Evidence of meeting #37 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the guidance, given that I'm still quite new to this committee.
I would like to move that we strike “that the committee allocate a minimum of 6 meetings” and maybe replace it with a minimum of two meetings to conduct this study. I think we can do it in two meetings.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
No...? Maybe I'd just strike that we “allocate a minimum of 6 meetings”, and we can speak further about how many meetings we should conduct this study over, but it just seems to me that six is way too many.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
If you wish to change this motion, I need you to be specific, so if it's your intent to—
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I'd like to remove “a minimum of 6 meetings” from the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Okay. That motion is in order.
If I understood Ms. Hepfner correctly, the motion is simply to strike the words “allocate a minimum of 6 meetings”. There will be no minimum and no maximum: There will be no comment in the motion on the number of meetings.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Right, and then the committee can decide if it needs more meetings. If we can get it all done in two meetings, then we can just wrap up, and we're not committed to six meetings, whether or not we need them.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Thank you.
The amendment is in order.
On my speaking list, I have Ms. Khalid, followed by Ms. Saks, and I see that Mr. Fergus has also put his hand up. That is the current list of speakers.
Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I hate to do this, but given that my colleagues on the opposite side don't really engage, maybe we'll just engage with ourselves: I would disagree with Ms. Hepfner.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Sorry, folks. I think we need to limit or to clearly outline how long such a study should be within the scope that we have spoken about.
In the work plan, we have the Minister of Public Safety, we have officials, we have Monsieur Pierre Guay and we have other witnesses. I think one hour per witness should be more than sufficient, so I would propose maybe a subamendment to Ms. Hepfner's amendment as proposed.
I'm just looking at the wording so that I can get this right. I think Ms. Hepfner is proposing that the words “that the committee allocate a minimum of 6 meetings to conduct this study” be struck from the motion. Is that correct?
Conservative
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Right, so if I wanted to propose a subamendment, would I then say “that the committee allocate two meetings to conduct this study”?
Would that make sense, Chair?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Okay, and you're specifying.... I guess that's both a minimum and a maximum.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Currently we're debating the amendment to delete the words “allocate a minimum of 6 meetings”. You're instead proposing that the committee allocate two meetings.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Okay. That is the first rule on the subamendment, and I rule that it is in order.
I have a point of order from Mr. Bezan.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I would make the argument, Mr. Chair, although you've already ruled on it, that the subamendment changes the intent of the original amendment, which was to take away any restrictions on meetings—minimums or maximums.
I would have suggested that Ms. Hepfner's amendment be voted on first and then Ms. Khalid could move her amendment to specify the minimum number of meetings.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
I have ruled on it. I saw the intent as being less specific in Ms. Hepfner's motion.
If there is no further debate, we can go straight to voting on the subamendment and then deal with the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Yes, that's correct. I saw that you were next. If you wish to speak now, we are debating the subamendment.
Please limit your remarks. I gave a lot of latitude on the debate on the last amendment, but I'm going to ask that we focus on the subamendment on the number of meetings.
Go ahead. You have the floor, Ms. Saks.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the spirit of agreement and disagreement and collaborative efforts here, if I go back to my colleague, Mr. Bezan, who wanted us to be clear on the specificity of what we're studying in this committee, I think that Ms. Khalid's comments are actually even more important than the subamendment that she's moving.
Again, I've been here for a year. I've spoken to colleagues across the way about matters of importance on studies that we wish to do. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree on them, and Mr. Green is nodding his head. He and I have had quite a number of conversations on prioritizing and making sure that good work gets done. I would say that the same is true here.
I think that if we keep it structured rather than open-ended, and we're clear on the witnesses we need to have here, we can get through the study and have clarity on exactly what we're trying to address in this committee, and then move on to the other important matters of the day. With regard to studies we've put forward, for example, I've gone back and forth on single digital ID and the importance of having that discussion as well in this forum.
For the sake of keeping us on track for the studies and the important work we all wish to do, I am very supportive of Ms. Khalid in giving this legs. If Monsieur Villemure sees a sense of urgency here, as it appears that other colleagues do—although I'm not quite sure after 10 months where the urgency lies—we at least have to keep it tight. Let's keep it structured and keep it tight so we can continue with the other important work we have to do here.
And yes, Mr. Bezan, I do walk and chew gum as well, so I hear you on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First, I must apologize to my colleagues for being late today. I took part virtually, which is one of the benefits of the hybrid system, namely, that we can always perform our constituency role efficiently.
First, I would like to speak to Mr. Villemure's motion. Considering the possibility... Honestly, it does not seem necessary, but we will do our duty, I expect. Like all the members seated at the table, I can count, and I know full well that, when the opposition wants something, it ultimately gets its way. That said, are we really talking about spending six committee meetings on this?
Initially, when we started planning for the much more important issue of facial recognition, we had proposed six meetings. It is an issue that affects a great many people. A study that is based on a Radio-Canada report, which stated, to our great surprise, that a businessman who was once a Conservative donor is now a Liberal donor, and could in the future become a Bloc Québécois donor, does not seem important to me.
You will certainly have your turn, Mr. Green.
Personally, I think six meetings is too much. We are talking about hearing from a minister, her officials, the person directly responsible for the Roxham Road crossing, and the person who made those donations.
We could add a great many other people, but I have a lot of trouble imagining that we would need more than two meetings, Mr. Chair. I think having two meetings would be perfectly acceptable. That is four hours of testimony. Four hours spent on something that I really think can be sorted out quite easily.
If we are really concerned about something unacceptable we have heard, we can refer the matter to the Auditor General for her to dig into all the details. That is her role.
That said, for the time the committee has left, if we ask our questions carefully and in due form, and if they really address the concerns of Mr. Villemure and other Canadians who want to make sure that things are managed properly without anything underhanded, I am confident we can do that in two meetings, with four hours of testimony. We could then get back to the issues at hand, such as access to information, and continue other studies that we have already begun, but have not yet presented in the House of Commons.
To my mind, we can have a good discussion among colleagues, and some of you might find this amusing, but, in this case, I think the fact that we really want to find the best way to conduct a study demonstrates our good faith.
That said, I am confident that, if there were no cameras, if we were in camera and had a good discussion as we do when there are no cameras, everyone would thank Mr. Villemure, but say that instead of six meetings on the matter, we can find a way to work more efficiently.
That is why I am making this argument to you. If we can set a goal of two meetings, we could quickly move on to other issues that I consider much more important.
We have to do our duty. I hope the testimony and evidence will show that there is nothing to worry about, that everything is in order, and that we can move on to another matter.
I would also note that I appreciate Ms. Khalid's subamendment. I think that she, as a former chair of this committee, sympathizes a lot with you, Mr. Chair.
I hope we can find a way to resolve this amicably.