Evidence of meeting #50 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 security.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
There are still hands up. That's the problem I have right now, Monsieur Villemure.
I have a list of speakers. The discussion continues, because people want to speak to the motion. The next person on the list is Ms. Hepfner, then Mr. Bains and, finally, Mr. Green.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
On Zoom, it typically goes by the order of the hands, and you'll note that it is likely that my hand was up before Mr. Bains'.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I see that now. Thank you for that, Mr. Green.
I'm going to go to Ms. Hepfner and then Mr. Green after that, and then Mr. Bains.
Thank you.
November 30th, 2022 / 6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to underline, I guess, that this seems to be happening a lot. I also sit on the Standing Committee for Canadian Heritage, and the same thing is happening. We're getting motions to study things that are already being studied, almost to the word, in other committees.
I understand that I'm a new member of Parliament and that maybe this is the way it should work, but it does seem to me that we're not being as efficient as we could be as committee members. We have different mandates in different committees, so I really don't understand how we keep getting these same studies with the same witnesses and the same parameters. I know that, like my friend Monsieur Villemure, you can sub out on other committees. You can appear on PROC. We've seen it happen many times.
I guess I'd just like more clarification. I've been really gratified to see how much you can accomplish on a parliamentary committee, and now I feel like we're just spinning wheels and that it's a game or tactics or something. I don't understand. I would really like to accomplish more as a parliamentarian, and I feel that if we're just doubling up all the same studies for tactics or whatever reason.... It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm hoping for better clarity before we move forward.
Thank you, Chair.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I want to note, on the topic of tactics, that it is very clear that a Liberal filibuster is under way on this particular topic. I'm not clear that adjourning this meeting will put us any closer to a vote.
I know that my friends in government have the ability to speak at length on a number of issues—both related and unrelated, both repeating and new—so I'm glad that we're having this discussion in public.
I just want to go on the public record and say for the people who are tuning in and watching with interest around foreign interference that filibustering this motion does not serve to remove the type of cynicism we're seeing across the country, particularly in my community. We have another Hamilton MP there, and she would likely have heard a lot of feedback on foreign interference.
I'm not sure that an adjournment, which was mentioned earlier, would get us any closer. I would see us right back into this as soon as we began again. I hope that the committee will allow for a vote to happen so that we can move forward.
However, to talk about efficiency and then filibuster is a bit much for me.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree. Like everyone else, I believe this is an extremely important study. However, I think we saw, even witnessed earlier today, that we're doubling up on a similar study being done in another committee. We also maybe saw not the best use of our time in the first hour.
I've made this comment before as well. If we look at the study that's being done in another committee, why not...? As it was described by my colleague, with the number of witnesses and all of the people who have been asked to join that committee and ask and answer the important questions, we can look at what's coming out of that committee. What is the result? What is reported?
Then, if Monsieur Villemure has any issues with gaps in the findings, the results from that, or if the witnesses are not to the liking of this committee, we can review those results, come back to it and move to look at the study further.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
The duplication of the work, again, is an issue. If we see that the findings are not moving things forward or if there are gaps in something....
I would move to adjourn the committee and come back to this at a later time.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We have a motion to adjourn.
When you say “adjourn the committee”, I assume you mean “adjourn debate”.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
That's non-debatable, so I'm going to ask the clerk to call a vote.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Is the question on the meeting?
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Sorry, Mr. Bains, but just to be clear, did you say “adjourn the meeting”?
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
It's to adjourn the meeting for today and come back to it.
6:40 p.m.
The Clerk
The motion is—
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Procedurally, is there a hard stop at 6:45, based on the technical requirements of this committee?
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
The clerk has been on this since we extended beyond 6:30. I don't have an update on the available resources.
Madam Clerk, if you can provide that to Mr. Green, I would appreciate it.
