:
It has been moved by Mr. Sorbara that Ms. Shanahan be elected as first vice-chair of the committee.
Are there any further motions?
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: I declare Ms. Shanahan duly elected first vice-chair of the committee.
Congratulations.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition.
I'm now prepared to receive motions for the election of the second vice-chair.
Ms. Shanahan, you have the floor.
:
Since more than one candidate has been nominated, pursuant to the House order of Wednesday, September 23, 2020, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as notice of motion, and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted.
[Translation]
The motion proposed by Ms. Shanahan that Ms. Gaudreau be elected as second vice-chair of the committee has been received as a motion. The motion proposed by Mr. Fergus that Mr. Angus be elected as second vice-chair of the committee has been received as a notice of motion.
Shall the committee adopt Ms. Shanahan's motion that Ms. Gaudreau be elected as second vice-chair?
Pursuant to the House order of Wednesday, September 23, 2020, I'll now proceed to a recorded division.
[English]
All those in favour that Madame Gaudreau be elected second vice-chair of the committee, please say yea when your name is called, and please say nay if you are not in favour of the motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)
The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Madame Gaudreau duly elected as second vice-chair of the committee.
I will now turn the meeting over to the chair.
Please, especially for those who were on the committee previously, if the staff connection in your office is different, I'm certain the clerk would like to know that. That way we'll make sure that both you and your staff get the appropriate information when it's available.
Before I go through some ground rules, colleagues, let me thank you very much for your trust and confidence. I will do everything I can to make sure that, first off, as a collective, we serve Canadian citizens as well as the House of Commons. That's our mandate. As well, I will do everything I can to earn your trust. By doing that, I mean that I will try to make sure that every meeting is very orderly. I don't think any of us are cabinet ministers, so this is the one opportunity we get to actually assert our position and represent our constituents actively. I'm well aware of that. I've chaired two other committees in the past, both veterans affairs and industry. I will do everything I can to make sure your voice is heard, and heard fairly. You have been duly elected by your constituents and you've sworn an oath to the Queen. That is heavy on my mind as my responsibility to make sure you have the opportunity to assert your position and to be fair.
That said, let me go on to some housekeeping things. To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow.
Interpretation in this video conference will work very much the way it does in a regular committee meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of “floor” or “English” or “French”. As you're speaking, if you plan to alternate from one language to the other, you'll also need to switch the interpretation channel so that it aligns with the language you're speaking. You may want to allow for a short pause when switching languages to make sure the transition is smooth. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name.
Of course, colleagues, this is all new for us. Believe me, if I stumble a bit, don't take that as an affront. It's just that it will be different for me to navigate via video rather than live. However, I have to say that one of the challenges I always had as a chair when people were jumping in and out was their name. I can actually see all the names clearly now, so that is one advantage of a video conference that I really appreciate.
Colleagues, when you're ready to speak, you can click on your microphone icon to activate your mike. Just as a reminder, all comments by members should be addressed through the chair. If you need the clerk's help, please go through me as well. That way the clerk doesn't feel pulled to and fro or distracted when we're debating an issue and somebody is asking a question. That goes more to a live meeting, but I know that the clerk will appreciate that.
If a member wishes to intervene on a point of order that's been raised by another member, they should use the “raise hand” function, which I will have to learn myself. This will signal to the chair your interest to speak. In order to do so, you should click on “participants” at the bottom of the screen. When the list pops up, you'll see next to your name that you can click a raised hand. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. That's not only for all of us but also for interpretation.
The use of headsets is strongly encouraged. Should any technical challenges arise—for example, in relation to interpretation or a problem with audio—please advise the chair immediately and the technical team will work to resolve them. They're on the line with us right now. Please note that we may need to suspend during those times to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.
Before we get started, can everyone click on the screen in the top right-hand corner to ensure that you're on the gallery view? With this view, you should be able to see all participants in a grid view. It will ensure that all video participants can see one another.
If the committee wishes, we will now proceed to routine motions. Is it agreed that we will proceed to routine motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
Colleagues, you should have in front of you a copy of the routine motions that the clerk sent out. I will go through them one at a time. As I said, if there are any interventions, I will do my best to make sure I'm treating everyone fairly as the electronic hands come up.
:
Again, Mr. Dong, I'm a servant of the committee and I will always be that.
That said, I normally recognize individuals in the committee, not parties. That goes back to my logic at the beginning that this is the one time you have as an independent member of Parliament to assert your position. I think there will be people who have motions that will be of their own interest and some that will be of their party's interests.
I'm certainly at the disposal of the committee. If you'd prefer that I move from one party to the other throughout the motions, I'm certain that the clerk and I can manage that between us. Again, I want to respect all of you as individuals.
If there's no objection to proceeding as people mentioned their motions, then I will go to Mr. Fergus, and we can begin the routine motions.
Mr. Fergus.
The suggestion to follow PROC is something that I'm in favour with in terms of the precedent there. In terms of cutting the witness time down, my experience in the last six years in sitting on a couple of committees, and quite onerous committees, is that five to seven minutes is plenty of time. I think in today's virtual world, in terms of the time lag, sometimes we need to cut down a little bit in terms of the witnesses so we can allow all the questioners the time to put their thoughts and ideas forward.
In terms of the second round, we all have plenty of time to ask questions as we move along in this committee. I have no issues with that. I look at this as sort of rearranging the chairs, but the chairs will still all be utilized and everybody will be able to ask their questions to the witnesses and get their thoughts out.
I think we can move forward on that. If we can cut it down to five minutes on the witnesses, that would be perfect.
:
We're dealing with two things now. In terms of the order, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party do not get any extra time. It just shifts the order of when we speak.
Madam Shanahan's motion for five to seven minutes is different from the PROC motion, which said five minutes. I certainly support a five-minute to seven-minute variable for our committee, because sometimes we have extraordinarily important people speak and at other times we have a number of people speaking. I prefer Ms. Shanahan's five to seven minutes.
Then in the second round, it is the Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes; the Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes; the New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes; the Conservative Party, five minutes; and the Liberal Party, five minutes. Then, of course, the rounds would repeat if we go into the third and fourth rounds.
I figure that this would be pretty much straightforward. If we cut the time down for the speakers, it does give everybody an opportunity.
:
I want to make a few clarifications.
Because we were meeting using Zoom, there were unfortunately several occasions where, in the interest of fairness, the second round did not take place, despite the very good work done by the chairs.
I think that this motion for the second round will ensure a proper level of fairness. I propose that we refrain from repeating the process carried out by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that we trust this committee. I think that we'll find that not only will we be more effective, but we won't split as much time. We must sometimes stop while witnesses respond. This has happened a number of times.
In the interest of fairness and effectiveness, I support the proposal made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
:
Colleagues, are we okay with this motion on working lunches?
Colleagues, also with this pandemic, rather than going into a lot of nuances in the wording, let's just keep it to the discretion of the clerk, because there have been some complications with the parliamentary restaurant, etc.
If you're going to be in Ottawa and you're going to be at the hybrid meeting, then just do your best to notify the clerk. Obviously, if you're calling in on Zoom, then it's pretty tough for us to get a working meal to you anyway. But if you do that, then this motion should suffice for all of our nutritional needs.
:
If the committee is now unsuspended, I will now speak again.
Thank you, Chair, for travelling with us. I guess you're not the driver but the person who's taking us to where we need to go, the navigator, if I can use that term.
As I said a few seconds ago, the drafting of this routine motion was on the recommendation of the head clerk. This is not a partisan thing in any way. In my understanding, it's to clarify and possibly avoid any unintended consequences in the future when we go in camera.
I think the four points from (a) to (d) incorporate what Mr. Angus was referencing in terms of possible scenarios in which we would have to go in camera and deal with scenarios that may present themselves in this committee. I think this routine motion is quite innocuous, or the point of the routine motions is quite innocuous and pretty self-explanatory.
I think we should adopt it as recommended by the head clerk.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Shanahan.
I have nobody else on the speakers list, and I sense that there's consensus around the version that Mr. Fergus read and the most recent version, of course, which is the same one the clerk sent to you. Is that correct, everyone?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Okay, thank you. The clerk will make the amendments and that motion has passed.
Mr. Fergus, does the next motion you're going to read say “Orders of Reference”?
I'm happy to do so now, since we were already wondering about the resumption of work. I want to move a motion that focuses on effectiveness, but that also takes into account the urgent needs arising from the current pandemic and the proposals made over the past few months for how to carry out the work that we were finishing up before the prorogation. My fellow members, you should know that three more motions may be moved in the future. You won't be surprised. I just wanted to give you a heads-up. However, I'll speak to you specifically about the main motion.
First, there will certainly be a provision to prevent conflicts of interest. I intend to move a motion calling for a study during this Parliament to ensure that all federal government policy documents, whether they relate to procurement, contracting, grants or contributions, include a link to prevent conflict of interest.
There will also be a motion regarding the powers of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. This issue was discussed extensively over the summer.
Of course, this will be followed by the motion that I already moved regarding our concern for privacy. The motion has been slightly amended to make it more effective in terms of privacy.
Today's topic is effectiveness. I asked whether usefulness has ever been linked to effectiveness, and I was told that it has. I'm a new member, so I have many questions. However, I also have some recommendations. I'm proposing today that we create a special committee to examine the design and creation of a Canada student service grant.
Madam Clerk, you received a copy of my motion. I want to read it slowly. Normally, I would have liked to move it afterwards, since it's now formal. We wouldn't have been able to do so before, obviously, not even 48 hours in advance. I'll now read it to you. If there's anything, you can—
:
No, you can distribute it while I read it, as this will take a few minutes. Thank you very much.
I will begin.
That the committee report to the House the following recommendation: That the committee recommend to the House the creation of a special committee to hold hearings to examine all aspects of the design and creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, including those relating to the study on the review of the safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest in federal government expenditure policies; government spending, WE Charity and the Canada Student Service Grant; the government’s decision to select WE Charity, an anglophone organization, to implement the Canada Student Service Grant; and the administration of the Canada Student Service Grant and WE Charity:
There are a few clarifications. This is very clear and precise.
1. That the committee be composed of 11 members, of which five shall be government members, four shall be from the Official Opposition, one shall be from the Bloc Québécois and one from the New Democratic Party;
2. That changes in the membership of the committee shall be effective immediately after notification by the whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;
3. That membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);
4. That the members shall be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than three days following the adoption of this motion by the House;
5. That the Clerk of the House shall convene an organization meeting of the said committee no later than five days following the adoption of this motion by the House;
6. That the committee be chaired by a member of the official opposition;
7. That, notwithstanding Standing Order 106(2), in addition to the Chair, there be one vice-chair from the official opposition, one vice-chair from the Bloc Québécois and one vice-chair from the New Democratic Party;
8. That quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118 and that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government;
9. That the committee be granted all of the powers of a standing committee, as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada;
10. That the committee have the power to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
11. That the committee continue all of the business of the following committees: the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics; the Standing Committee on Finance; the Standing Committee on Official Languages; and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; and that the documents and evidence received by each of these committees be deemed to have been received by the said committee, including the documents provided on Tuesday, August 18, 2020, to the members of the Standing Committee on Finance;
12. That the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, and the Leader of the Government in the House be among the witnesses ordered to appear from time to time as the committee sees fit.
In a few words, can we pursue the main objective of the ethics committee with what we previously submitted and strike a special committee to continue to shed light on this issue? Can we do that, but while not committing all of our time to it, given the situation we are going through? Our constituents are asking us to move forward, as there are urgent issues other than the pandemic. It would be to our credit to manage to do that and to deal with all the motions that will be moved, which are extremely important for our constituents. That would cap off what we started here this summer, before August 13.
Thank you.
:
Thank you for your motion, it's very interesting.
I think we first need to know whether our committee has the power to strike a new committee. [Technical difficulty—Editor] each party's leaders for that plan. So I think the motion is interesting, but I think such a motion can also be moved in the Standing Committee on Finance.
[English]
I am interested in this motion. I'm concerned about a couple of things. Again, I don't know that the ethics committee has the authority to create a special committee, but I think a special committee is where we want to go. I think a special committee will clear up our committees so that we can get to work. Right now we have four committees looking at the WE scandal. My understanding is that at the finance committee there is language that is more inclusive regarding other financial issues, language that would make the committee broader and give it a stronger mandate, so I'm interested in the language of that committee.
I'm concerned that even if we pass the motion today calling on the House to create a special committee, that might take some time. It might take a lot of negotiating. I don't want that to interrupt the work that has been done. I think it's important that we maintain our ability to look at the documents that we received and that if we have to continue with our witness list, we continue with the witness list as it was.
If the member is willing to augment that to say that in the meantime we will continue with our work with the documents, that would then allow the House leaders to look at this. I think it's a very interesting proposal to clear the decks for the four committees that are very occupied with the WE issue, and it allows us to get onto the other issues. As Madame Gaudreau said, there are many issues that are really important, but I would like to know if she is willing to add to it that the committee call for the reintroduction of the documents that we had obtained. Then we can have a separate discussion about how those documents are accessed and we can reintroduce the witness list and carry on until the House leaders come to a decision. For me, that would be the best.
In terms of the difference in language between what the finance committee is discussing and what the Bloc member has brought forward, I think if we bring forward a motion and the finance committee brings forward a motion, the House leaders can negotiate something that maybe all parties can find acceptable.
I'm very interested in this, but I want to make sure that if we have a long time delay while they negotiate, we're still able to finish off or bring forward the work. If the larger committee is created, then with regard to the transfer of documents and the transfer of information from our committee, I'm perfectly content to let this new special committee, for however long it's scheduled, address those outstanding issues.
I thank my colleague Ms. Gaudreau, especially for what she said concerning the important work we have to do here, in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We already adopted a few very interesting motions at the beginning of the last session. I am looking forward to seeing whether we could recover them.
I am not aware of all the discussions surrounding the idea of creating a special committee, but to build on what my colleague Mr. Angus said, according to my understanding of committee mandates, it is rather the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that takes care of this. Committees struck in the past were always created by that committee. So I must vote against this motion, as I don't think it comes under our mandate.
However, I agree with the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics looking into issues of confidentiality and identity fraud, as well as issues surrounding digital technology. I think that is this committee's goal.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank Ms. Gaudreau for her motion.
I would like to go over three elements.
First, Mr. Angus asked whether the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics had the right to strike a new committee. I don't think so. That power rather belongs to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, even though I think my colleague made a mistake when he said it was the Standing Committee on Finance—and he is confirming this—that has the power to create a new committee to consider those matters.
Second, if we decide to go back in the past and take up the work that was done during the previous session, I assume all the provisions that were adopted and the context established to examine those documents will also be completely re-established as they were before the prorogation. So I would like to get clarifications from the clerk regarding those two elements.
In addition, the idea of having a completely new committee to consider this is not bad. However, I think it is up to parliamentary leaders in the House to negotiate this, as they do for the striking of any other new committee. So, if possible, we will have to put this on hold for the time being and let the discussions continue.
Finally, I must say that I was eager to consider an issue that we raised right after the election. It is an extremely important issue, especially for Black Canadians, aboriginals and racialized people. I'm talking about facial recognition. Ms. Gaudreau, Mr. Angus and I have talked about this at length. We are lucky in our bad luck, as companies have not been working on that lately because everyone needed masks. However, this truce will eventually end, and they will start working on it again.
Studies have shown that people with brown skin and Black people are greatly disadvantaged by that kind of technology. Our room to manoeuver with regard to this issue is shrinking. As members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we have to look at this as soon as possible. If we miss our shot now, industry practices will advance too much and we will never manage to regulate them.
For all those reasons, I like the idea of having negotiations on the striking of any new committee by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Let's allow the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to do its work. It will have a profound impact on racialized people across Canada, as industry is soon to start developing that new technology again.
It's really difficult to read through this motion, which I received just a few minutes ago, and try to understand the essence of it and do a fair examination of the wording while listening to my colleagues offering their input and their perspectives on this motion, but I tried to make the best of it.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that I agree with my colleagues, MP Fergus and MP Shanahan, about whether or not our committee has the power to create a special committee. I think MP Angus spoke about it too. I've just heard from the chair that we can offer a recommendation.
Just to be clear, I'm a newish member to all of this. If the clerk can clarify or read out the mandate of this committee again so that we can make an apple-to-apple comparison, if that's not too much trouble, I would like the clerk to remind us—or me, at least—of it and read out the mandate of this committee.
Again, this is a very substantial motion. I would need some time to digest it.
After prorogation, we're still right in the middle of COVID. The motion I'm about to bring forward will suggest that the committee study the implications of the new frontier of digital currency. We've seen that during COVID there has been a lot of increased use of online services in the financial area and in other areas as well. Coming out of COVID, I think that some of those sectors will be ready to thrive, and Canada usually benefits from the advancement of technology. It shows in our GDP that the technology sector has been at the forefront of it.
I think it's quite urgent to study something that connects not only to Canadians' daily lives and their consumption behaviours, but to international trade as well. We can't lose out. It's highly competitive, and we need to get in front of it in making sure that the privacy of Canadians and Canadian businesses is protected, meanwhile maintaining transparency in these transactions. Because COVID has exposed the priority of those areas, I think our committee owes it to Canadians to start doing some investigations on them, or to at least hear about from witnesses coming from these industries, to provide strong recommendations to the House.
I just need a bit more time to go through this motion to examine it again. At the same time, I hope the clerk can clarify the mandate of the committee with us so that we can compare apples to apples.
Thank you, Chair.
:
Mr. Speaker, during the last session when we were speaking about this kind of motion, we moved a motion regarding the in camera treatment of the documents. I'm not able to look at it right now, but I would like to suspend for five minutes, with your permission. If we could suspend for five minutes, we could take a look at whether, if we bring back the work of the previous session, we do so in its entirety. I would look for the concurrence of the other members of the committee.
I think we spoke at length about how important it was for the privacy and confidentiality of these personal documents of individuals who are not members of Parliament, who are family members, to be safeguarded in every respect. I think that all members here—those who were with us in the last session and new members here now—can appreciate that it is not the place of this committee to expose people for no other reason than that they happen to be related or otherwise connected.
I think we saw that the code is connected with members of Parliament. I think we saw in the code of ethics, as well, a very particular definition about which family members are connected to any investigation. I think it would be very important for us to look at all of those parameters, and if it is the will of this committee to bring back the examination of those documents, that it be done as we had agreed to in the last session.
I ask your indulgence to suspend for five minutes so that we could look at those conditions, and perhaps it can be a friendly amendment to the motion at hand.
Thank you, Chair.
Maybe this might clarify it. I certainly understand the points that Ms. Shanahan brought up. Also, I understand what Mr. Angus has brought up, but, Mr. Chair—and it's no fault of your own, this being the first meeting in which you're sitting in the chair—we did spend a considerable amount of time on coming to a hard-fought consensus to try to figure out a way, as Mr. Angus and Ms. Shanahan pointed out, for us to respect the privacy of these documents that are being brought up. You quite instinctively and naturally, and with your longer parliamentary experience, raised the issue of that kind of fairness.
Mr. Angus is correct that the situation has changed because of the pandemic. I'm not certain we can give this justice in five minutes if we just proceed straight to a vote with no consideration to figuring out a way to respect the intent of the context that we set around the viewing of those documents in the last Parliament, while still making sure we can bring that work forward and discharge our work properly, and this in the context of a pandemic.
I'm trying to figure out the process if just five minutes won't do it justice. I don't want to delay this. I'm certain Mr. Barrett is thinking, “Ah, he's just looking to delay.” I'm actually trying to just figure this out. We need to have some time to figure this out.
Things have been really complexified by the fact that we're working online now. That was precisely the type of argument we made. We didn't want to distribute those documents electronically, because once it's out electronically, it's out. That's the reason we put on such special measures to make sure that we were respecting the privacy of the people from whom we requested these documents.
I'm trying to figure out how you find that balance, Mr. Chair. I turn to you and the clerk. All I know is that I bet you dollars to doughnuts that we're not going to figure this out in five minutes. I don't know what we should do here.
An hon. member: Vote.
:
I was. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not speaking to the last amendment made by Mr. Barrett. I just wanted to chime in with my comments as a new member of this committee. I'm all for efficiency and I'm all for moving along, but I think, colleagues, you need to appreciate that there are two new members on this committee.
Decisions were made in the previous mandate of this committee, and discussions and motions took place that I was not a part of. I understand the scope of Mr. Barrett's motion. I have no issue with whatever motions come through this committee, but I think it would be incumbent upon us to give ourselves a chance to look at them and study them.
If I heard correctly, Mr. Barrett moved to adjourn my colleague Gaudreau's motion because it merited time to be studied. There's a consideration here in terms of private individuals, private documents, and I think that it wouldn't be fair to move in such a very quick fashion without giving us the opportunity to look at it, at least from my perspective, and at least get a sense of where all this is coming from and get a little bit of the history behind this motion.
I wasn't privy to any of those conversations. I came prepared today with the motions that I wanted to present, the mandate of this committee. These are the prepared documents that I have. I have no information, no document, that would make me understand or help me in voting on at least the next motion that my colleague, Mr. Barrett, has put on the floor this morning.
For all those reasons, just as my colleague Barrett decided to adjourn debate on my colleague Gaudreau's motion, I would move that we adjourn debate on his motion and give me at least the opportunity to look at it and come prepared to the next committee meeting to take an enlightened decision on his motion.
I'm going to try and bring together Madam Shanahan's original concerns, which I think should be very, very important for us to consider.
When we asked for these documents, we did have a major discussion. I'm sorry if new members didn't read up on it, but the major issue was to make sure these documents were handled properly. The agreement was they would be kept in the clerk's office, and I think that remains a very important principle.
What I think is important about Mr. Barrett's friendly amendment is that they would remain in the clerk's office, but because we are now meeting virtually and some members in different parts of the country may not be able to travel, the only people who would be able to see the clerk's documents—and Mr. Barrett may correct me if I'm wrong—is the MP on the committee or their designated staff, a single designated person who would represent the member of Parliament and who would be able to go to the clerk's office.
We've had that in other previous committees. This would then limit access so that we're not actually putting these documents online and we're not sending them out virtually, but for a member of Parliament.... For example, if I can't leave northern Ontario to see the documents, my privilege would be interfered with, but if I designate a particular member of my staff to go, that person could go and see the documents and report back to me. The documents would not be available virtually or put out in public. I think it would show that our whole committee understands the importance of respect of privacy and also of accountability.
That's my understanding of Mr. Barrett's friendly amendment to his motion. If that's it, then I am ready to vote on this so that we can get on and get ready for question period.
:
I am concerned that in the friendly amendment, the wording is not exact enough. I think that it's the reason that I asked for the suspension earlier and why we asked for the adjournment on this debate. It's because we would like to look at it more carefully.
I was able to find the in camera...the privacy motion that we passed this summer, and I'd like to read that out so people can understand that there was much thought put into this. It was passed by this committee.
It was as follows:
“That, in relation to the motion passed on Wednesday, July 22, 2020, to ensure the privacy and security of this personal information of Canadians, the committee adopt the following procedures for the handling of these documents:
“That the documents not be emailed to Members, staff or anyone else;
“That for the consideration of the documents during in-camera meetings, numbered, paper copies be provided to committee members by the Clerk at the start of any meeting at which they will be considered, and that they be returned to the Clerk at the end of the meeting;
“That no staff and no mobile or electronic devices be allowed for the duration of the in camera meeting;
“That the documents be held in the Clerk's office, and that outside of in-camera committee meetings, Members may only view the documents in the Clerk's office and that no mobile or electronic devices may be in the room when the documents are being reviewed.”
This, I think, shows the thought that went into this, and I understand that we have even the added difficulty, of course, of not all members being able to be here, which is why I would like more thought to be put into this motion and into the subamendment, the amendment to the motion.
I respectfully ask all committee members to keep this in mind. What we do here will affect individuals. I don't think it's the wish of anybody here to inadvertently hurt individuals who, as I said earlier, through no fault of their own, have been brought into this situation.
I don't know how to address the issue of staff. I'd like to understand who that staff would be. Are they bound in the same way that we would be? Do they have “secret” clearance? I think these are serious issues that need to be considered, and likely not just for this motion, but for anything else, for any other committee work where we deal with confidential documents, as we do from time to time.
For that reason, I cannot support the amendment proposed by Mr. Barrett.
Thank you.
Thank you to my colleague MP Shanahan for her comments. I'm largely in line with those comments regarding Mr. Barrett's amendment and motion.
I'm trying to understand what has changed between the motion that was brought forward in the summer and the motion now. In the summer motion, staff were, to my understanding, specifically excluded. I'm concerned. I'm very much concerned in terms of the sensitivity of the documents, the sensitive nature of the first motion, which was drafted in the summertime. Now we're going to be enlarging that, or at least the proposition is to enlarge that circle. I'm very much concerned.
Obviously I take, with a lot of credence and a lot of value, MP Angus's comments in terms of his rights as an MP being violated or his privilege being violated—excuse me, Charlie, if I use the wrong terms. We obviously know as members of Parliament that we all need to be able to fulfill our jobs, and obviously, just delegating those responsibilities to our staff members is, I believe, not correct. I believe we need to be within the spirit of the motion in the summertime.
To my understanding, the motion is, “That, in relation to the motion passed on Wednesday, July 22, to ensure that the privacy and security of this personal information of Canadians,”—and I re-emphasize it's to ensure the privacy and security of this personal information of Canadians—“the Committee adopt the following procedures for the handling of these documents:
“That the documents not be emailed to Members, staff or anyone else;
“That for the consideration of the documents during in-camera meetings, numbered, paper copies be provided to committee members by the Clerk at the start of any meeting at which they will be considered, and that they be returned to the Clerk at the end of the meeting;
“That no staff and no mobile or electronic devices be allowed for the duration of the in camera meeting”.
I'll repeat that again: “That no staff and no mobile or electronic devices be allowed for the duration of the in camera meeting”.
Then the motion goes on: “That the documents be held in the Clerk's office, and that outside of in-camera committee meetings, Members may only view the documents in the Clerk's office and that no mobile or electronic devices may be in the room when the documents are being reviewed.”
At the time, there was such sensitivity and such importance given to this. I don't know what the vote was for that motion, but I'm anticipating that since this motion passed, it was made with the utmost diligence and judiciousness by the committee members at the time.
I have significant, grave concerns in reference to expanding this list. If there were a leak by a staff member from any party, it would impose significant consequences on the individuals mentioned within these documents, on their privacy or their potential future career opportunities or their financial.... It is almost every realm. Not being a lawyer, I cannot even list the grave concerns that can be numbered.
It has come up in prior committee hearings that a leak did occur. We can go back to 2010, December 14, and a former staffer of a Conservative MP. A document was leaked on December 14, 2010—I can read it into the record—by a staffer of former Conservative MP Kelly Block. We know the great work that staffers do day in, day out for us. We know the heavy lifting they do, not only to make us look good but also to inform us, to keep us on schedule. We all understand that, but there has been a situation in the past, unfortunately, where this has occurred. I cannot, in good conscience, have this situation arise again.
I'm really not sure why MP Barrett put forward this suggestion or amendment or motion.
In terms of that, in terms of privilege, obviously, as I say, we are in a unique and extraordinary period of time. We need to ensure that all members' privileges at all times are respected, but this was set up during the summertime, during COVID. It was agreed to by the members of the committee. I don't know why we're veering in any other manner.
Chair, I'll stop in a minute. I have very grave concerns on why the motion was put forward in this manner. Obviously, I cannot support that in any way, if the consequences were that when a staff member were to leak this information....
It gives me very, very, very grave concerns. That responsibility should not be delegated down in terms of the sensitivity of these documents. That's why, going back to the routine motions, we had that section there for going in camera. This obviously pertains to that, and it should be the sole responsibility of the members of Parliament.
I'll now yield the floor to the next speaker, Chair. Thank you.
It's becoming clear that the Liberals don't want these documents released. Of course, we knew that they didn't want them released. The prorogued Parliament, shutting down committees and the investigation just hours before these documents were set to be released to the committee.
It's no surprise that the Liberals don't want them released. The opposition members do want them released to the committee. This is a minority Parliament. Canadians have elected the opposition parties in larger numbers than the government. It is time for the government to end their filibuster and allow for this committee to do its important work of undertaking its review of these documents.
It shouldn't be a surprise to any member of this committee. I am new to this committee, but I read in national newspapers that this committee was considering these documents, that these documents were being prepared, and that they were hours away from being released before the prorogued Parliament. It isn't a surprise to any of us. It's no surprise to any Canadian that we as a committee would be requesting the release of these documents.
I believe it's now time for us to figure out a way to get these documents to committee. I believe the proposal from my colleague Mr. Barrett—and it's been supported by Mr. Angus in these discussions—is that we find a resolution to ensure that we protect the privacy of those individuals by maintaining the documents in the clerk's office, allowing members of this committee, as well as a designated staff member, access to review those documents. As Mr. Sorbara and others have said, we do trust our staff to do good work, and I would expect that we can move forward. We are all responsible adults. We've all served in many capacities, many of us as members of Parliament for a significant period of time. Canadians will find it ridiculous if we can't find some way to get these documents to committee within the next number of hours.
I remember that there was a great division in opinion the last time this came forward to the committee.
With this, we're setting a precedent. How far are we going to go in terms of relatives and friends? As far as that's concerned, I asked the Clerk of the Privy Council that question, and other experts who came in as witnesses later on. How far we can go is in the legislative guidelines, and this goes for all members thereafter. As a member, it personally feels to me as if there is no line, no boundary in terms of how far this committee will go in calling a member, elected officials, friends and family members.
Anyway, there was a great division on this topic. I remember that the chair had to step in to make a decision.
I agree that Canadians are entitled to information. However, I think that in protecting their fundamental rights and privacy, the committee now is on the hook for accountability in making sure that happens.
We were in a COVID situation then. We're still in a COVID situation. I don't understand why all of a sudden we are going to include designated staff having access to these documents. I don't think there were precedents in the past over how these were leaked. Unfortunately, I don't know if there was any solution or any change of legislation to speak to that. We are entering into another situation, where if this gets leaked, all members of this committee, especially those who agree with this amendment, will be on the hook.
I don't understand the mechanism whereby designated staff will see the document and then transmit the information of this document back to their member without using electronics. If MP Barrett could explain this to me, that would be great. In my view, there's no way in today's world to pass on this information without using electronics. You can use a phone, but is it completely safe?
I don't understand why this amendment has been brought forward. There was great discussion in the past to exclude staff, and now we're including staff. Perhaps someone can explain that to me.
Michael is laughing. Maybe he has a good explanation. I'm looking forward to hearing from him.
:
There's no problem at all, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to be very clear. I think some very good points were raised, but I'd like to respond, particularly to what Mr. Warkentin said. I'm glad Mr. Warkentin followed the news over the summer and read the national news on this. I would also hope and assume that he followed the debate that we had at the ethics committee. We had a long discussion about this. It wasn't the will of just one party. It was the will of the majority of the members of the committee to put a framework around the in camera aspect of this.
This was done for extraordinary reasons. Why? The debate really centred around the notion of who investigates the investigators. In other words, who gets to do it? Should MPs be investigating other MPs and their families, and by extension their friends and all that kind of stuff? The answer was no, we have an Ethics Commissioner who does that. If members feel that the Ethics Commissioner doesn't have full access, then that's the reason we approved this motion. We said, “All right, the original idea was that all this information was going to go to the Ethics Commissioner, just as a clearing house through the clerk; therefore, we're not really investigating each other.” There was some concern that members wanted to see this information, so then we put some limits around that.
This was the will of the committee, not the will of one party. The idea was, with this information.... We developed this on July 22, not very long ago, under the same conditions in which we find ourselves now in terms of having a hybrid Parliament. It's in the sense that, with COVID, which was happening, we said, “All right. We're going to leave this to make sure that members can take a look at this, but it will be kept at the clerk's office. We're going to try to limit the number of people on this so that we don't put anyone, our staffers or anyone whom we designate, in a compromised position in case the information ends up being released.” That is the reason that we put those conditions in place. It was the will of the committee to do that.
It was, I think, the best thing to do under the circumstances. Nothing else has changed. There's no other material factor that has changed in terms of the ability of members to get to Ottawa.
I know we all have different weeks of House duties. We were talking about this off camera before this meeting started, about all of us being required to come to Ottawa from time to time to do our duty in the House; otherwise, we would be participating online. Well, I think that, as part of that duty, that's exactly what will happen.
You're not getting any opposition from me or from my colleagues in the Liberal Party to bringing forward this information. We're saying, “Fine, but bring it forward under the same conditions that we established back in July.” Given that nothing has changed in our circumstances, that should still apply.
I've known Chris for a long time. I'd like to consider him a friend, but I didn't appreciate the tone in which he suggested that this was a partisan issue. It wasn't. I think this committee has done very well in making sure that we want to support the work that's being done.
We all know that there are discussions going on about how we can take this off the ethics committee's plate and put it onto a special committee's plate so that we can go on and do the important work we set out to do back in February, which we know is time-limited.
Mr. Barrett, I think we would come to a quick agreement if you were to bring forward the same conditions that we adopted so that members of the committee can examine those documents. Bring forward those same conditions that we had back on July 22, and we're done; we can move on to other issues. We know that the same material will be brought forward and the same conditions in which they would be applied would be brought forward, and we would be able to discharge our duties as members of this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thanks, Chair. There was a lot said there.
We've gone back in our time machine to 2010 to find an incident of a staff member leaking a document. I don't know; maybe they got fired, maybe they didn't.
Mrs. Shanahan asked about secret clearance. None of my staff have security clearance. I don't think there's a provision for MPs' staff to have security clearance, nor are MPs cleared, unless it's a requirement. I had a top-secret clearance when I served in the military, but it's not current and it's not required. The clearance that we require is the one that we take on the day we officially become members, and that's the oath of office. It's that we “solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that [we] will truly and faithfully, to the best of [our] knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in [us]. So help [us] God.” That's the clearance we use. With respect to our staff, they handle all kinds of information from our offices.
In this case, we have members who are not able to come to Ottawa. We have a situation here where people need to put a little water in their wine. This is not the original motion that I put forward in the summer. But some things have changed, folks. Prorogation has happened. When we put this forward at the time, in the summer, there was a second motion. There were restrictions put on it. I'm not creating some kind of structure to allow a leak.
If you like the motion, vote for it. If you don't like the motion, vote against it and propose a different one. Everyone was in a big hurry 50 minutes ago to leave this meeting. Everyone has seen this motion before. Everyone can see it now. The change that I've suggested is eminently reasonable. With respect, how would your staff talk to you? There's never any limiting factor on what we can talk about, for me to be able to call another member of this committee on the phone, having viewed these documents in the clerk's office with them.
Mr. Dong, you and I can attend the clerk's office together, look at them. You go back to your constituency; I go back to my Hill office. We pick up the phone and we talk about it. We're allowed to do that. There's no requirement for use of encrypted devices. This isn't national security. We're talking about an issue of someone's first name and last name, and on what date they attended an event and how much they were paid for it. It's not in my interest to leak any of this. I'm not sure in whose interest it would be.
For members who were in a mad rush to get out of here 50 minutes ago, let's just put our hands down and call the question. You can vote against it.
Mr. Fergus, you talked about the will of the committee. Well, guess what? It's a new session of Parliament. The Liberal prorogued to avoid accountability in dealing with corruption in his government, so now the committee has to take new decisions. Well, based on that, some of those decisions that the committee made before, in a previous session, might be different.
I will slow my pace down because I know in the past I've been asked to be respectful of the good work our interpreters do. My apologies to the interpreters and to my colleagues who are listening through translation services. They offer me the same courtesy when they're speaking.
I'll leave it there. To my colleagues, we can drag this out over a couple of meetings, or we can vote on it today. If the will of the committee is similar to that of the committee from the previous session, then the motion will be defeated. A new motion can be put forward. If it's in the interest of members of this committee to get the information, my goodness, wouldn't it be a pleasant surprise to see a Liberal member of the committee put forward a motion to order the documents from Speakers' Spotlight and have them produced under conditions that they believe are favourable, and then see if members of the opposition vote with them?
I encourage all members that we move swiftly to calling the question.
:
The reason these documents were requested was that under the Conflict of Interest Act and the definitions of “family” and “relatives”, there's also section 5, whereby the needs to have his affairs in order not to be put in a conflict of interest.
These issues matter, because after Mr. became Prime Minister, the WE group began to pay his family members an extraordinary amount of money to do work for them, and they initially denied that. They said money wasn't paid. When we asked the charity board head, the former chair of WE Charity, if she had known that the Trudeau family were being paid, she said they were specifically told that the Trudeau family was not being paid. There's a question of the credibility of the information we've had.
When we asked the Kielburgers to clarify why Trudeau family members were being paid when very famous people like Jully Black and Theo Fleury were not being paid, they told us that they were not being paid to do public speaking but to work the corporate events afterwards.
This situation has put the in a conflict of interest. That's why these documents matter. The question is.... If the documents concur with everything we've been told, then that's fine. If the documents contradict what's been said publicly and under oath at committee, then we have a very serious issue.
I would suggest that the simple solution is that we can vote on it right now. I will come to Ottawa to look at the documents, and then I'll talk to my staff about those documents. I would have preferred to avoid having to come in, because of COVID, and to have my staff go, but I will accept the original terms we had for the limiting of the documents if the Liberals will agree to vote now, before two o'clock, so that we can get these documents put into the clerk's hands and we can begin to work.
If Mr. Barrett will withdraw his amendment, Mrs. Shanahan has said she's—
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In light of the discussions, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the terms that had been agreed to back in July seem to have been in dire contradiction with the amendment my colleague put on the table for us to decide. I'm going to reiterate that it's important that we have a good idea of what has transpired in the past so that we can make decisions that are clear and lucid. It is in no way to stifle the work of this committee; it's to get to work and do the due diligence in our work.
That was the point of my intervention before, and I'm reiterating for the same arguments and not an adjournment of the motion, because I understood that we voted on it. Because of the new information that was read by my colleague Mrs. Shanahan, I think you can appreciate that we, as new members of this committee, are entitled to have all the necessary information so that we can take our responsibilities and make decisions that are clear.
I'm going to propose once again that we adjourn debate on this motion. I understand that what my colleague is also.... In reading very quickly the motion, I see there are a lot of similarities between his motion and my colleague Gaudreau's motion with regard to setting up a new committee. Let us take the time to look at this closely and carefully, so that we can take the proper decision. It is in no way to stifle or impede a colleague from putting forward a motion and not deciding on it. It's to give us an opportunity to examine it properly.
I want to make one more comment in terms of taking our oath of office to not disclose the information that we receive. It is my understanding that staff members do not have that same obligation to take an oath of office. For all those reasons, I'm not prepared to vote on this, or at least not to vote yes on it.
:
In fact, Mr. Chair, this is part of my intervention, that for whatever reason, in terms of the resources, we've had some connectivity issues just recently, and now I have a microphone issue. That's interfering with my ability to participate in this committee.
I understand that the work here is important, and I certainly value it. It is for that reason, knowing that there are other conversations going on at this time to deal with this very issue.... In fact, I heard a member earlier in this meeting referring to just that, that the previous work of this committee would not be lost but would simply be turned over to any new entity that was taking up this work. The fact that we agreed to adjourn debate on the motion of Madame Gaudreau, because it was also around the issue of studying these matters on a continued basis...but would it be under a special committee? Is this committee in order to ask for such a committee?
These are all important questions. I'd like to remind members that this is the first meeting. It's certainly not the last. We have an opportunity here to put our motions on the table. That was the suggestion the chair had earlier on. I certainly agree with that. I think that is really the crux of the kind of work we want to continue discussing here.
I understand the concerns of my colleague Mr. Angus. I've heard my other colleagues' concerns around the privacy issues. I think we need to address that in more detail. I think we need to give it due regard. While committees are masters of their own destiny, we still have to act in good faith on behalf of Canadians. I am concerned about that information inadvertently being leaked out; I say that knowing how we are all dealing with technical issues. I think it bears further study. I think it would be more properly done between our various House leaders in the work they're doing in really trying to see how we can make the most of this time that we have before us.
Just as a side note on the technological resources—I'm very mindful of the interpreters, and I'm sorry if I'm not being helpful here—I have ordered additional earphones. I think they're trying to deliver them to me, but I'm not able to take delivery. Physically, this is going to become unmanageable at some point, so I beg the chair's indulgence in allowing us to adjourn debate.
I would request that we adjourn debate on this issue so that we can perhaps move on to placing on notice our other motions.
Thank you, Chair.