Evidence of meeting #123 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was randy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
This is on the point of order on the ability to reference documents that have been received.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I would agree that it is not testimony. There are all types of ways in which communications could have happened, whether it was a personal phone or whether it was a government phone or God knows what. We haven't determined that, but I do think, procedurally, it would be appropriate for any members of this committee, including the government side, to be able to reference a document that is in circulation. I do think that is appropriate.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Could we suspend until we can get that distributed to the committee? It's numbers. It doesn't need to be translated as much because it's all phone numbers.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Yes, the clerk has assured me that it'll be very soon because it's a smaller document to translate. I'm going to accept that, Mr. Fisher. I want to make sure that everybody has this in their hands, so I am going to suspend for a couple of minutes until we have it in your hands.
Mr. Longfield, we'll come back. Your hand is still up, I assume.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Chair, before you drop the gavel, we're 26 minutes from question period. You're going to suspend, but the duration isn't clear.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We said until two o'clock or just before two o'clock. That's what I said.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We just received the email with the translation. Nancy is preparing to distribute that.
Given the fact that we are so close to QP, I'm going to suspend the meeting.
[The meeting was suspended at 1:46 p.m., Thursday, June 6]
[The meeting resumed at 5:07 p.m., Monday, June 10]
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Good afternoon, everyone. I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 123 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all members and participants in the room to refer to the cards on the table for guidelines on preventing audio feedback incidents. Please note the preventive measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
Make sure that if you're not using your earpiece, it's on the placeholder that's clearly signalled on the desk.
We are resuming committee business. As members may recall, we suspended last Thursday with a motion that was presented. We suspended because of question period. We're resuming that motion.
I have a speakers list. When we left, Mr. Housefather was speaking. He moved the motion, so the floor now moves to Mr. Bains. I see Mr. Longfield is here as well, followed by Mr. Fisher.
We'll then turn to Mr. Desilets, who will be replacing Mr. Villemure. Welcome to the committee, Mr. Desilets.
He'll be the fourth speaker today.
I just wanted to let you know.
I see Ms. Khalid has her hand up, so we'll put her on the list.
We are going to resume debate on the motion.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I just want to seek clarification, please, if that's okay.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I know Mr. Housefather was on the list when the meeting suspended the last time and had moved the motion. Is it in the Standing Orders that once you move a motion, you lose the floor?
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It's a generally accepted practice that if a motion is moved, the member gives up the floor. We would go next to Mr. Bains. If Mr. Housefather—and I see him on Zoom—wants to put his name back on the list, he has the right to do that and can indicate it clearly to me.
So far on the list I have—and I'll repeat this—Mr. Bains, Mr. Longfield, Mr. Fisher and Monsieur Villemure.
Did your hand go up just to ask that question?
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Go ahead. Is it a question of clarification or a point of order?
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It's just a really quick question. Given how late we're starting, I'm wondering what our resources are to see how long we can go.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
As it stands right now, we have two hours from the start of the meeting.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I may request more time from the clerk depending on how we're getting on.
I have Mr. Bains on the list.
Go ahead on the motion.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to continue some of the debate we heard last time on this motion.
I think one of the challenges we had was that the commissioner indicated that the information he learned in the news article was new to him and that he would look into it. That turned into members stating that this is a new investigation and that reports about that matter happened. It's easy to see how things can grow a lot bigger than they are.
I understand. We all see and know the impacts of social media. One of the big challenges here is bringing people forward, people from general professional workplaces, to answer questions. I believe other colleagues stated that this isn't a courtroom. Sometimes it can be viewed as one, and some of these comments or questions that arise here can ultimately put implications on people when they're frankly doing their jobs. Then they're, as a result, met with a barrage of social media attacks with people's names put in the forefront. Those are some of the big challenges that we have when we're trying to bring people forward.
I believe the commissioner indicated that he would look into the matter. We've said this before: We should let those processes follow their course and allow the commissioner, if there's a complaint put forward, to look into the new information and, after whatever investigations or processes take place through their work, the office of the commissioner's work, come back to us with a fulsome report. We can look at that.
To have members from the professional community come here—and we respect the tough questions that are asked of people, of course—to put light on questions in advance of knowing all of the information could imply that they had done some wrongdoing. That is sometimes a challenge, and we've seen that. We've seen documents being asked for that have resulted in a lot of.... As we've seen in other committees, we've asked for a number of documents to be presented and nothing really comes of it. If we're going to move forward, we should have all the information that was looked at by the Ethics Commissioner. We know that he does a thorough job. We've heard him a number of times inform the committee of how that work is done and what the processes are. The results of those processes are reported to us here, where we can formulate better questions and have a strong understanding of what took place.
We sometimes take the extraordinary step of dragging people into extra meetings, and that has resulted in a lot of extra discussion. Sometimes that time could be used in a better way. If members have concerns—and we've seen letters written to the office of the commissioner in the past—maybe they can put forward some of those questions in a letter, in a complaint, so the thorough details of those questions can be worked out through the office, which can come back to us to report back on what we're looking at.
I think we should be careful about who we're bringing in front of the camera, in front of Canadians. We should ask questions without impacting their personal lives in a negative way, quite frankly, as they may have nothing to do with any wrongdoing. Sometimes the questions we put forward automatically put these people in a bad light, just by bringing them before the committee. That is a big consideration we should have. We need to make those considerations before we look at a motion like this.
Thank you.