Information & Ethics Committee on April 21st, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Ms. Hepfner, you're next.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I also want to say that I appreciate Mr. Green's comments, and I agree as well. I'm concerned by this constant coming back to these sorts of gotcha moments. I think this committee can do really good work, and I think we have studies coming up that we proposed and haven't been able to get to.

I am particularly interested in the TikTok study. I think we should get to that as soon as possible. We have seen states and whole jurisdictions that are taking immediate action against this platform, and we haven't even been able to get to a study of it.

I will leave it at that. It's just to say that I really wish we could get back to some of the really important work this committee does—like what we saw this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Hepfner.

Mr. Green, your hand is still up. Go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, again, admittedly, I was caught a little off guard by the motion and didn't have the chance to consult with folks in advance of this, but I would say that I am certainly open to the former board members and non-family related people testifying. If there is in the course of that testimony evidence that implicates Mr. Trudeau in a deeper way that would require a second consideration of this, I would at that point be willing to support it.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to the mover of the motion, if he is still present, or to anybody who is willing to speak on his behalf, would they be willing to, in this moment, allow the motion to come with the first two that were listed and set aside Alexandre Trudeau until such time as the initial testimony would perhaps further involve him in the necessity of this study?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I am going to ask. I don't see....

Mr. Green, just for your benefit, I know you're not here. You're on Zoom. Mr. Barrett left, presumably for question period.

There was a question directly to one of the members of the Conservative Party, so if anybody is able to answer that....

Just to reiterate, Mr. Green's question is related to Ms. Fournier and Mr. Rosenberg.

Is that correct, Mr. Green?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That is correct, and I will state that if they are not prepared to answer that, then I would advise them that they may want to let this motion sit for the time being and revisit it at a later date, as it is unlikely it would pass today.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I see that Mr. Kurek's hand is up.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I would just note that the motion is very distinct. In terms of point a), it does “invite” Mr. Trudeau, but then, in part b) it does “summon”, so there is a pretty big difference in the approach. I think it would address an aspect of what Mr. Green's concerns are, because part b) is certainly a more direct and stronger push to ensure that those who were involved in this, who have not at this point responded to the committee's overture....

At this point, certainly, if Mr. Trudeau were interested in coming to the committee, he would be able to respond to an invite, but there's a pretty big difference in that, so I would just be curious to know if that addresses aspects of some of the concerns Mr. Green has.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

I see that Mr. Green's hand is up, and then it will be Mr. Villemure.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

As I mentioned to my friends on the Conservative side, if they would set that aside and allow for part b) to happen, then I would suggest that, if in the course of the investigation on part b)—the study on part b) with Pascale Fournier and Mr. Rosenberg—it was deemed at that time appropriate to send that invitation to Mr. Trudeau, then I'm for that.

However, I would also recognize the nature in which being implicated in this type of thing has almost as much effect as being brought before the committee, and that is why I would like to give the presumption of innocence, given his relationship to the Prime Minister, until such time as we have real information that would implicate him in a more serious way.

Again, I would restate that, if the movers of the motion would be open to setting aside a) until after b) happens, I would be willing to revisit that. If that's not the case, then I am not really interested in getting into part a) in this particular case.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Mr. Green.

Mr. Villemure, I saw your hand up.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I yield my time to the Conservative Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Green said something interesting. The Conservative Party might agree to keep only item (b) in the motion. We could withdraw item (a) today. If we decide to put item (a) back in, we could do that with another motion.

We could therefore agree to the arrangement suggested by the NDP.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Mr. Green's comment is not intended to send another motion to Mr. Trudeau.

I think Mr. Green is proposing to eliminate part a) and proceed with part b).

I don't want to put any words in Mr. Green's mouth. I see his hand is up.

Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I am sharing with you that I am open to, with due cause—which I haven't had presented in the very short period of time that we've spoken—revisiting part a). However, I'm not interested in having this motion split up, and then not having evidence that, in my opinion, is substantive enough to support part a), but is used as some sort of gotcha.

I would suggest that, if the Conservative side would be willing to set a) aside until after we do b), then the testimony of the two people referenced in b) would give me adequate information to determine whether or not I would support bringing Alexandre Trudeau here or not. Just to be 100%.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

The challenge we have right now is that the motion is on the floor. We would need an amendment to eliminate a). We would require either unanimous consent or a vote on the amendment, and then we'd go back to the main motion, with a) being eliminated.

Mr. Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I'd like to move an amendment to remove item (a) from the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The amendment is on the floor. It is in order.

Is there any discussion on that? Do we have unanimous consent to remove part a)?

We don't. Let's go to a vote, please.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Thank you for that.

I still have two speakers on other issues.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to propose that the committee visit the NATO Centre of Excellence to which Mr. Glucksmann referred.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you. Is that a motion?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

All right. Did you draft the motion in both official languages for the committee or not?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I will.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The clerk says that this is a short motion.

Do we have unanimous consent for this motion?

Is there any discussion on that motion?

Mr. Green, I see your hand.