Information & Ethics Committee on June 6th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think that's pretty clear. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Ms. Khalid, on the amendment, go ahead.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm wondering if we can suspend for a bit while I confer with my colleagues.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Are we going to get that in writing?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Yes, can we at least suspend while it's coming in writing, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes. It should be sent any minute now.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The amendment proposed by Mr. Barrett has been shared with committee members in both official languages.

On the amendment, I have Mr. Longfield. Go ahead.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Perhaps because I'm subbing, I haven't received a copy yet, but I can make a general comment. The employee lists of corporations or companies are not public, and that's done for a very specific reason: to protect employees. Directors and officers are registered with the company, and the ones registered as directors and officers...are done through Industry Canada. Those lists are available.

If we're starting a witch hunt looking into the employee directory of a company, first of all, that's not something companies would have any right or any need to disclose. As to the request for something that would be against the standards put forward by Industry Canada, we aren't a court of law, and that's something that a professional court would strike right away.

I'm disappointed, but then again, it's maybe the first time that some people hear about how corporations and companies are run, about the structure of business and employee relations with business and about the requirements under the labour laws and labour codes that Canada functions under, which protect employees for very specific reasons. Maybe we don't all need to know that because we're not in business, but the committee would have to be very careful before they ask for some information that businesses do not disclose.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield. The amendment has been shared with you.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'm seeking some clarification with respect to this amendment. I'm wondering if it would violate labour law.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't know. On what basis would you make that argument?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

There may be privacy concerns with respect to former employees or current employees. I am not a labour law expert, and I know that some members on this committee are very experienced litigators and perhaps have better knowledge. However, I think it's very important for us to clarify this before we move forward with the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm not the adjudicator of whether it constitutes anything against labour law.

The committee can pretty much ask anything if it deems it appropriate and deems it its will. It would be up to the employer at that point to determine whether in fact it constitutes a breach of labour law, and they can simply redact information. The committee at that point can determine which direction it wants to go.

That's my initial assessment on where things are, but the committee is the master of its own domain. It can ask anything it wants of anyone, any corporation or any business. If they choose to provide that information, that's up to them. If they don't, that's up to them as well.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

That's the question, Chair. I think the objective of this amendment is to get the information in. It is not to ask the question; it's to receive the information.

I'm also wondering what would happen if the company comes back to us and says, “Sorry, this violates labour law.” What position would the committee be in in that instance?

I obviously want the work we do to be effective and efficient and to the best of our capacity. I know we don't have a lot of days left in this session. I'm just asking those questions and I'm hoping we can get some answers.

Ultimately, I think what we're trying to do here is get an understanding of what has occurred with the Global News article. From my understanding, we're adding this particular amendment, after talking at length about the amended motion as presented, for one of two reasons. Either the other folks in it were just a front to get to the other Randy and to sensationalize or grandstand—whatever objectives the Conservatives may have—or it was to understand what exactly has happened. It's one or the other.

I'm trying to understand the practical implication of the amendment to this motion. We're basically asking a company to give up all their records of all previous employees and all current employees, and if the Conservatives would have it, perhaps all future employees too. It seems to be a bit of a witch hunt, in my opinion, to see who this Randy is. What happens if there are multiple Randys on this list? What happens if somebody named Randeep goes by Randy? There could be many other instances of this.

This is not the most efficient way for us to conduct our business. I think the best way for us to go forward is to keep the currently amended motion, as it stands now, and see if there's something to sniff here. Then we can go from there.

At this point, as I've said before and will say again, I don't think what we're trying to do is achieve any real work. What we're trying to do is grandstand, to create scandals, to witch-hunt and go after people who, God knows, may or may not exist and to create a target on people's backs. Quite frankly, I've been a victim of that myself. I don't think we should be putting civilians up for that at all. We need to be very judicious in how we conduct ourselves at this committee, who we call before this committee and what kind of documents we order to be produced before this committee. We need to take into account what the practical implications of such an amendment would be. We need to take into account and perhaps pre-empt, or think about it at the very least, what a private company would have to go through to release private information of all former employees and all current employees.

I hope we can be a bit more judicious in what kind of amendments we're proposing. I would hope that we not partake in political grandstanding or in trying our very best to defame people in the House.

I am quite humbled and honoured to serve as a member of Parliament. I take my responsibilities very seriously. That includes the privilege we're given that says we are honourable; our words are not supposed to be questioned. Members here need to remember that as well. Ensure that we are being honest. Ensure that we are working to the best of our ability to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do, not to sensationalize things and not to create scandals out of something.

We really need to get back on track. I know I keep saying this again and again, but I'm hoping that we can find a way to build consensus on this committee. I'm hoping that we can find a way to get some real work done.

Mr. Chair, I know I've said this before, but I was quite disappointed in not being able to complete the study that I put forward and that we had spent a lot of resources on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Khalid, I'll have to cut you off there, unfortunately. We are running out of resources, but before we go, I'll note this—I did look it up—for the clarity of members of the committee:

The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist in hard copy or electronic format, and that they are located in Canada. They can be papers originating from or in the possession of governments, or papers the authors or owners of which are from the private sector or civil society (individuals, associations, organizations, et cetera).

I have a list. We will continue tomorrow with Ms. Khalid, Mr. Green, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Longfield and Mr. Desilets.

We're suspended until tomorrow.

[The meeting was suspended at 7:12 p.m., Monday, June 10]

[The meeting resumed at 11:13 a.m., Tuesday, June 11]

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call the meeting to order.

I want to welcome everybody back to meeting 123 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

As a reminder about the earpieces, make sure they're the approved ones. When you're not using the earpieces, make sure they're in their proper place.

When we last left, we were on an amendment to a motion. The amendment was put forward by Mr. Barrett, and it reads:

That the Committee order Global Health Imports to submit the names of all past and present employees, in order to reveal the identity of the other “Randy” referred to by Minister Randy Boissonnault within 7 days of this motion being adopted.

I have a list. I intervened when Ms. Khalid had the floor, so we'll start with Ms. Khalid. We'll then go to Ms. Damoff, Mr. Green, Mr. Barrett and then Monsieur Villemure.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead on the amendment.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. I really appreciate that.

I may not speak as eloquently as Mr. Barrett speaks, and I may not have the litigation experience that Mr. Brock has, but one thing I do have, Chair, is decency. I really would not do to my colleagues what my colleagues do to me.

Yesterday, Mr. Barrett posted a clip of me on social media, taking what I was saying completely out of context. I would like, for the record, to reiterate what it was that I was trying to get across.

In this committee, we are tasked with a certain thing. We need to bring it in tighter together. If the Conservatives have allegations to make, let's bring them in here. That's what this motion is about.

However, what I do not appreciate is the dehumanization of members of this committee or of private citizens, as I've seen in the past, who come here and are faced with allegations and outright conjecture. I don't think that is helpful to what we are trying to achieve collectively as a committee.

I've said many times, Chair, that I am willing to work with all of our colleagues on consensus because, ultimately and hopefully, we are all here to make sure that Canadians are well represented and that our democracy is well supported through our parliamentary system. The behaviour of my colleagues, with respect to creating that conjecture and creating false scandals is absolutely not right.

Once again, we see the Conservatives wanting to go on an overboard fishing expedition, and that's what I think this amendment has really been all about. I raised these points yesterday, only to be taken out of context in a two-second clip. Let's not do that to each other.

The Conservatives are proposing a comprehensive order with absolutely no consideration for the privacy or the safety of everyday Canadians. We are obligated, as a committee, to ensure that the people we bring in to this committee have both. Asking an employer to reveal the identities of every single employee the company has ever had is the definition of overboard. It is way too broad of an amendment for us to consider while we're considering this issue at hand. It would include individuals who, perhaps because they left the company, had nothing to do with these text messages, and for what purpose? Why would we make that public?

Yesterday at committee, I raised a legitimate argument about employment law, the rights of workers and the responsibilities of employers to protect the privacy of their employees. I would not subject my employees to this kind of.... I don't even know what to call it, Chair.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

A witch hunt.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Yes, exactly, Mr. Brock. It is a witch hunt that you guys are—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Please don't chirp at me.

Chair, if you can...?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Brock, we're not intervening. Ms. Khalid has the floor. What I expect today from all members is that, when you have the floor, that will be respected.

Thank you.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much for that intervention, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate it.

Chair, your response to the concerns that I raised yesterday was accurate—to a point. With respect, it didn't respond to the actual point of the question. You explained how committees have significant power to request documents from government, from organizations and from Canadians, and I absolutely accept that. That is the power of Parliament. The question is not whether we have this significant power. The question is what our responsibility with that power is.

If every time the Conservatives want to go on a fishing expedition, we're going to start issuing massive orders to organizations to turn over employee information, that is something that I want no part of and I do not want this committee to set that precedent whatsoever. I don't think it is the right approach to how we conduct ourselves and how we represent Canadians here.

Who are we going to be implicating in all of this? Is it the administrative assistant who organized the email four years ago? Is it the 21-year-old summer intern who helped out by answering phone calls?

This is not a responsible way of going about this. If we were to let the Ethics Commissioner look into this matter, that might be the more responsible approach. When his office conducts a review, he does so privately and for good reason—all of those reasons that I just outlined. If he's going to take a look at the employees of this company, they can be assured that their privacy will be respected, as it should. Our laws in this land make sure that privacy is respected.

The Ethics Commissioner has already told us that he needs to decide whether an investigation is warranted, so why not just let him do that?

The reality is that the Conservatives aren't interested in the opinions of an independent officer of Parliament. They're interested in turning this committee into a partisan circus, and they have no regard whatsoever for the innocent individuals they drag into this. That is absolutely unfair to Canadians.

I have to ask what the Conservatives' real goal is here.

On one hand, they're saying that all they really want is the surname of this individual. On the other hand, they're calling all kinds of additional witnesses and requesting all kinds of additional names. Mr. Barrett seemed to acknowledge, in his remarks yesterday, the incredible overstep of dragging regular Canadians before this committee. They suggest that they are concerned about who this other Randy is.

If that's the focus, why do we need these long hearings? Why do we need Ms. Poon? She isn't mentioned in these text messages. We don't need the names of the intern or the person who emails the office. We don't need the names of any additional people named Randy who may have worked for this company in the past, the present or the future.

Who we need, however, is Mr. Anderson as to who Mr. Anderson spoke to on that day. Perhaps the solution is this. We simply request that Mr. Anderson turn over his phone records and text messages for September 8, 2022. The minister has shown his phone records. We can ask Mr. Anderson to do the same. This will show whether or not he texted or called the minister on that day.

We have seen from the minister's records that there is no such phone call, so why not check both?

I think that it would be a very reasonable way to continue to protect the privacy of Canadians and to make sure that we are doing our work here in this committee. Should we receive that information and it shows no communication with the minister, there would be no need to drag these witnesses before the committee to face abuse.

I've seen witnesses face abuse in this committee, Mr. Chair. We would have our answer about whether or not the minister was called or texted.

I have a rather bad feeling that the Conservatives want more than the facts. They want angry social media clips. They want to tar and feather these witnesses in public view and then send a fundraising email bragging about it. That's the method of operation. I've been a victim of this too.

Let's see if that's right, Mr. Chair. Let's see if they're interested in evidence or if they're interested in politics. I suspect that the Conservatives aren't interested in the actual evidence because they are disregarding the real evidence that we have. It comes from Minister Boissonnault's phone records from September 8 of 2022. We can see very clearly on those phone records that there are no calls between 11.12 a.m., Pacific time, and 5.37 p.m., Pacific time.

That covers entirely the time frame that Global News talks about in its coverage and the time frame that Mr. Cooper talked about at length during the minister's appearance. Under that time frame, everyone involved was supposed to be on a “partner call” at 12.30 Pacific time. Clearly, from this phone record, Minister Boissonnault was on no such call. An examination of Mr. Anderson's phone records would, I think from this, show no call from the minister either.

Let's also remember that on September 8, 2022, Minister Boissonnault was in Vancouver attending a cabinet retreat with wall-to-wall meetings where ministers lock up their cellphones, a day that was especially hectic because it was the day that Queen Elizabeth II passed away. May she rest in peace. This was real evidence, Mr. Chair, but the Conservatives are just disregarding it to the point that Mr. Cooper has ridiculously suggested that the minister had some kind of burner phone that he used. How conspiratorial can we actually get here?

Are they going to accept to see the evidence? Let's see.

With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to move a subamendment to Mr. Barrett's amendment as proposed yesterday. It is that the committee delete the words “order Global Health Imports to submit the names of all past and present employees, in order to reveal the identity of the other 'Randy' referred to by Minister Randy Boissonnault”, and replace those words with, “request that Stephen Anderson produce for the committee all of his phone records and text messages from September 8, 2022”, and to keep the words at the end, “within 7 days of this motion being adopted”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Have you shared the subamendment with the clerk, Ms. Khalid?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Yes, I will just flip it over right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I want to make sure that this is in everybody's hands.