is getting held up right now.
We've been at this for an hour, and we have not even started to talk about the report yet. I think we need to do what we've been asked to do and get on with it.
Noon
Liberal
Noon
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
There are obviously two issues here, and we've been mostly addressing one. I raised the first issue, and Mr. Brassard raised the other a couple of times, so I want to touch on them both.
I think I see a solution to one of them, for sure. On the idea of the confidential report being discussed in a public format, it seems to me that the solution is to move a motion. Once this point of order has been addressed, I would be happy to move a motion, if there's support for it. We could simply move a motion that the report is not considered confidential and that the committee is free to discuss it in public. If we were to pass a motion as a committee, I would certainly feel comfortable, as I hope others would, too, that confidentiality is not being breached.
I'm happy to move that motion, if it helps. That would address the first issue.
I don't really feel like we've addressed the second issue. That's the issue that Mr. Brassard was speaking to a few moments ago. He said we could be discussing things that have been said by witnesses and the issues that surround that. I haven't heard anyone on the government side address that.
I've heard a lot of comments from the government members that we should move on with things. I want to make it really clear that I think so, too. I think this is an important report that we need to deal with, and there are a lot of issues we need to address in doing that. However, we also have to make sure that we're doing it in an appropriate fashion. I don't think saying we should get on with things, without addressing something that actually is an issue, is a wise way to proceed.
I think we have a solution for one issue, if there's agreement that what I'm proposing makes sense. I don't think we have a solution for the second. I'm not hearing anything that addresses it. I guess I don't necessarily have a solution myself. That concern still remains in my mind.
Noon
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
It was laid out very well by Mr. Brassard just a few moments ago—