Information & Ethics Committee on April 21st, 2023

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I was just going to suggest that it was an at-hand motion, given the testimony that we had and, therefore, maybe doesn't require some of the other stuff, given that we have interpretation.

I support it. I think that instances around artificial intelligence and cyberwarfare, in particular, are of deep interest to me, so I appreciate Mr. Villemure's bringing this forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Kurek, I see your hand up on the motion proposed by Mr. Villemure.

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

Thanks, Chair.

It's just to note that, although distribution in both official languages is certainly important, being that it is a timely, relevant and straightforward motion, and it gives the clerk the ability to start putting together the details required for travel budgets and whatnot, I think it's entirely appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

If it does pass, we will try to propose that as quickly as possible at the Liaison Committee. There will be a time lag because it does have to be approved. For the justification rationale, I'll likely have to appear on behalf of the committee to justify this.

By the way, Mr. Fergus, it was very easy to justify the trip to Gatineau. This will take some time to prepare, just so that everybody is clear, but we'll make sure that we come back with a proposed budget that is fair and reasonable.

The motion is on the floor. I need either unanimous consent or a vote on this.

Is there unanimous consent for the motion proposed by Mr. Villemure? I see no objections.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Fergus, you have the floor next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regarding your comment on previous motions, given that the former interim ethics officer has resigned, I'm wondering if that motion or that study is pertinent at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's the reason I mentioned it. I need direction from the committee on this because the motion was passed, as you know.

Our plan was to invite at least the two people that were named—the interim Ethics Commissioner and Minister LeBlanc—but I will have to receive direction from the committee and receive consent or a vote on whether you still want to go down that road.

You provide me with some indication and direction. We'll see what the will of the committee is and then we'll apply it.

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

I would propose, given our limited time for the additional studies that we want, and perhaps even the possibility of continuing the study on the motion of Mr. Villemure, that the events have passed us and we should not continue with that study. I hope that there would be a consensus around the table to do this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You're proposing that. I would need a motion.

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

I would so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. The motion is to not even start the study. Is that correct?

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

It's to not even start the study.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have a couple of hands up on that.

Mr. Green, you were up first. Go ahead, please.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would say that it's a bit of a moot point now. I think we had a fulsome discussion around this in one of our previous meetings. I'm happy to see that the interim commissioner made that decision in stepping down. It's unfortunate that it took this long and got this far, quite frankly, but it did happen.

I am content with that and do not see the need to continue down that line with our very scarce resources and time at this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Kurek, you're next. Go ahead, please.

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

Thanks, Chair.

It's troubling that we have an attitude, certainly from members of the Liberal government, that when a mistake is made they adjust course after they've received significant criticism and their misdeeds have been called out. If there's a growing opposition to the actions they've taken, then they rescind an order or backtrack on a contract. The list is getting too long to articulate in the limited time we have, Mr. Chair.

I find it concerning that the attitude, then, is that it is old news that is no longer relevant and, therefore, does not meet the threshold of being discussed.

My suggestion is this. The initial motion asked for three hours, which I think we have, if my understanding of the calendar is correct. Instead of dismissing the study altogether, we can acknowledge that mistakes were made—serious ones. The fact that we have a massive conflict of interest with the sister-in-law of a cabinet minister being appointed as the interim Ethics Commissioner is the stuff that.... I am not even sure Hollywood would be that bold.

My suggestion is that, instead of three hours, it would be reasonable to ask for that hour we have on Tuesday to try to get to the bottom of this, so that members of this committee can ask questions on behalf of the many Canadians who are flabbergasted with the lengths that the government would go to and the actions it takes, which are eroding trust in our institutions.

That would be my submission, Mr. Chair. Certainly, I will not be supporting ending the study, but I would be happy to see it amended and adjusted because of the changing circumstances. That would be where I'm coming from.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

Suggestions and proposals don't work as it relates to the Standing Orders. We need formal motions. Mr. Fergus indicated that he has a motion to not continue with this study.

Based on what I heard from you, Mr. Kurek.... I'll remind the committee that we approved up to three meetings on this. If you're proposing an amendment to Mr. Fergus's motion, I would ask you to formalize that now so we can deal with a discussion on your amendment.

What would your amendment be, Mr. Kurek?

I'm sorry, Damien. I just received clarification from the clerk.

Mr. Fergus's motion is in order to not continue with the study. There's nothing to amend on that. It's clear what his motion is, so we would either agree with it or not. That would require unanimous consent, and if not, then a vote.

Greg, did you have one more thing to say?

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

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You're done. Okay.

On Mr. Fergus's motion, I'll now ask for unanimous consent. If there's no unanimous consent, then I will ask for a vote. I see heads shaking.

Depending on what happens with that motion, Damien, I'll perhaps go to you next.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

Mr. Fergus's motion carries. There will be no further study on this issue, which will open up a little more time. As I said to the committee earlier, we only have 14 meetings because we've lost two.

If there is no other committee business, I want to thank the analysts. Thank you to the clerk and all the technicians for today's meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.