Thank you, Madam Chair.
I know that you have a lot of things moving around right now and that we're asking each other a lot of questions through you, so I'll just reiterate my initial question, through you, to Mr. Redekopp—or to anybody else, for that matter—around a summary of the access to information documents referred to in the motion. That's one.
Two, through you, I would like to ask the member from the NDP if she could please submit the document she was making reference to, if that's possible.
Ms. Kwan, I apologize, but I'm wondering if you could also summarize the heart of your commentary in terms of what you're asking for from this committee. You did speak at length. Can you give us just a quick summary of that?
I'd also like to say that I support Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe's idea of having a parallel study. It makes sense. We've seen in committees that sometimes we're not able to move on one item and we get completely clogged. The whole committee gets completely clogged because it has one item on its docket. It doesn't move beyond that singular item to other items until the first one is addressed. We don't want that in this committee. We don't want this committee to get completely clogged up by one item on the docket.
Therefore, I would support what Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe is saying concerning parallel themes that are brought to this committee. For example, maybe the first day that this committee sits in a week, it will look at item (a). The second day that the committee sits that week it will look at item (b). We can continue like that, and that way, if item (a) gets clogged up or filibustered or whatever, then at least item (b) can move ahead and the committee's work can continue instead of being completely clogged.
Finally, I'd like to read into the record some email exchanges that I think would clarify that this was a good-faith error.
I apologize, but I don't have my glasses. I forgot them. If I read a bit slowly, please bear with me. I'll do my best. I'm not as fast a reader as Mr. Redekopp, and on top of that I have no glasses, but I'll do my best.
I'll start with an email dated November 19, 2020, sent at 11:33 a.m. This email came from Brian. I'll give just the first name in order to respect people's privacy. It was sent to a number of civil servants in government. The subject was a reply to the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act coming into force. It says:
Hi Chaitanya, thanks for the estimated timelines below. It would be great to know as soon as the GG has signed off so we have a better sense of when the Order will be published on the website.
One Q: Once the GG has approved, but before the Order has been published, is there anything stopping IRCC from giving the current regulator (and future College) a heads up that the coming-into-force has been approved and will be published shortly?
That was the first email. There was a reply to that from the person addressed, Chaitanya, on Thursday, November 17, 2020, at 11:45 a.m. It was a reply to Brian and copied to others. It says:
Good morning Brian,
I will definitely let you know as soon as I have word that it has been signed. IRCC can let the regulator know as soon as the GG has approved (At that point the Order is made regardless of the fact that it hasn't yet been published).
Hope to be in touch soon!
Chaitanya
I apologize about the pronunciation of names.
There's a reply to that email, from Chaitanya to Brian, and several others are copied. It says,
The OIC has been approved earlier than expected (late yesterday I understand)! Will you be able to find it on this website in the next few days https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/.
It has been a pleasure working with you and the whole team there! Wishing you all the best of luck with getting the College up and running!
Chaitanya
What a pleasant email.
I'll continue.
The next email comes from Brian on Monday, November 23, 2020, 11:30 a.m. It says:
One last quick Q.
Our Comms folks would like to add a link in the News Release that would take the reader to the OIC for the College Act (on the OIC website). Do you get a heads up of when exactly the OIC will appear on the website, and if so would you be able to flag to us so that the news release can go out asap after? If you have to look periodically yourself to see the OIC appear on the site, then no worries, we'll monitor from our end.
Thanks!
Brian
We'll continue.
A reply from Chaitanya was sent on November 23, 2020, at 11:37 a.m., to Brian. Nobody else is copied at this point. It reads:
Hi. Unfortunately I don't get a notification when it is up. Checking the website periodically is the best bet. The search engine is really good though - I just checked right now and it took me to the designation order. I'd expect it likely tomorrow or Wednesday.
Brian replies directly to Chaitanya on November 23, 2020, at 11:41 a.m. People are really fast here in government. That's kind of nice.
The reply says:
Ok, no worries, we'll keep an eye on the website. Don't want to jinx it, but probably won't need to bug you again.
All the best!
Brian
Then the reply again, and this is from Chaitanya on November 23, 2020, at 12:12 p.m. It's been sent to Brian and copied to somebody else named Sabrina in CIC. It reads:
It is never a bother to hear from you guys! Hope things go smoothly though.
Chaitanya
We're almost done here.
Then Sabrina from CIC on Monday, November 23, 2020, at 1:18 p.m., writes with high importance,
I think Brian definitely jinxed it. Urgently hoping you can provide me the exact date that the GG signed the OIC. If we are to refer to the date the Act came into force in briefing materials, what should we put? It is the date that the GG signed or the date that the OIC goes online?”
I've been reading a lot, so I'm going to read this part again, because this is really the kicker and the crux of the issue.
We're seeing now an exchange between government officials, a good-faith exchange. They are diligent civil servants replying quickly. They're not waiting a day or two to reply to emails. They're replying in real time, cordially, working together towards a common objective. Now we get an email with “importance: high” and a flag, a flag that the civil servants who were working in good faith were having a good-faith error that is now being picked up on. I'll read it again so we understand the tone here.
The key elements read, “Urgently hoping you can provide me the exact date that the Governor General signed the order in council. If we are to refer to the date the act came into force in briefing materials, what should we put?”
They're asking each other what they should put. They don't know. They're debating and discussing it, as they should, because they don't know. They should be talking to each other to get the best information. They're doing their job.
“Is it the date that the GG signed”—they're asking if it is the date that the Governor General signed it—“or the date the order in council goes online?” They don't know. They're asking the question of each other.
There is a reply from Chaitanya. It didn't take long. It was just four minutes after that, on November 23, 2020, at 1:22 p.m. It's to Sabrina and Brian. It reads:
Haha. She
—meaning the Governor General—
approved November 20th. You should use that date as the official day the Order was made rather than the date it goes online.
That was from Chaitanya.
As a final email, Sabrina replies:
Merci! For the quick response!
All the best,
Chaitanya
This was sent on November 23, 2020, at 1:23 p.m. See? They're so fast.
We see an exchange between civil servants. We see an attempt here to nail down an important date, which is what we are discussing here. It's what this whole committee meeting is revolving around. We see that they are doing their utmost to determine something.
We know that civil servants are humans. We are all human. We can all err, despite trying our best, as we always should. We know that ministers and the government rely on the expert advice of civil servants. There is no fault here on the part of the civil servants. They were doing their absolute best and working as diligently as possible.
This issue in question of the date and erroneously landing on it revolves around human error. We know that any reasonable minister would rely on the expert advice of civil servants, as they should, especially when it comes to these technicalities. I think it would be erroneous and unbecoming, or just a waste of time for the minister to drill down into that type of date. That's exactly the job of a civil servant. It's not the job of a minister to verify a particular date in question. If we had that level of expectation of our ministers for each and every date that's put into documents, we would not have a document published because of the amount of time it would take to verify it.
I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair. I have asked a number of questions through you. I'm hoping that we can get complete but clear responses so that we can make a determination of the questions at hand.
Thank you.