Information & Ethics Committee on July 26th, 2022

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thanks, Ms. Khalid.

I do believe we want to be productive in our time when we meet. I would suggest that we do this in a matter of days rather than meetings.

I'll move a subamendment that we undertake a study of no more than two days.

This would give us the ability to have meetings in the morning and afternoon on two days, so we could get the four meetings in, at a bare minimum. Instead of two-hour meetings, we could go with three-hour time frames in the mornings and afternoons, so that we could call the appropriate witnesses and get the information. That way we would be productive with our time. For those of us who might want to travel to Ottawa for these hearings, we would maximize the time we spend in Ottawa. We would be able to call all the witnesses Mr. Villemure has proposed, as well as any additional witnesses that other committee members want to call to the committee meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

The subamendment is also in order.

We are going to debate the subamendment now.

The next hand I see is Ms. Khalid's.

You have the floor.

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

Chair, in principle, I'm okay with the subamendment, just given that we get it all done all at once.

I do have some questions with respect to timing as it relates to the critical infrastructure upgrades that are happening in the next week, I believe, in the House, also, with respect to how many hours in the day Mr. Bezan seems to propose.

I would like to run meetings as efficiently as possible. If something can be covered within four hours—for example, if we have four witnesses for the first morning and then four for the afternoon—then just four hours, in my opinion, would be more than sufficient to exhaust the list of witnesses in the motion. I don't think we need a span of eight meetings. I don't know how Mr. Bezan feels about that.

Maybe you, Chair, and then maybe the clerk could find out if the upgrades in the House are going to impact the outcome of this conversation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Before I turn to the clerk to answer the question about meeting availability, I'm going to note that Mr. Bezan's subamendment is still an “up to” proposal, as was the original motion, so regarding your point of—

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't understand. Exactly what subamendment are we looking at right now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

The subamendment is that the four meetings contained in the original motion be conducted over a period of not more than two days. We would condense the time and not stretch the study out during the summer period.

It is the subamendment to clarify that, if we have up to four meetings, they be conducted over only two days by having a meeting in the morning and a meeting in the afternoon. Meeting number one would be the morning of one day; meeting number two would be the afternoon of the same day. On the second day of the study, we would also have one meeting in the morning and one meeting in the afternoon. That's what the subamendment would do. It would restrict the number of days over which “up to four meetings” could be spread.

I hope that clarified Mr. Bezan's motion.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, that sounds more like an amendment than a subamendment because the amendment Mr. Naqvi has proposed is asking for no more than two meetings, and we know that each meeting is two hours.

In principle, I'm not opposed to having both of those meetings on the same day, morning and afternoon, but I think dragging this on for eight hours is a bit much given the list of witnesses we have before us. I think we can get it done in four if we're judicious with our time and ensure that our witnesses are lined up, obviously while being very mindful of House resources, as I know there are other committees meeting as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Before I ask the the clerk to answer the second part of your question, I want to go back to whether or not this subamendment is in order the way I understood it, because Ms. Khalid is correct. The amendment says no more than two meetings, yet the subamendment still talks about having four.

Madam Clerk, could you—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Actually, Mr. Chair, my subamendment was to change it to no more than two days, so the word “meetings” would change to “days”. That's the only change in the subamendment to the amendment.

I don't want to try to micromanage the work the chair, clerk and analysts have to do to organize witnesses and panels of witnesses, so I want to keep that open and provide that flexibility. This is so we can be targeted and focused when we are sitting together. This would include how many hours we sit during those two days, and I'll leave that to the discretion of the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

The subamendment is in order.

I'm just going to throw this out there. Madam Clerk, are you in a position to comment on the system upgrades and any of the blackout days? Do we know what those dates are as far as availability is concerned?

[The Clerk]

No, I couldn't comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I may have a suggestion. I'm not sure how we'd do this because we already have a subamendment and an amendment on the floor, but the words “subject to availability of meeting resources” would be a way for us to deal with that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Add that later, Mr. Chair, to another amendment to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

All right. Mr. Bezan, as chair, I'm going to seek unanimous consent to add the words “subject to the availability of House resources” to the subamendment.

Are there any opposed to adding those words to Mr. Bezan's subamendment?

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

Chair, do you mind if I seek clarification from the clerk on this?

I realize that the blackout dates are August 2 to 5, which means that we need to hold our meetings before the end of this week so that we can meet the August 8 timeline that is proposed in the motion. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I am not sure if the first part of that is correct, that those blackout dates in fact preclude us from holding a meeting during that time, and I don't believe the clerk is prepared to comment on that. According to the motion, we would need to commence the study by August 8. That is contained in the motion.

Again, I thank Mr. Bezan for his confidence in the chair and the clerk to manage the schedule, if we get to it. I don't want to do a whole committee discussion around dates and scheduling the actual meetings. I'm going to strongly discourage that.

I didn't hear an objection to the words in my proposal—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I did object.

Mr. Chair, I'm getting a lot of feedback here, so I'll just say this. We should add that, but we should do that as a separate amendment, because that affects more than just the first part of the motion. It affects the entire motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Fair enough. There is no consent to my proposed change to the subamendment. We are still on the subamendment.

The next speaker I have for debate on the subamendment is Monsieur Villemure.

You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we have to avoid confusing these two things: the organizing of the meetings and the number of meetings. They are actually two different things.

The four meetings that were provided for totalled eight hours' work. I have no objection to those eight hours being condensed into two days.

However, we mustn't paint ourselves into a corner. It's possible that if we offer the witnesses only two options at this time of year, they will also not be able to participate. That means additional organization, but we have to be aware of it.

My main comment is about the fact that the four meetings we proposed totalled eight hours and it's not a problem for me if we divide them differently, but I don't want there to be less than eight hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Ms. Khalid, your hand is still up. I don't know if you're trying to get back in or if that was from before.

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

Mr. Chair, again, I'm just seeking clarity. The subamendment right now says “two days” as a replacement for “two meetings”. Are we contemplating how long these two days are going to be? Is that at your discretion, Chair, and the discretion of the clerk, or is that based on the number of witnesses?

I obviously would like to have a bit of clarity as to what exactly we're going to be voting on soon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

It is exactly what Mr. Bezan said. Indeed, if we have them over two days, then I, as chair, would have the flexibility, if we can get all the witnesses and we need eight hours of meetings to accommodate all of them, to do it over two days. We could meet morning and afternoon over those two days, with the flexibility to have meetings that go longer than two hours. Many committees will meet for three.

I think you are correct in that Mr. Bezan's amendment would merely give flexibility to the chair over exactly how many hours would be required to do this study, but that it be limited to two days rather than two two-hour meetings.

Mr. Bezan, you're welcome to comment further if I didn't capture that accurately.

Otherwise, I see no other hands up.

If that is good for you, Iqra, and there are no other comments, we'll go to a vote on the subamendment.

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

Give me a second to confer with my colleagues, if that's okay, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Yes, that's fair. Just make it quick. Our time is marching on, particularly if you have other amendments that you wish to propose.

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

Chair, we're ready to vote.