Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 13th, 2021

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think it's important to remind members of the committee of the nature of routine motions. They are common to all committees of the House of Commons. That is why the whips are in full agreement on a number of issues, to ensure that everyone has a voice at the table.

All committees are indeed masters of their own domain, but we should not go overboard with routine motions, which are common to all committees.

I extend an olive branch to my dear colleague as a sign of peace. Let's give the whips' offices a chance to have a discussion on this particular motion and see if they agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Brassard, and then I really would like to deal with this one way or another.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take Mr. Green up on his offer and put it to the committee to find out its will, so I call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

All right.

I was going to say that there does not appear to be unanimous consent to defer this, so we'll have a recorded vote on Mr. Green's motion.

Indeed, to be clear, there is no more debate.

Is there further debate on this motion?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Look, this is not a good start.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm sorry. I have Mr. Green first.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Oh, my apologies.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I just want to reference, in the routine motions, for folks who may have been around for a long time or what have you, that the next motion we're about to do will set in stone how we're going to operate motions. If I had waited to put these, what I believe to be, routine motions, which constitute the framework and the operations of this committee, then there is an opportunity where, in the next motion on notice of motions, I would have been bound by that.

I don't want to get too far afoot on this, but there is a procedural order in which this stuff happens, and it is quite right that I move this motion at this time to ensure that I didn't get any other opinions or interpretations as to what it might look like in terms of the time requirements for a notice of motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We started by talking about the importance of working in a spirit of collaboration, and that's really what I intended to do. Mr. Green knows full well that I'm quite approachable and I'm not unreasonable. However, this motion is being introduced without notice, without discussion and without the documents in both official languages. Yet, as I said, the whips have reached an agreement on how to proceed.

I am sure the member's motion will eventually pass: all he has to do is rely on the majority. Why does he not agree that we should take the time to consider the full implications of this proposal? It won't matter: if no one changes their mind, this proposal will pass at the next meeting.

I don't want to waste the committee's time. However, I am willing to do so, if we don't agree to take a little time to discuss this issue among reasonable people. That would be really unfortunate, because I don't want to waste the committee's time. Having said that, I want to have the opportunity to properly consider this proposal and its implications. I would also like to give the whips' offices an opportunity to discuss it.

I hope we will all be reasonable.

Mr. Green, your motion will still pass—

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm sorry, Mr. Fergus. To be clear, are you moving to adjourn debate on Mr. Green's motion?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No, I am not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

You had said that you had hoped, and it sounded like that's kind of where you were heading.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like us to put this motion aside, deal with the other motions and come back to it when the whips' offices have had sufficient time to discuss it.

In good faith, all the whips have reached agreement on the routine motions that we are adopting. I have no objection to making some reasonable changes, but what the member is proposing is completely new. I was not a member of the special committee to which Mr. Green was referring, but as far as I know, no other committee has passed a motion like this. If it worked so well in committees in the last Parliament, why is it not one of the routine motions? It wasn't even proposed, no one said anything about it.

I personally am not comfortable and would like to have some time to discuss it. If a majority agrees to this motion, it will still pass at the next meeting, and I can't do anything about it. However, I would like the opportunity to have a little discussion on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Seeing no further debate, we'll proceed to the vote on the motion.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I could continue to debate it, but I would like to hear from other members—

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Fergus, there were no other.... I've exhausted the speaking list and would like to go to the vote.

Ms. Khalid, would you like to speak on Mr. Green's motion?

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

Yes, absolutely.

Over the past six years as we went through studies and tried to do our committee work, it's been the nature of the committees that I've sat on in the past for us to come up with witness lists together—as a subcommittee perhaps on agenda—and really discuss and iron out how and what the scope of X, Y and Z study is going to be and who we'd like to hear from, always giving an opportunity to each party to be able to put forward witnesses who would enhance and add to the substance of whatever study it is that we're working on.

I am always very wary of our trying to limit and box ourselves in and not leaving that discretion up to committee members based on studies we've done and how we as a committee operate. I really appreciate that and would hope that we could continue, as I have done over the past six years, to work in the spirit of collaboration with members on an issue-by-issue basis and continue to make things work that way.

I understand that the governing party and the government does not have the chair in this committee, but I think this committee has the potential to really tackle the challenges of our time, especially when it comes to privacy and access to information. When we think about and really work on those issues that the scope of the committee's really about, I think such a motion would limit how we would be able to continue with those studies.

Like my colleague Mr. Fergus, I would also like to think about what the implications of such a motion would be for limiting or expanding what witnesses could be heard from what party, and how much time they would have, or how much these could be expanded. I would also like to perhaps put this aside for a little bit and move on to the next motion to see if we can work through those as we mull over what Mr. Green's motion really means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Ms. Saks, go ahead.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

My opening statement today on my first day on this committee expressed a genuine interest and desire for collaborative work at committee. I was excited to join this group. I come from the environment and foreign affairs committees prior to this, and I think there's deep, deep work for the committee concerning privacy and other important issues that matter to Canadians and the work of the House. The value of collaborative work with our whips in leading into the work in this room is that we set structure so that even in times when we hold the position of chair as the government or we don't, the work that we do matters and how we move through that work also matters.

Similar to the previous motion on meeting without quorum that my colleague Ms. Hepfner read and we decided to set aside to seek clarification, and in an effort to move this committee forward today with what are routine and standard motions, I think it would be in the same spirit of that collaborative work in setting the tone of this committee that we do the same thing with Mr. Green's motion at this time.

No one likes surprises. No one likes motions that are just put on the table without their being received with prior notice or translation for our colleagues from the Bloc or other members of the committee for whom English is not their first language—and it doesn't set a tone of collaborative work. We will disagree on many things here, but nevertheless, to start out of the gate this way without discussion on what is an important piece of the structure of how we move through the studies, the information, and the witnesses we'll be working with here, frankly, I'm a little bit disappointed. Therefore, I move this discussion be put to the side so we can get through the routine motions that will structure the work this committee will be doing going forward. I think in the spirit of the previous motion that we put to the side, we should be doing the same here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Are you moving adjournment of debate on this motion?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

At this time, I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

That's not debatable, so we'll go straight to a recorded vote on adjournment of the debate on Mr. Green's motion.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Saks moved that we adjourn the debate on the motion moved by Mr. Green.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

No.