Information & Ethics Committee on June 6th, 2024

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm just formalizing what my Conservative colleagues have pontificated about. The subamendment would include a formal invitation for the other Randy—Randy Doe or Randy John Doe; I don't know what we want to call him without the surname—to appear before this committee as part of the witness list.

Will that suffice, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Hold on.

Mr. Green, thanks for your patience. I just needed some clarification on this.

The challenge is that we're on an amendment that effectively deletes what you're proposing, so we will need to dispose of the amendment. Then if you want to, you can introduce an amendment similar to the one you are introducing right now.

For the benefit of members of the committee, I hope you can understand and appreciate the difficulty of what's being asked here in the sense that we don't know—neither the chair nor the clerk—who the other Randy is. The difficulty lies in sending out an invitation to somebody who hypothetically may or may not exist. That's challenge number one.

Challenge number two is that I need clarification, because as the motion reads now, subject to amendment, it's “testify for one hour”. Would the other Randy be asked to testify for an hour with the other witnesses? That's what we will need clarification on when the time comes to propose an amendment after we dispose of this amendment.

Mr. Barrett, I saw your hand up. I don't know what you were—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on that point—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

When we're inviting an organization or a registered company, it would be quite appropriate, through the president or the CEO, to extend the invitation to demand the appearance of certain employees supposedly employed within the context of that company. It would be quite appropriate, through the CEO and the president, to extend an invitation to this Randy John Doe character.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It would be completely appropriate. We can try, Mr. Green. There's no guarantee that we can have that happen, but if it's the will of the committee and the committee chooses to invite the other Randy, we will do our best to invite the other Randy.

We're still on the amendment. I don't see any further discussion on it.

Are you still on the amendment, Mr. Barrett?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, go ahead on the amendment.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

There's obviously an interest by some members to not remove both the Ghaoui Group representatives and the other Randy. I know the timing of the meeting is something members perhaps want to prescribe, and the duration of the meeting is of interest so that this isn't a multi-day event.

To Mr. Brock's point, if it's 60 minutes and we have three witnesses on one panel and potentially 15 minutes of opening statements, that would be a challenge for productivity. We'll have spent many orders of magnitude more time on the effort to make the meeting happen than we will expend during the meeting itself.

On the question of supporting the amendment, we heard from Mr. Green, and I appreciate his response. I'm just wondering if my colleague from the Bloc would like to speak to what his interest is.

We support a two-hour meeting. We support it occurring within the regularly scheduled rubric of meetings for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We understand that should the clerk extend an invitation to the organization for the individual who's identified as Randy, if they come back and say they can't help, that exhausts the clerk's ability to do that. She executed the will of the committee, and then it can come back to us and we can decide how we would like to proceed. I don't think it further advances our cause to issue a summons for someone for whom we don't have a last name or coordinates, but that would be something for the committee to consider at the time.

To my colleague from the Bloc, I wonder if there is a willingness to advance the issue. If the question is about removing the Ghaoui Group, we could support that. That's obviously not our preference, but we could accept that as an amendment to resolve the discussion. Then we'd have Mr. Anderson and Ms. Poon come, who are in the amendment, and leave the invitation to the other Randy in, and it would occur over two hours during a regularly scheduled meeting of the committee, with one witness panel for the two hours. Then it's not a multi-day affair and we can put the issue to rest.

I want to give an opportunity to my colleague to speak. I want to hear him out if he's interested. I spoke to Mr. Villemure to that effect prior to the meeting, and he seemed to think that was interesting. I'm curious if his colleague is of the same view. If he's interested in responding, I'd appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Typically, questions of other committee members are not asked.

Mr. Desilets, since no one wants to speak right now, I'll give you the chance to talk about the amendment or the discussion around it.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, the amendment is quite clear. It involves deleting the names of two witnesses. If the discussions aren't as productive as the committee members would like, we can invite someone else to appear.

We're speculating, but the amendment on the table is clear. I simply hope that we can vote on it. Even though the Bloc Québécois is prepared to add an hour, we aren't discussing that. We're discussing the amendment, and no subamendment has been moved. I don't see where this discussion is headed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Desilets.

It seems that no one else wants to talk about the amendment. Since there doesn't seem to be unanimous consent from the committee to pass it, we'll hold a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

We're back to the main motion as amended.

Is there any other discussion on this?

I see Mr. Barrett. Go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I just want to get an understanding, Mr. Chair, of the motion. Does it dictate, in its most current form, the duration of the meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

In looking at the motion. Our understanding—I've clarified this with the clerk—is that both witnesses would be here for one hour at a time when we're able to get them here.

I'll just clarify that it is one hour for the two together. That's our interpretation of the way the motion reads, and I think that's been explained.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I'd like to move an amendment that the motion be amended after the word “hour” to add the word “each”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Clarification is needed on this, Mr. Barrett. The motion as amended was for one hour for both witnesses. The original motion had “each” in it. That was amended and the amendment was accepted, so I can't accept your amendment to have them each here for an hour when we've already disposed of that.

Go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Do you have anyone else before I continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No. Go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Then I'd like to offer a further amendment, Mr. Chair.

After “Kirsten Poon”, the motion would read:

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That would add a “c”. Is that right?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

No, I don't believe so, Chair. It says, “the following witnesses to appear before the committee and testify for one hour”. Then it's a and b, and then as a new paragraph it would say, “That the committee” and so on.

I'll send that text, as I read it, to the clerk right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, you're right. It would not add a “c”. It would be a separate sentence at the bottom of the proposed motion.

Just hang on a second. Have you sent that yet, Mr. Barrett?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I did.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. It's been distributed.

Can you do me a favour? Just read it out again, Mr. Barrett, if you don't mind, so that everybody is clear on it.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

The amendment would follow the name “Kirsten Poon”. The new paragraph would read:

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.