Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 10th, 2024

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'll leave my comments at that, Chair, on this issue of admissibility.

I think there are other people who may want to speak to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Ruff, I need clarity from you here. Are you challenging the admissibility of the amendment?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. Then this is a non-debatable point, which needs to go right to a vote.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

One moment, please.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I thought, when I asked if we challenged the admissibility, that we were able to explain the rationale.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

No, no, you have. I'm first clarifying that you're challenging the admissibility.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay.

I'll rule on this in a moment. Following my ruling, it is not a debatable point. It goes right to a vote. That's what I'm explaining to the committee.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

That's only if he challenges your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes, that's if he challenges my ruling.

That's what I'm explaining, that it's not a debatable point.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have a point of order.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I just wanted to say that we shouldn't forget the interpreters, who do an excellent job.

I personally understand some English. However, we need to ensure that all the discussions are interpreted correctly. I would like to ask all the members of Parliament to speak calmly. When emotions run high, we tend to speak quite quickly. We shouldn't do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. Thank you.

I have consulted with the legislative clerks on the matter of Mr. Ruff's challenging of the admissibility. I disagree with Mr. Ruff. I'm accepting the advice that has been provided to me by the legislative clerks on this matter.

Should there be a challenge, which is my assumption, we will go to a vote.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

The challenge of the chair has been brought forward by Mr. Ruff.

We are now going to vote on whether to uphold the ruling that I've just given.

For clarity, Mr. Ruff does not believe that what Mr. Duguid has just moved should be admissible. I am saying that I disagree with Mr. Ruff. I believe that it is within the scope of the bill and that it is admissible. Mr. Ruff has challenged that ruling.

We are now voting on my ruling, and then we will continue.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

For clarity, colleagues, on what this vote means, my decision is carried. The amendment is admissible.

On the speaking list, I have Ms. Mathyssen, followed by Mr. Calkins, followed by Mr. Duncan, followed by Mr. Cooper.

Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

To better clarify this amendment, I would like to make a subamendment to it.

I don't know if you want some time for the clerk to distribute it in both officials languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

One moment, please.

Colleagues, the clerk has sent you an email that contains the subamendment, in both official languages, that Ms. Mathyssen is about to speak to. If you'd like a printed copy, then I'm going to suspend and wait until there's a printed copy that gives members the opportunity to review it, at which point I will go back to Ms. Mathyssen, who will continue moving the subamendment.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Would it be helpful to read it in and then suspend?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'm just going to suspend now so that the request can be fulfilled. Everybody will have it in printed form.

Ms. Mathyssen, the floor will be yours when we resume, and then we will move forward with whatever next steps we decide to take on that.

We're briefly suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, thank you for your patience.

Ms. Mathyssen, the floor was yours, and you were in the process of presenting a subamendment to the amendment that Mr. Duguid put forward. We paused because members asked for a physical copy in both official languages, which is now in front of all members.

I'm going to ask you to present the subamendment that you were speaking to, from the beginning, please.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll read the amendment with the subamendment so that it is as changed:

(3) A member or former member of the Senate or the House of Commons must not knowingly disclose information to which they were given access under a security clearance through section 13.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act, except if the disclosure is made during a special committee of the Senate or the House of Commons, or of a joint committee, under an agreement with all House leaders of recognized parties and complies with established procedures and practices for the secure handling, storage, transportation, transmission and destruction of information or documents, including any requirement found in a Treasury Board policy, guideline or directive.

I think this keeps the intent of the amendment and is in line with existing practice. I think it's important to recognize that committees, even in camera, don't have the capacity or the infrastructure to deal with the documents that we would be talking about and with the clearances, and so on. I hope this actually goes back to what Mr. Hatfield was talking about in terms of meeting Treasury Board requirements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

I have a list of three speakers who would like to speak to your subamendment. The current list is Mr. Calkins, followed by Mr. Duncan, followed by Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Calkins, the floor is yours.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Notwithstanding the fact that I think the committee has erred in the admissibility of the original amendment and now the subamendment, this becomes incredibly problematic because we're now getting into the overthinking portion of the intended scope of Mr. Ruff's original legislation, which is simply to grant members of Parliament the ability to apply for a security clearance.

If I am reading this subamendment correctly, it says, “a member or former member of the Senate or the House of Commons must not knowingly disclose information to which they were given access”. If we're looking at the original amendment, it says, “of a joint committee, and every individual in attendance” in an in camera meeting. Who's allowed to come into an in camera meeting? Each one of us is allowed to bring our legislative assistant. The Standing Orders and the rules that we make for the committee also allow somebody from the whip's office. The way I interpret that is that it means everybody in attendance, which means we'll have to work against ourselves by asking our staff to leave. If they don't have the security clearance, the meeting would not be allowed to proceed and the sharing of information would not be allowed to proceed. It's the same with the whip's office.

It seems reasonable that everybody in attendance should have the security clearance. I'm not suggesting that. The problem is that not a single witness we've heard from in this place has indicated or spoken to whether or not this is necessary. I have no indication from any of the testimony that I've seen that.... For example, every one of the staff members we hire has to sign a confidentiality agreement. Anything they learn or any information they come to while they're in our employment cannot be released during employment or after employment.

I am sure that when classified information is shared with those who need to know it, there are protocols and measures in place to make sure that information stays secure under certain penalties. I think that's the place to put that enforcement in—not in Mr. Ruff's legislation, which is simply trying to give members of Parliament some of the privileges to do what we've been elected to do, which is to see information.

I don't like the amendment, and I certainly don't think the subamendment has made anything more clear.

It says, “under an agreement with all House leaders of recognized parties”. In a joint committee with the Senate, does that include the House leaders of the Senate groups? The Senate is structured and organized differently than the House of Commons when it comes to House leaders and the various political entities there. It says, “of recognized parties”. I don't even think the Senate has recognized parties. I don't think this wording is compliant with how the Senate internally operates its own practices and procedures, so how would we do that under a joint committee with the House of Commons and the Senate? How would they do that if senators were just in their own Senate committees? I don't think the language and wording in here applies at all.

Furthermore, there's not a single person from the House administration or the Senate administration here today, insofar as the clerks or the procedural clerks from either of those houses are concerned, to speak to the implications that I'm raising about how we would be able to comport and conduct ourselves within the framework of our current Standing Orders and how we operate at the committee level.

Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to revisit this. If these situations come up where a committee needs to have access and the members therein need to have access to classified information, those members who have already had a security clearance have it, and those who have yet to do so can simply go through that process. As with the Winnipeg lab documents and the Afghan detainees, these kinds of arrangements can be worked out at the time. We don't need to go down the rabbit hole and discuss these items at this particular point in time.

Frankly, I see these measures being put in place to stall and stymie the debate of this particular piece of legislation. I don't think they particularly add any value at this time. Frankly, they tie the hands of the intention of this bill, which is to simply grant the ability of members of Parliament to apply. They don't give us anything that.... These amendments are presuming that people have access to information. They've gone way further than the intent of the legislation. They've gone down a road where things can simply be worked out and put in place once Mr. Ruff's legislation, as intended, is passed.

I will be voting against not only the subamendment but also the original amendment. I don't doubt the intention of the person who moved the amendment, but I doubt it's based on anything we heard here as testimony. Frankly, there is nobody, to my knowledge, among the witnesses present today who can speak about the implications of my privilege as a member of Parliament and how these amendments, if passed, would infringe upon it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Duncan, the floor is yours.