Information & Ethics Committee on July 17th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Just before I go to Mr. Lloyd, who's next, I am going to ask the witnesses to remain in place until the committee disposes of this motion.

I have Mr. Lloyd on the list. Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I have nothing further to say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The motion presented by Mr. Naqvi is that the committee move in camera to have Mr. Anderson reveal who the other Randy is. Do we have consensus on that? We do not have consensus.

We're going to vote on the motion as presented.

We have a tie; my vote is “no”.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Mr. Brock, you have the floor.

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

I'm prepared to move a motion, Mr. Chair. I understand it has been delivered to Madam Clerk in both official languages. I wish to read it into the record at this time:

That the Chair prepare a report to the House outlining the questions that Stephen Anderson refused to answer, including the identity of Randy that is referenced in Global News reporting and text messages and the committee call Minister Boissonnault to testify for 2 hours within 21 days of this motion being adopted.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

The motion has been moved.

Give me a second, Mr. Green. I want to make sure the clerk is in receipt of the motion.

Madam Clerk, has it been distributed in both official languages?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Brock, do you have any other things to say before I go to Mr. Green on the motion?

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

No, I have nothing further to say on the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green, go ahead, sir.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move an amendment, that the committee commence the study at the resumption of the regular sitting of the House of Commons.

I'll speak to it for a moment, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Give me a second here. I want to make sure the clerk has the amendment.

I haven't seen the actual motion yet; I know it has been sent, but I haven't had time to view it. Basically, what you're looking to do is to replace “within 21 days of this motion being adopted”, if I'm to understand Mr. Brock correctly, to say the study will commence at the resumption of Parliament.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. Where it says, in the last line, “testify for 2 hours”, I'm fine with that, but we will strike out “within 21 days of this motion being adopted”, and we'll replace it with “at the resumption of the regular sitting of the House of Commons.”

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That would be the resumption of Parliament. Is that correct?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. That is September 16.

Okay, and that—

Go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that there are lots of people watching with interest who have all types of theories about how these committee dynamics go, some grounded through their experience in watching procedures and others completely disconnected from reality in terms of how they view these things going.

As I've said at other committees, I view the time in my constituency as incredibly valuable to hear from Canadians, to reconnect with the people of Hamilton Centre, to help with casework and to help with my office. Quite frankly, this sordid tale that we've watched unfold over the last three months is an important issue for Canadians. I think anybody watching this committee would agree that the position in the line of questioning I took was to get to the truth. It was to fully understand what's at hand here. I support a further investigation. However, in terms of urgency and importance, I don't think this is so urgent that it needs to be dealt with within 21 days, given the fact that many members of the House have very committed schedules within our communities.

You know, Mr. Chair, I take exception to.... Maybe not “exception”, but I do find it amazing the way that some of my colleagues define “work”. I would put it to you that this is my job. This is a parliamentary job. We do it. I supported this meeting today, because I was very keen to hear testimony from Mr. Anderson and Ms. Poon on their schedule, but our work is back in the constituencies. Our work does involve hearing from residents, having those meetings and being there. We sit a very extended schedule in our regular hours.

For those reasons, Mr. Chair, I think this would be better suited for when we resume. This is not a cover-up. This is not whatever. The point I was trying to make in previous committees was that committees are at the direction of the members. This is why I appreciate Standing Order 106, which requires members to find another partner, another party, to support what they want to do, absent of which, in a minority in particular, we shouldn't just be setting a schedule without the full participation of the committee.

All of that is to say that 21 days is not necessary for me. Given the information that's come out over the last week, I will be very keenly interested to see what comes out over the next three weeks, given the revelations that happened here at committee. I think that would give us a better line of questioning to the minister and allow us to more substantively engage with what's before us today.

So before anybody wants to get all riled up with these pseudo-fake-rage-machine click farms and the degenerate emails that you get from people, threatening you for treason and everything else, just touch grass, people. Touch grass. Realize that we're here. We're sent to do a job. We're going to do the job. We're going to do it on our terms. We're going to get to the bottom of this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

We have three members who want to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor first.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As my colleague just said, we're assessing something that's very important. However, I fully support the amendment because, in my opinion, the emergency criterion hasn't been met. The facts will remain the same and won't change over time. Mr. Anderson's answer won't change, nor will that of many others. There may also be other revelations, between now and later.

Also, the time we spend in our ridings isn't time when we do nothing, nor is it something to be devalued.

So the main reason I support the amendment is that it's not urgent. However, I still remember that it is important. So one of the two criteria is met, but not both. For that reason, I will be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Lloyd, go ahead, please, on the amendment.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment by my colleague Mr. Green was brought forward, but I have to say that I couldn't disagree more.

There is a cloud of suspicion hanging over this Liberal government. There is a cloud of suspicion over this minister. I think after today's meeting, where I think Canadians were hoping to get some light and some answers, there are even more questions to be asked. For us to wait until September 16, two months from now, to get the answers to these questions I think would undermine the credibility of our government. It would undermine the credibility of this cabinet minister, who I'm sure, if he truly is innocent, would like the truth to get out as quickly as possible.

It would be my hope that committee members would support our original motion by voting against this amendment so that we can get this meeting within the next 21 days, deal with the very important questions that have been raised at this committee today and truly get to the bottom of this very suspicious affair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

Next up are Mr. Fisher, Mr. Naqvi and Mr. Green.

I go now to Mr. Fisher on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to speak to the main motion, but I will speak shortly to the amendment.

I agree with Mr. Green that this isn't something that has to happen within 21 days. However, what I do find just a bit ironic is that, in the original motion, the main question is to get the answer, which we just tried to go in camera to get. It just shows that some members aren't necessarily interested in knowing what the name is: they want to know the name, be able to share the name and use the clips. Of course, in camera you can't use the clips, so that's not going to be the result they, maybe, hoped to get. However, on the amendment, I think Mr. Green is right.

I will go to other speakers, and I will speak, probably, on the main motion after we get off the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Naqvi, go ahead on the amendment, please.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair, I ask whether you could suspend the meeting for a moment, just for us to contemplate the main motion.

On the amendment, I agree with Mr. Green's assertion that there's a lot of work that needs to be done during the weeks we have in our constituencies. I'm subbing in this meeting, but it's taken, now, at least two hours away from constituency meetings, which I had to reschedule. This is an important and sacred time for all of us to work with our constituents, so it would be better that this committee continue its work when the House is back.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm not going to suspend for that, Mr. Naqvi. The motion is fairly clear. I think the amendment is fairly clear—