Thank you, Chair.
I'll keep the comment of my colleague Mr. Gourde in mind as I go forward. I'll try to be concise with my concerns.
I do have some concerns about the way this motion has been reintroduced and what that means for this committee going forward. I believe I talked about our having a structure here and my opposition to running a parallel investigation or running an investigation before the commissioner has a chance to make a ruling. I still believe that. My stance is consistent on that point.
In this matter, I understand, Chair, you have made a ruling. Although I didn't agree with it, I respect your decision and the will of the majority of the committee in supporting you. I need to ask what that will mean for the motions that will come forward and be voted down in the future. I'm talking about procedures. What's the precedent that we're setting here if the committee votes down a motion and it can simply be reintroduced in the next meeting, or if it's voted down again and it can be moved as an amendment in a new motion? What if it's defeated again, Mr. Chair? Can a motion be brought back for the third, fourth or fifth time? What is the cut-off? We as a committee have to consider that. That's something I'm quite curious about, Mr. Chair, and something that I hope you can speak on at some point today or in the next meeting. I'm going to leave that for a minute.
Mr. Chair, I want to discuss the redo of the redo on this motion. Mr. Barrett spoke yesterday about the will of the committee and the wishes of the majority of its members. He said that this amendment reflects the will of the committee in its current composition. I need to ask Mr. Barrett what merits he is basing that on, because as I go back and look at the results of the votes that took place previously, I see there was a vote on an identical motion taken on October 26 that was defeated by a vote of five to four. Fast forward to a week from yesterday, the same thing was put forward as a motion, again defeated five to four. Now we have this text in front of us a third time as an amendment, and the member opposite is saying that it reflects the wishes of the majority of the committee. The results don't bear that out, Mr. Chair. We've seen the result of the voting twice already, five to four. I wonder what the member means by it bearing out the will of the majority of this committee.
Going back through those votes, I can't help but think about all the work we've done here as a committee over the last year. While we sit here debating a motion on an amendment for the third time, I start to wonder what other motions have been debated at the committee since the last election, since the election in 2019. We've been here for almost a year. All the way back in February at our second meeting, after the election of the chair, Mr. Barrett led things off with a motion “That the Committee commence a study on the Trudeau II Report. That the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner be invited to the first meeting of the study to brief the Committee on his Report and that he be given 30 minutes for a prepared statement”, and so on and so forth.
That motion was defeated.
Next up was Mr. Angus, whom I have a lot of respect for. I was willing to support the amended motion before Madame Gaudreau introduced her amendment. Mr. Angus moved a motion to review judicial appointments. That motion was eventually withdrawn.
Then the chair called Madame Gaudreau. She moved a motion that the committee study the possibility of reforming the identity system and separating the SIN, the social insurance number, by recommending the development of a new solution and that the committee study the solutions deployed in other countries, such as in Europe, with a smart identity card. This motion was passed, I believe, with unanimous consent.
Finally, in a meeting, Mr. Angus moved the following motion:
That...the committee study the use or possible use of facial recognition technology by various levels of government in Canada, law enforcement agencies, private corporations and individuals....
I'm sure that permanent members of this committee would remember that the motion was passed as well with all parties supporting it.
At the next meeting, Mr. Chair, Mr. Barrett was up again, this time moving a motion that the committee commence a study on the report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner entitled “Trudeau II Report” published on August 14, 2019. Mr. Chair, that wasn't a typo, it was just the same motion presented again, but this time with a lengthy filibuster that lasted two meetings.
So while Mr. Barrett chided us on this side that we are filibustering and we are trying to stall the committee proceedings, I can't help but think inside, seriously? This was done. He did this not too long ago when he brought forward that motion.
Now I know you weren't the chair at the time, so I will not hold you responsible for the decision of your predecessor, but the chair did eventually rule that motion in order. After some debate, it was defeated again.
So we can see that's Mr. Barrett twice, Mr. Angus and Madame Gaudreau.
There was quite a bit of time until our next committee business meeting, Mr. Chair, but when we did come back in the summertime, it was Mr. Barrett who led off the meeting with a motion again. No, Mr. Chair, this time it wasn't a study on the “Trudeau II Report”. The motion this time was the following:
That...the committee review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflict of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contributions and other expenditure policies; and that, to provide a case study for this review, an Order of the Committee to issue to Speakers' Spotlight a for a copy of all records....
Next we had a motion from Mr. Kurek, a former member of this committee. He wanted to write letters to all members of the cabinet. This motion eventually was withdrawn.
In the next meeting, we had Mr. Fortin, not a permanent member of this committee, move a motion that the finance minister should resign even before any report came from the Ethics Commissioner. The motion was defeated.
Following that was a motion by Mr. Green—again, not a member of this committee—who moved that we conduct a study on conflict of interest, that we call witnesses from PCO, PMO and ministers. Oddly enough, none of these witnesses included the Ethics Commissioner, whose job is to do these investigations, to hold a standard and be the watcher—