Government Operations Committee on Nov. 19th, 2024

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

May I continue? Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, but I am more accustomed to a classroom where the students listen to what others are saying and then answer, as opposed to people talking to each other from one end of the table to the other, as is the case right now.

A question of privilege is before the House of Commons on this exact issue, and there is a study by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. This question of privilege must be resolved before any decision is imposed. Every person has the right to be heard on the question of privilege that is before the House of Commons on this very matter.

Before people demand that the minister resign, as people are doing here right now, at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, I invite you to look at the whole situation, since the subject has already been raised, but it has not been thoroughly examined, and there are two versions of the story if not more.

Once the question of privilege has been examined and the study by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has been completed, should the committee and parliamentarians determine that that is exactly what the minister said and that it isn't a partisan interpretation, it will be up to the minister to do the honourable thing, or it will up to the Prime Minister to make an honourable decision in this regard. This could literally amount to impersonation, which is serious.

I trust my fellow parliamentarians who are discussing this matter currently, both at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and in the House of Commons, and I would like us to respect the process that has been established and requested by the Conservative Party when it raised a question of privilege in the House regarding this situation involving the minister.

I reserve the right to listen to my colleagues from the Conservative Party who want to discuss this matter in those two places, and that right requires me to vote against the motion introduced today by that same party, the Conservatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We have Mr. Jowhari and then Mr. Sousa.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am trying to make sense of why members of this committee are trying to bring a motion on a study that we all agreed on. The importance of it is clear to everyone. I personally was the one who brought it up during the ArriveCAN study. I asked the Dalian president what kind of value their contract added to the indigenous community, how many employees they had who were indigenous and how they had built....

This study is very close to my heart and our team's. I think that a motion like this, coming out of this study and this committee, will actually do a lot of damage to that great work. I'm really looking forward to the report and some of the recommendations coming out of the report. I think this is going to do damage to it.

There are many unknown factors. What we know right now is that there is a media report. There is a claim that the minister had talked about the link to lineage under two different indigenous groups. He talked about his interpretation, and he has apologized.

Now, also, on the company that he partly owned, my understanding is that he had divested long before and was not on the list, as you heard today. There was no contract awarded. I'm not sure whether there was any contract requested, or there was no contract awarded. There was no set-aside.

When I look at this motion, I say, “Well, the way that we are asking that the minister step down and then report that to the House is almost....” If I want to be really partisan and if I want to draw a parallel, I can say, “Hey look—do you know what?—the leader of official opposition has refused repeatedly to get security clearance and to go and get the briefing that's needed.” I see claims come back that say, openly, that these are the members of Parliament who are on the list.

Is it now fair and is it the right thing—not only fair but the right thing—to say, “Well, you know, let's pass a motion that the leader of the official opposition should step down because he's refusing to get the security clearance and then go and report it to the House”?

I think we should forgo this motion. I'll be voting against it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Sousa is next.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, we've made it clear that this is being discussed at the ethics committee. We are all concerned about making sure that the indigenous community is protected, and I say that we stop the discussion and go to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Is there anyone else?

We will go to a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're adjourned.