Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 1st, 2023

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes. It's as clear as mud for me as well. It makes “the brain go 'round”. That's a reference to a famous song, if anybody caught that.

I also have a similar clarification question. It seems that we're kind of going backwards, and I'm just wondering, further to Ms. Sahota's point, whether the now subamended version would revert back to something that we've voted on several times.

It seems to me that the will of the committee has been expressed through various votes on various different occasions to remove staff—political staff—from being included in this motion, so I just wanted to ask for a clarification on whether—again, procedurally—we can keep going back and forth on the same issue over and over again.

Perhaps I'm not well versed in the procedures of the House, but I thought there were some guidelines and rules on that, so I just wondered, and before I start my remarks, I'd like to get clarification on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I feel like I just did that. Do you want to maybe say it again in my good ear? What would you like me to do, Mr. Turnbull?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Well, I think that in our past meetings we've had conversations about motions that expressed the desire to have staff appear before the committee, and we voted those motions down. I realize that we're debating a new motion that has been amended and then subamended, but one of the key issues that keeps coming up over and over again is having staff appear before the committee.

Mr. Julian has talked about ministerial accountability in his past remarks, and members of this committee have quoted him, emphatically in agreement with him, and I'm just wondering whether this is the same issue that we're really contemplating and voting on over and over again. Isn't that redundant? Isn't there some procedural rule that prevents us from doing that?

Is that clear, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That was really well done. Yes, I needed you to elaborate that point. I thank you. The lights have turned on.

Yes, I think that's a very valid point you're raising. Based on this issue, there is an argument to be made that this question has been decided, unless there is a reason to understand that it is not the same question, which is where we would be able to debate it again.

With that, I think I could provide Mr. Cooper the opportunity to let us understand why this question is not the same as something that we have already addressed, because there is the narrative that this has already been answered, but it came to the floor of this committee. We've been debating it now for just a couple of minutes—it feels like days—and I would like to understand if we believe or feel that it's the same question or if there's a reason it's a different question.

Mr. Cooper, can you please explain if this is the same question or why you believe it's different? There are some people who believe this question has been decided.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It has not been decided. There was, between the last vote and the current motion before us, a change. This motion is referencing different reports, for example.

We are referencing, for example, the Sam Cooper Global News report that came out involving senior PMO staff being briefed by CSIS. That had not been disclosed. The committee was not aware of that at the time the last motion was debated and voted on. Now we have these very serious allegations that senior PMO staff were briefed by CSIS that a Liberal candidate, now a sitting Liberal MP, was assisted by Beijing's Toronto consulate in his nomination campaign. That is why we need to hear from Katie Telford, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister.

I would submit, therefore, that it's perfectly appropriate that this be included in the motion, debated and voted upon, and that she appear as soon as possible to answer questions instead of running and hiding as she has up until now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay. We are just going to take a pause from what's happening in regard to the motion; I think, in all honesty, that I would feel that this question has been addressed, but at the same time, it's for members to decide, and I am just here acting as your chair.

Mr. Cooper, I appreciated your comment. I think I've demonstrated that I'm always here to get along and find a way forward. I'm not sure what more I can do to demonstrate that I'm here to play nicely in the sandbox.

I would welcome other members who would like to share their thoughts: Do we feel that this question has been answered, or have the parameters changed enough that we have not addressed it? I'm going to give it a five-minute cycle and say that I would love to hear some thoughts.

We got to hear Mr. Turnbull. We got to hear Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Julian, would you like to speak?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I would, Madam Chair.

I find this deeply saddening, such an unserious approach from the official opposition. They bring forward a motion and it's amended, maintaining that motion, and then they try to one-up it, throwing in all kinds of additional people who are not involved at all, in either the allegations of Chinese interference, which affects both Liberal—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm sorry, Mr. Julian. Perhaps—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

No, hold on. Just a moment, Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

No, Mr. Julian. I need to just make sure. You're going to get the floor back with regard to the subamendment.

Do you feel that this question, the concern that Mr. Turnbull has raised, is a matter that has already been addressed? Or do you believe that there is enough change that this has not been addressed?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I find the subamendment of Mr. Cooper ridiculous, and I'd like to move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That just changed a lot.

The question has been called, Madam Clerk.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I need clarification, because I'm not sure whether we're adjourning the meeting or moving to adjourn debate. I don't know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It's for the meeting.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Okay. We're voting on adjourning the meeting. Thank you.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

The meeting is adjourned. We'll see you at 10 a.m. Have a good night. Thank you, everyone.

To staff and supporting people and interpreters for HOC, we really appreciate what you do to be here with us, and thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Good night and safe travels.