Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 5th, 2022

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

Thanks, Chair.

The witnesses had to be dismissed today because there was a filibuster at the end of the last meeting we had. Had we voted on the question at hand then, we wouldn't have had the business to deal with again today, and it looks like this will carry forward to another meeting.

We can walk and chew gum—I can—so I'm prepared to have multiple studies happen at one time, so I support the main motion. I don't support the amendment. We'd be cancelling on our upcoming witnesses, and I think we can do both at the same time.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Just to clarify, prioritizing this motion is not diluting it. It is making sure that our priority and how we feel about this motion is shown by way of our schedule and how we are ensuring that this study will be completed in a timely and effective manner.

I know we have been talking about this, and the only way that we move forward is to have the fulsome debates to make sure that what we are doing at committee is important work to Canadians. I think that members have made it very clear how important this foreign interference issue is, and I think it needs to be reflected in our schedule. It needs to be shown. Let's get this over and done with before moving on to other things.

Amongst all of the studies that we have, this is the one that members have really expressed a lot of urgency about. I think we should have that reflected within our schedule, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I do not see any other hands up, so we are on the amendment proposed by Ms. Saks.

Mr. Green, I see your hand up.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I just want to clarify that the only bone I have to pick.... I would agree that, if we're going to make this the priority, we need to make the priority. I have a keen interest in hearing from Amazon on a whole host of issues.

Through you to the clerk, when would be the next available opportunity to bring in the folks from Amazon, given this motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The expectation was that we were going to have the folks from Amazon here on the 14th. The invitation has been sent out, but we haven't heard anything at this point in terms of a commitment to appear.

I will tell you, Mr. Green, that the schedule is that on Wednesday we have the ATIP study. We're continuing on that with representatives from the media. Next week we have the commissioners who have all committed to come in to talk about the supplementary estimates, and then on the 14th, we were going to return to the ATIP study.

I'll remind the committee members as well that last week we approved a motion to have the lobbying commissioner come in to talk about the proposed changes to the lobbyists' code of conduct. My expectation is that we're not going to get to that until January 30 at the earliest, after the Christmas break, and then the schedule beyond that point hasn't been set yet.

Hang on a second.

I've just been updated on the invitation for the 14th. We haven't heard any response at this point. I'm going to give it a couple of more days, and then we'll determine where we're going to go from that point forward.

Does that clarify anything for you, Mr. Green?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It does, and I would admit we're in a bit of a dog's breakfast with our work plan. That's just the nature of shifting priorities. I'm guilty of it, and I'm certainly supportive of exploring some of this stuff.

I'll just share quite candidly, in a vulnerable way, that I'm a little bit torn about how are we going to prioritize this in a way that does respect some of the other work that's happening, because it's also a priority of mine as well.

I'll just listen to the other comments and see where we land.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that. Part of the challenges that we're dealing with is witness availability as well, so there are a lot of moving parts involved in some of the studies that have been approved by the committee as well.

I certainly know that the clerk and the analysts are trying their best to accommodate the will of the committee.

I don't see any further discussion on the amendment.

Go ahead, Ms. Saks.

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

If I may, through you, Mr. Chair, I'll respond to Mr. Green.

I noted this in a prior meeting, that witnesses who were quite vulnerable were brought to committee without a lot of planning and timing.

I agree with you, Mr. Green, that I'd like to hear from Amazon as well, and we haven't heard from them yet. Perhaps in prioritizing this, since this is the issue of the day, it will allow us to really build the schedule out on issues that are important to you like Amazon and make sure that we give witnesses the time to respond and plan.

As we saw in the last round of the ATIP, we had some vulnerable folks here and testimony that was quite quick in the turnaround.

I think we can be mindful and careful in our planning, and I believe that this is really the issue of the day to committee members and to Canadians.

Mr. Green, I'd be happy to see us work on a well-planned, scheduled work plan for after the break.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't see any further discussion.

Take the vote on the amendment of Ms. Saks, Madam Clerk.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to ask the committee for some indulgence on this, because I know that we have an ATIP study—

Let me finish first.

I'm going to ask for the committee's indulgence on this, because we have witnesses who have been scheduled to appear for some time on Wednesday on the ATIP study. I know there's a keen interest in their appearance, and they want to appear in front of this committee. What I would like is some indulgence from the committee, or some direction from the committee.

If we can start this with the amendment.... We still have to vote on it, but keep in mind that if you want to start this, we can start it next week, because we're going to have difficulty getting witnesses here for Wednesday—let's be frank—and I don't want to put the clerk or the analyst in that position.

We haven't voted on the main motion, but I throw that out there for the committee's consideration. I think it's a dutiful consideration.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus. We're on the main motion as amended at this point.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm going to be very quick, because I want to respect the time that you have, and I know that honourable colleagues have another engagement to go to. This, I hope, will be very quick and we'll get a lot of support.

I'd like to move one last motion. It's one that's important to me. It's one that we've seen. It has real consequences. As I say, the indirect yet very real consequence of foreign interference is that it has led to a lot of social divisions within our own country.

China has been seen as the villain and, on the face of it, the Chinese government seems to warrant this criticism.

However, Canadians of Chinese origin have been the victims of xenophobic attacks, and we have also seen similar behaviour towards other groups in our country.

I would therefore like to amend Mr. Villemure's motion by adding after the words “until the study is complete” the following: “that one meeting be dedicated to the rise of xenophobia in Canada”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Have you shared that with the clerk? Has it been distributed among the committee?

We have to be mindful of the time here. Mr. Fergus has proposed an amendment.

Monsieur Villemure, I'll hear you on the amendment.

Did you have your hand up, Mr. Barrett? I'm sorry.

It's Mr. Barrett first, and then we'll go to Mr. Villemure.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Mr. Chair, I look forward to debating this fourth or fifth or sixth amendment, but as noted by my honourable colleagues, there are multiple other engagements for members of the committee.

I move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have a motion to adjourn. It's non-debatable and non-amendable.

Do we have consensus to adjourn?

We don't.

Let's go to a vote, please, Madam Clerk.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

The motion to adjourn fails.

I am going to adjourn the meeting.... Can I do that?

Let's keep in mind.... The reason I was mindful of this is that we do have a hard stop at 5:45 tonight, just so that everybody knows. I was hoping that we could adjourn, but the vote failed and we're going to continue.

Mr. Fergus, your hand is up.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm hoping that we can vote on this amendment and then on the main motion without further debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Mr. Fergus has moved the amendment on the one meeting.

I have Mr. Kurek on the amendment.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do find it interesting. I would pose somewhat of a question, and then I may have a few further comments.

I agree entirely that we have seen significant divisions that have taken place, and we've seen instances of xenophobia and racism that have unfortunately been directed towards minority communities in this country. In fact, speaking with a former colleague who was not re-elected in 2021, I heard some incredible stories from this colleague I'd served with for not quite a couple of years about some of the instances of racism he had experienced, in particular because he took a fairly firm stand regarding some of issues.

My question would be this. In the context of there being one meeting, it being prescriptive to one meeting, I'd be curious as to what that would look like in terms of the greater context of this study. Is it something that is meant to ensure that we have perspectives heard so that it would provide context from academics? Are we looking for election officials?

We have the amended motion before us. Certainly voting on this is a laudable intention, and I'd be very supportive of it. Perhaps Mr. Fergus would outline maybe some examples of who might be included as witnesses in that meeting so that we can understand what we're trying to get to here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The question is posed to you, Mr. Fergus. If you want to answer it, you're more than welcome to.

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

I'm very reluctant to answer, because I'm afraid of the time running out for those who have commitments. All I can say is that it would be up to members to determine, using the example of Mr. Kurek, or examples that other members can talk about. It will be up to this membership to determine who would be the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I think that when it comes to ensuring that we have the full understanding of what.... I'm just hesitant to proceed without a better understanding, because in the context of election interference I think this is totally reasonable in terms of some of the peripheral discussion. I'll use an example that is somewhat unrelated.

I know that there's a committee currently undertaking a study on some abuse within sports in Canada—a very, very serious issue—and having listened to some of the testimony and hearing some of the witnesses...it was absolutely heartbreaking.

One of the meetings they undertook had to do with the committee hearing from experts, and the committee members, my understanding is, heard from experts related to trauma so that the members knew how to appropriately ask questions, in some cases making sure that.... Although it's a very different subject matter, the reason I bring this up is that in their case they heard from experts who understood the details of trauma so that they could equip members of that committee to better understand how they should be approaching the subject from the perspective of dealing with situations in order to not revictimize anyone, and then, further, to provide supports for members of the committee, because some of the language that has been heard is quite traumatic.

My question is, there's precedent that I can certainly think of that fits within this. However, I'm curious as to if we want to look at examples where there was xenophobia and some of the causes of that. Was that some of the interference that is being referenced? To add this as a specific element of it, just for more guidance as to what that might look like, I think would be a helpful element to ensure that we are just better understanding it. I know that there are people of colour and of minority groups around this table, and I think that certainly they've experienced things that I cannot necessarily directly relate to.

Mr. Chair, through you, the question would be—and I'm just trying to better understand in the context of the motion that we have before us—is it something that's directly related to the report or is it something that is meant to help this committee understand some of the greater challenges that exist in this space so that we are not finding ourselves in the position where members of this committee from any party, from any background, end up putting themselves in a place where it would be not understanding where certain individuals within our society may find some challenges?

I would pose that question: Is it directly related to the study to be included in the report or is it more for the knowledge and understanding of members of this committee to understand where things are coming from?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Kurek.

I have to advise the committee that we had been granted an extra 14 minutes despite the resource limitations, taking us to 5:44. We're at that point right now, so I have no other option at this point but to adjourn the meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.