Evidence of meeting #16 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We are now debating the two amendments proposed by Mr. Housefather. The first one deals with cabinet confidentiality and national security, and the second one deals with email.
So we'll start with the first questions on Mr. Housefather's amendment to the motion regarding national security and cabinet confidentiality.
Ms. Chabot, you have the floor.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with the proposed amendments, particularly on the issue of email and privacy. I think the Conservative objective is commendable, but targeting the emails of all public service employees makes no sense in terms of volume. We must also respect our rules.
I therefore agree with the amendment proposed by Mr. Housefather.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Mr. Housefather, go ahead on the motion to amend with respect to national security and cabinet confidence, please.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I said before, I moved this amendment because it is consistent with what other committees have proposed. I think the concept of solicitor-client privilege, cabinet confidentiality and the issue of national security are important. As my colleague Ms. Chabot said, I think it is reasonable that documents that touch on these aspects be removed from the documents provided.
However, if these amendments are adopted, I will agree to the current motion.
I just want to say again that I think this is a reasonable amendment because it conforms to what other committees have done. I think we all accept that cabinet confidentiality, solicitor-client privilege, privacy issues and national security issues are a reasonable carve-out to this type of motion.
Again, I would hope everyone would support this amendment. I think that's all I have to say.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, and I'll be as brief as possible.
We shouldn't take what other committees have done and apply them holus-bolus to our debate here today. First of all, this is the Canadian emergency response program. It is very clear what Parliament decided. There are no national security issues with simply discussing taxpayer money and how the program was implemented. There is nothing in here that would put the government or the Canadian people at risk, other than political risk maybe, but certainly not national security risk.
Second, client-solicitor privilege wouldn't be a case, because again, if a government could utilize the solicitor-client privilege, all they have to do is discuss it with the justice minister or one of their lawyers, and suddenly they could utilize that provision on some of these cases.
I see the chair is maybe disagreeing with me, but this is public money that has been spent in large amounts. Perhaps if the government had been a little bit more forthcoming with answers to many of the questions we've had at the COVID-19 committee, or perhaps if we had a full Parliament where we could put Order Paper questions, we wouldn't need to have such wide-open production orders.
The last thing I will say, Mr. Chair—
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
No, I have one more brief thing to say.
In response to the concerns about emails of individuals, member of Parliament Kwan has already clearly indicated exactly what the scope will be. This is specifically to senior officials and senior elected officials.
I think quite highly of Mr. Housefather, but in this case we should not apply the thinking of one committee to our own.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Albas.
Ms. Kwan, go ahead on the amendment that touches national security and cabinet confidence, please.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
On the amendment relating to cabinet confidentiality, national security and so on, I think that's a fairly standard clause in the sense of saying we would respect that. From that perspective, I would support that amendment.
However, on the issue around the emails, I think the volume of the material would be limited because we're limiting the scope of who this motion would apply to, and therefore I think accessing emails would be fair. From that perspective, I will not support the email amendment.
Mr. Chair, if we can separate out the two amendments for the—
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Just to be clear, I believe they're separate. They're two separate issues. This is only on the national security one right now.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Okay. That said, that's my perspective, Mr. Chair. When it comes to voting on the amendment, I will proceed as I stated.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
Mr. Housefather is correct. The debate right now is on the first of these two amendments, which touches on national security and cabinet confidence. Once we've dispensed with that, we'll deal with the second amendment, which touches on emails.
I see no further interventions on the first amendment. Therefore, we are ready to call the question.
The question before the committee is this: That the motion as presented by Ms. Kusie, as amended by the friendly amendment from Ms. Kwan, be further amended as proposed by Mr. Housefather. The amendment is that “Irrespective of the foregoing, matters of cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege and national security shall be excluded from the request and that the documents be redacted as may be necessary to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the document as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter.”
Mr. Housefather, do I have it right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That's the question. We will now proceed to a standing vote, Madam Clerk.
We have a point of order from Ms. Falk.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Chair, I just want clarification. I understand cabinet confidence and security, but I also heard “emails” in that amendment. I thought they were separate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Yes, Ms. Falk. The second amendment that was put forward by Mr. Housefather that is not presently before the committee but will be, once we've dispensed with this one, is that the word “emails” be deleted from sections 1, 2 and 3 and that the words “and dated” be added to sections 1, 2 and 3 after the words “emergency response benefit”.
That specifically deletes “emails”. There is reference to emails in this, but the two issues are different.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Chair, thank you for the clarification.
Liberal
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, in regard to what this one essentially means, there's no reference to emails. The reference is to “personal information”, meaning that if a Canadian citizen has emailed one of the people that is in the scope of this, their name, telephone number or email address would be redacted from the document even though the thrust of what they said would be there. Their personal information would be removed. That's what is meant here, but it's not related to the other thing we were talking about, eliminating “emails”, which would be a separate amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you.
There being no further interventions, we will now proceed with the question by way of recorded vote.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now proceed with the second amendment proposed by Mr. Housefather. It is that the motion as amended be further amended and that the word “emails” be deleted from sections 1 and 2 and 3, and that the words “and dated” be added to sections 1, 2 and 3 after “Canadian emergency response benefit”.
If you wish to speak on the amendment, please use the “Raise Hand” function.
I'm seeing one. Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
