Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2022

[An hon. member]

I am totally opposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We'll proceed, then, to a vote on the subamendment.

There is a tie, and I vote against the subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The subamendment is defeated and we are back to the amendment.

I think you were trying to get my attention, Mr. Fergus. Did you want to speak to the amendment?

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

I do, Mr. Chair, but I've taken up a lot of people's time. I'd love it if someone else would want to speak before I go there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Fergus is deferring to others.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to the amendment?

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Given the comments made by my colleagues, perhaps I will very quickly try to compromise a little further on the number of meetings. I will propose a subamendment for three meetings, perhaps.

I will not debate this. We can go to a vote.

I would again encourage my colleagues here to contemplate and consider how much more we have on the agenda and how we can narrow the scope, as Mr. Bezan said, to keep a tight study on this issue—specifically this issue.

I think it is possible to do it in three meetings. I would encourage members to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

All right. In the interim, since the earlier subamendment, I've conferred with the clerk on this issue of material change. There are a couple of ways we can handle this.

If there's unanimous consent of the committee, we can withdraw the amendment, bring your amendment, and make your suggestion into an amendment to the main motion, debate it and vote on it. I think that would be the better way to do it. I perhaps might have handled the other one differently around the material change to the intent of the amendment.

I see nodding.

Is there anyone opposed to Ms. Hepfner's withdrawing her amendment and allowing Ms. Khalid to then make an amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a point of order, in my opinion, Ms. Hepfner's motion was more materially different from the main motion than Ms. Khalid's motion. If the intent is that we're going to just move subamendments and change the days and continue to eat up the meeting, I'm not on for any of that. I'm opposed to that.

I'd like to get back to Ms. Hepfner's motion and then get to the main motion and on to the study, if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I will take it that I do not have unanimous consent to proceed in the way I suggested. In that case, I'm going to rule the subamendment out of order.

We will go to the amendment. If there's no discussion, we will vote on the amendment. If there are other amendments, we will deal with them then.

Is there any discussion on—

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

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

I'll say this very briefly, because I imagine there is a unified view as to what is going to happen here. I'm going to take people at their word when they say that if they feel there is nothing there after a couple of meetings, they won't entertain wasting the time of the committee nor ruining the reputation of Parliament in general, and will shut it down.

I look forward to that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I don't see anyone else seeking the floor on the amendment.

Are there any members opposed to the amendment?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm opposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Madam Clerk, we will go to a vote on the amendment.

The vote is tied, and I am opposed.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings]).

We are back on the main motion.

I'm looking for speakers to the main motion. I have Mr. Fergus, followed by Ms. Khalid.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

Mr. Chair, we have this motion by my colleague Monsieur Villemure to invite some specific people on this item and some people who are left nameless.

If the chair feels it would be appropriate.... I'm beginning to wonder why we would want to name particular people who occupy certain positions within our federal public service who are responsible for different aspects of this. How do we know that person is not about to head off on parental leave, or on sick leave or will leave for whatever reason? What will end up happening is we will have not six, but 12 meetings, because we have to wait. This is going to drag on and on.

I hope that my colleague across the way would consider speaking to the positions that the people who can best talk to these issues hold, as opposed to naming particular individuals. This will allow the clerk to reach the appropriate person and make sure they can come forward, so that we can discharge our duties as quickly and efficiently as possible, even though the framework really is dissatisfactory to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Before I take the next speaker, I will draw attention to the wording of the motion. This is a motion to invite. We often invite witnesses and witnesses do not always accept the invitation. When a witness doesn't accept an invitation, we will often examine the reasons a witness might have declined, such as straightforward availability, as you pointed out, Mr. Fergus. It's then up to the committee members what steps they may want to take further or in stronger terms than an invitation, but the motion moves only to invite, not to compel at this stage.

I will go to Ms. Khalid next.

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

I'm sorry, Chair. I think Ms. Saks's hand was up before mine was.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Okay. I had her after you, but you're welcome to switch the order if you wish.

Go ahead, Ms. Saks. You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now that we're back to the main motion, I feel it's really important that we clarify here the importance of Roxham Road in keeping asylum seekers safe, healthy and protected, so they don't freeze when they arrive at our borders, and so they're not sick. They are coming here for safety, and that's what Roxham Road is—it's a port of entry for those who are desperate to find safety. I think we need to keep that in mind as we go through the machinations of this, of bringing witnesses forward, and understand what we're trying to get to at the heart of this.

Mr. Chair, prior to the pandemic, it fluctuated year by year, but based on the numbers I've seen, Roxham Road was seeing anywhere between 18,000 and 20,000 a year. Here we are at the beginning of October, and this year already 20,000 have crossed at Roxham Road, seeking safety here. There has been a heightened need to provide service to those who are seeking asylum here, and as Canadians, we have never turned a blind eye to that, nor should we at this moment.

I understand the concerns of my colleague Monsieur Villemure in bringing this forward and what Monsieur Paul-Hus has also put forward and what's been in the media, but I think we also have to differentiate between the noise and the facts as to why Roxham Road operates and the principles and values behind that, which we, not just as a government but as Canadians, have committed to for those who seek shelter and safety.

You know, this is a concerted effort of IRCC, CBSA and procurement to provide that safety, that asylum, to those who are crossing the border at Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, and we have to understand that, since we're looking at the amounts of money that are in question. We also have to recognize that the road they're entering on for Roxham Road is montée Guay. There is one landlord at Roxham Road, and it's Monsieur Pierre Guay, and whether he's donated to Conservatives in the past—which he has—or whether he's donated to Liberals in the past—which he also has, to their respective parties—at the end of the day, Monsieur Guay is the landlord there. My colleague, Mr. Green, having sat on OGGO and other committees, would know perfectly well that when there are sole proprietors, procurement has procedures in place to negotiate agreements at market value and to ensure that all the steps in that process are taken and taken appropriately. There is no other competitor there, from what I understand, from what I've seen of the mapping.

What are we talking about? We're talking about winterized safety shelters where they can provide nurses and point-of-entry immigration people to help with processing and filing. Let's be clear about what is happening in this space at Roxham Road, who is being served and their purpose, and also who owns the space in which we as Canadians are trying to provide a service for the folks who are coming through. I am all for transparency and I am all for accountability and I am all for the clarity of understanding what happens in this space, but if we're looking for a gotcha moment or a smoking gun for the sake of time in this committee, I certainly hope that it is not at the expense of the 20,000 vulnerable men, women and children who cross this border year after year seeking safety here in Canada.

I appreciate Mr. Green's comments that he feels satisfied that no untoward contracts were issued, but as he mentioned, he's sat on other committees, so he knows perfectly well how sole-proprietor commercial contracts are awarded. In a case like this, where there is another owner of this space, where IRCC and CBSA have had to set up services for safety, we have to be really clear on why we're going to take up to six meetings on this, on what is an essential part of what we as Canadians hold dear: providing safe harbour for those who are seeking safety.

I feel it's important to keep that lens in play as we move through Mr. Villemure's...because we can get caught up in the noise and all of that. At the end of the day, it's about where our priorities lie in ensuring that those who are fleeing from human rights violations and other atrocities around the world, and who seek safety here, are best protected when they come through our ports of entry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Ms. Saks.

I have Ms. Khalid next.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I won't echo a lot of what Ms. Saks said, other than to agree with her.

We have established a work plan. I did say—and I will refresh the memories of members opposite, who are all looking down at their phones—that it would be nice for us to add this study to the docket of studies we have proposed. As I've indicated before, we have the study on access to information up next.

I have proposed two studies. The first deals with the use of microphones, security and cybersecurity for vehicles as they become more and more digitized. The second deals with the issue of privacy regarding children's use of devices, more and more. I think those are two very important and pertinent issues.

I would propose an amendment. Again, I don't want to debate this. I would hope that members opposite take it into consideration and put this study on the docket with all the other studies we have, and create a work plan in a more collaborative way.

I would propose, Mr. Chair, that we strike the words “as soon as possible”....

I was going to move an amendment, Mr. Chair, but I'll wait.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm sorry. I was conferring with the clerk for a quick moment.

Please, go ahead.

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

I would strike the words “as soon as possible” from this motion in the first line. The effect of this would ultimately be to place this motion within the longer list of work plans and studies we have proposed in this committee. This is to make sure we're prioritizing all the issues that each of us has presented before this committee, and to ensure that we keep triaging the order of the work that needs to get done here.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We have another amendment. The amendment is in order.

Before I open it up for further debate on the amendment, I will share with the committee that it was my intent, had this motion passed unamended, to continue on with the Wednesday meeting as scheduled. My ruling of “as soon as possible” would have granted that it will take more than a couple of days to arrange the first meeting. It was my intention to continue and go ahead with the Wednesday meeting, as it is on notice. I put that out there to all members, so you understand how I would have interpreted “as soon as possible”, which is just that—as soon as you could realistically put further meetings together.

With that, I will open up for debate on the amendment. I put that out there in case it colours anyone's thoughts on this amendment.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

While I understand and respect your interpretation, as chair of this committee. I've been in committees where we've tried to eat multiple sandwiches at the same time, or take on lots of studies at the same time. It just doesn't work, in that—

[Bezan]

I have an observation.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Bezan. I wasn't able to hear you while I was talking. I'm not able to listen and talk at the same time, unfortunately.