Evidence of meeting #31 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Chair, I'd just say this.
I think that we should.... Based upon the lack of information that was provided by the RCMP.... I appreciate what they've given us. They gave us some background information, but it doesn't talk to the broader scope of the motion that we brought forward. In respect of the parliamentary process—
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'll just say this. We should deal with this motion because tomorrow we have a full slate, and I'd like to get to witnesses tomorrow rather than spending all day debating this motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
We do indeed.
I have Mr. Fergus with his hand up as well. Do I see anybody else in the room?
Mr. Fergus is the only one I see right now.
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I wanted to say exactly the same thing as Ms. Khalid. For me, it's very late. I'd like to know if we can read the motion and continue with the witnesses who are here. That can be the first thing we deal with tomorrow.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
All right. Procedurally, I'm not....
I'm going to just spend one moment to have a quick word with the clerk.
Okay, we really are running out of time to do both—have additional questions of our witnesses and still allow time if members want to consider this motion—so I guess unless there's an actual motion to adjourn or suspend the debate, there really isn't any way for me to deal with this.
I see that Ms. Khalid has her hand up again, and so does Mr. Fergus.
Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to reiterate because, based on what we heard today from the RCMP, from the OPC and from the minister, I feel that there may be other documents that we might want to add to this list. For example, we heard that there was some activity in 2012 that we may want to pursue. That's why I was hoping that we would have some time to perhaps go back, review the testimony, and see how else we can strengthen this motion—what other documents—rather than keep on doing it again and again and again in a piecemeal kind of way. We could do it in a more substantial and fulsome kind of way.
I am, myself, quite interested in the 2012 reference that was made. I know that some members might be interested in other things that perhaps we could include with the text of this motion, perhaps. I just wonder if there are members who would be willing to just give it a little bit of time to see if we can really expand this out.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If you want me to put forward a motion to adjourn the debate, I'd be pleased to do so.
I wanted to know if we can come to an agreement among colleagues. As I said, I would like us to take this up tomorrow morning at the beginning of the meeting, at 11 a.m. That would give us time to read the documents and take into consideration what Ms. Khalid suggested.
Perhaps there's a way to improve the motion. Give us a few hours to read through these documents so we can propose amendments. Then we can have a great debate. I think that would be the best way to go, but I'd like to know if we can—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
I'm going to have to interrupt you, Mr. Fergus. If you are, in fact, moving to adjourn debate, that's dilatory and non-debatable and ought to be voted on. In terms of just doing this without a vote, I'm seeing some furrowed brows and shaking heads in the room, so I don't know that this could be done other than by way of a vote.
If you have moved, Mr. Fergus, to adjourn debate, then I'm going to have to call a vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
I can hear you in translation, but you're not very loud in the room.
Conservative
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
All right.
Mr. Chair, I don't have the pleasure of being in the room. Actually, I have the great pleasure of not being in the room, given where I am. Is there no appetite for us to just have this debate first thing tomorrow morning?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Am I sensing in the room that there is an appetite to adjourn debate?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
No, there is no consensus, anyway, to leave this until the morning. There are members who are very keen on the witnesses. We have a full slate of witnesses.
I would offer the opportunity.... We went two hours. Only for tomorrow, I think we have built into our availability some time for committee business if we extend one of the meetings tomorrow. Is that a possibility?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Okay. This is my proposal. Following the time allowed for witnesses tomorrow—I'll maybe make it in the first panel, just in case people are travelling after the second panel—we'll have some time for committee business where we can consider both the motion that Mr. Bezan has made and any possible amendments that may expand the motion, which Ms. Khalid had in mind.
Is that reasonable? I'm just looking for a co-operative solution here.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I think that, procedurally, you have a motion on the floor, and you need to have debate or a motion to adjourn debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Indeed you're right. We have a motion on the floor that could be voted on right now if there is no debate. I see Ms. Khalid has her hand up. We're at about 20 minutes after 5. I can't let this go too much over 5:30 with the House resources available.
Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
To speak to the motion itself, I'm sure Mr. Bezan took some time to draft it. I'm sure he conferred with his colleagues who are in the room.
Again, I said this earlier today as well. I will reiterate that if you had circulated the text of the motion to me, to any of our Liberal members with a little bit of notice, we would have been able to review the document. We would have been able to have a substantive conversation.
We have two minutes left in a committee meeting, and we are now being forced to vote on something that we haven't even reviewed. We haven't had the opportunity to have a conversation about this. We haven't been given the courtesy by members in this room to say, “Hey, look, this is what we're proposing. Let's do this. Let's get this done.”
We're here. We're willing. We're asking questions. We're taking an interest in this very important study. We would just hope that we could be more collaborative.
I absolutely agree with the chair. I feel that with just a click of a button you could have flipped me an email. You could have given me a text or what have you. We would have been able to have a conversation on the side or simultaneously as the committee hearing was ongoing. Now, all of a sudden, we're facing a place where I haven't read the full text of the motion. Yes, it's on my phone here in front of me. I haven't read it. I haven't contemplated what else, what scope. I haven't had the time to digest what I've heard from the RCMP today to see where that lack is.
I would like us to be a little bit more collaborative, Mr. Chair. It is very unfortunate that we're having to complain to you about this lack of co-operation. I understand that you all have the votes. You're good to pass your motion in whatever way you want.
I'd just ask for a little bit of respect for the committee's time, for everybody's time here, just to be more co-operative, more collaborative, and for us to get things together without being so confrontational all the time, folks. We're here to work together with all of you guys.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It really comes down to that. Look, folks, this is an opportunity. I think we're all on the same page here. I think we all are keenly interested in this issue. We all want to have a fulsome debate. I think there's an opportunity for us to do this.
Let's be frank. We don't have a full roster of witnesses tomorrow. I think the chair's suggestion was very co-operative, and one that I think everyone can support. We have time tomorrow so that we can do this without cutting back on witnesses, so why not? It's only a couple of hours later, folks.