Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 30th, 2022

[The Clerk]

I could, but there's a motion on the floor to adjourn. Shall I proceed with it?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, I would proceed with the motion to adjourn and the vote on that motion. Thank you.

[The Clerk]

The motion that was moved by Mr. Bains is to adjourn the meeting.

The vote is five yeas and five nays.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I vote against.

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

The meeting will continue.

I have Ms. Saks first, to be followed by Mr. Barrett.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I may, I'd like to respond to the comments of my colleague Mr. Green and, as a matter of fact, many colleagues around the table who talk about the spending we do in this place and what it gets spent on. There are comments and critiques on visits abroad and so on and so forth, yet we are so cavalier in the willingness to double up the high cost of House resources and the time of our interpreters and the clerk's time. At least on the government side, my colleagues and I do not want to double up the work of committees but actually do the work that Canadians want us to do, and do it in an efficient manner that gets to the heart of the issues at hand, with strong recommendations to take back to the House. That's what Canadians want us to do, Mr. Chair.

With regard to the comments of my colleague Mr. Green, whom I respect immensely—he does great work—my point of debate is that we should not spend the extra resources of the House on work that is already being done, really, for these political points rather than for the real work of getting to the heart of the issue when my colleague Mr. Villemure has been offered alternatives that are well within the purview of committee work to get to the heart of the questions that he has raised. It works both ways. Do we want to get work done in this committee? Do we want to see answers to the questions that Canadians ask us?

I've seen it time and again. I sat on the heritage committee over a recent issue and just watched as the francophone community, as the Jewish community—many communities—wanted really important answers from officials on a very upsetting process, and Conservatives filibustered for well over an hour and wasted the time of officials who took the time to come in to answer the questions of the public.

Therefore, I would use caution in throwing stones about who is wasting time. I'm trying to make sure that we don't waste money. I'm trying to make sure that we don't waste resources. You just voted against not wasting time and not wasting resources, only to have an entirely new study brought up into the committee, something that's already being studied elsewhere.

This is not the first time that this has been done in this committee room. I see colleagues shaking their heads, but let's have a frank and honest discussion about this. You wanted it in public. The public is seeing this, and the public is seeing that there is a willingness by the opposition to double up—to triple up in cases—motions that are word for word the same, with the exception of a semicolon or a letter, in order to waste time.

So, yes, I will stand up for that. I will fight against wasting time on an entire new study when there is space in a committee to do this work and when members of this committee could well use their time to ask the key questions to get the lens and perspective they want at the appropriate place where these things are being studied.

Mr. Chair, I express my deep and profound disappointment at my colleagues' unwillingness to understand that I came here to work on studies like the ATIP study. We've agreed to the ArriveCAN study, even though it's being studied in OGGO. However, the opposition continues to waste the time of this committee for doing actual work.

While my colleague Mr. Green may be frustrated by seeing repeated comments against the wasting of House resources, I will say respectfully, sir, that I don't want to see us wasting good taxpayer money by the doubling up and tripling up of studies.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

To update the committee and Ms. Saks, I've been advised by the clerk that we have interpretation for another 10 minutes.

Mr. Barrett, you have the floor.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure whether there's some confusion about who moved the motion, but it wasn't the official opposition. I keep hearing that the government members' argument is against the Conservatives. I'm a little confused by that. They're saying we're wasting time with the ArriveCAN study and bringing in the same witnesses. I would ask, which witnesses on ArriveCAN appeared at OGGO and then appeared at ETHI? Where has that happened? We haven't doubled up on those witnesses, but it certainly could be germane to do so.

The witness who was here today, having received.... CBSA said he got $8 million, one of the largest contracts awarded in a $54-million project. He said he got $100,000. I don't know whether people thought that was a waste of time. I think it's quite telling that CBSA thinks they spent $8 million and the vendor says they haven't billed them or received that much. That raises serious questions.

Ms. Saks was talking about Conservatives wasting time. We hadn't even intervened in this discussion. Frankly, however, it's quite an important issue. If there is concern that this is wasting time—that studying foreign interference in our elections is wasting time—I disagree. If Ms. Saks isn't comfortable working past 6:30 at night, get a substitute.

Mr. Chair, we're going to support this motion and we're prepared to debate it until the end of resources. Should the filibuster and wasting of time and resources by government members like Ms. Saks continue, we're prepared to continue this discussion in other meetings.

It is certainly disappointing when people look for disagreement when there wasn't any to begin with.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I'm going to tell everybody to cool their jets a bit here. We don't want to get into any sort of personal attack, on all sides. Let's keep to the motion on the floor.

Mr. Fergus, you now have the floor on the motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to continue in the way you just suggested and lower the temperature.

Mr. Barrett, I want to say that you are not responsible for this motion, nor is the official opposition. I am certainly not pointing fingers at the official opposition. I want to make that clear.

I think it is important to talk about duplication of efforts. With regard to the ArriveCAN study that we have, you are correct: Let the record show that there hasn't been a duplication of witnesses, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been duplication of a whole bunch of resources, not the least of which is the time of members of Parliament.

For us to do this.... Duplicate studies cost money. We pass motions—the routine motions of all committees—whenever we engage in a study. Sometimes, if there's travel, it can be very expensive. Even when we're just in the House, a duplicate study, at this point, costs $9,000. That's just in here. That's not counting any of our time or the time of our staff resources, who are paid by the people of Canada.

It's important that we try.... If we're going to bring something new, then bring something new. As much as possible, make sure we use all of our resources, in the widest possible terms—financial, time, intellectual—as efficiently as possible.

What we have here.... When there were....

I must say that I was a little disappointed with the reaction when I asked a question. I think that the chair of this committee wanted the mover of the motion to answer legitimate and relevant questions from committee members to determine what differentiates the motion from other motions for studies on the same subject.

Instead of taking the time to listen to what members had to say to about how Mr. Villemure's motion to study foreign interference in the 2021 federal election was different from the other motion and deserved to be considered by the committee, the committee instead moved to adjourn the meeting and proceed to a vote. However, other people wanted to speak. It wasn't very polite, frankly.

I understand that when you have a goal in mind, you only want to achieve that goal, regardless of the questions asked about the initiative.

It would have been polite to at least answer the relevant questions that we wanted to ask. How is this process different from the study that's currently being done in another committee? Are there things that we're discussing at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that aren't considered enough for studying this issue in depth? Everyone agrees that this is an extremely important issue. Our credibility in the eyes of the public is at stake. That's very important.

We want to ensure the integrity of our democratic institutions. We are studying that. What's more, not only have we started a study, but we've extended the time for that study. We've also made sure that we can discuss it. We've also expanded the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

What more should be studied than what we are already?

The door is always open for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to come back to this issue if we want to add witnesses or pursue a certain angle of inquiry. All of that is possible.

I don't understand what we're trying to accomplish here. I have to say it.

It's very important, but if I don't get an answer, I'm not getting much room. Maybe we should have a discussion outside of this committee to see what we can do to really address your needs and your concerns. From there, we can try to find a reasonable and cordial way to decide what we want to do. I think that's very important.

Again, I would ask all my colleagues to consider this.

Conducting work for the purpose of political jockeying could contribute to increasing cynicism of Canadians toward our institutions. We have no interest in doing that.

I told you, and it was important to mention it, that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had already heard testimony from Mr. Perrault, the Chief Electoral Officer. He didn't appear once, but twice. I had the opportunity to ask him several questions. Your colleague from the Bloc Québécois, Ms. Gaudreau, was there. She asked some very pertinent questions to get a better understanding of the situation and where we are at. We invited the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Ms. Simard, to come and present her report. She is currently investigating this matter. These people are required to appear before a committee that invites them to appear.

Do we want to waste their time by requiring them to give the same opening remarks and perhaps answer the same questions from people who didn't have the opportunity to ask those questions at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?

At what cost will they do that? I'm not talking about the financial costs. I mean the impact on their investigative work to find out who is responsible for this foreign interference in our elections.

How did these schemes manifest themselves here in Canada?

There's a cost to doubling the work of others. I don't think it's helpful, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Excuse me, Mr. Fergus.

I really hate interrupting you, because I was listening intently.

We have a situation with resources right now. I am going to make the decision to adjourn this meeting, and we're going to have to have further discussion among the whips as to what the next steps are. Unfortunately, we're going to have to adjourn the meeting at this point.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

I'd like to confirm, Mr. Chair, because I hadn't finished what I wanted to say, that I will have the floor when we get back.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sure members will be intent on listening to what you have to say when we do return.

I apologize to the committee, but resources being as thin as they are, and with the situation that we are in, I am going to adjourn this meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.