Public Accounts Committee on June 5th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 68 of the Standing House of Commons Committee for Public Accounts.

I'm just going to update everyone on where we are with several motions and then tell you about some news I have regarding the discussion we had last week.

You will recall that in the last meeting we adjourned debate on Mr. Genuis's motion that was amended by Mr. Desjarlais with respect to three witnesses related to the Trudeau Foundation. I am going to address this in a second.

There are also two other motions. One is on notice from Mr. McCauley with respect to funding from the Government of Canada and an alleged police facility operated by Beijing. There's also a second motion from Mr. McCauley with respect to CRA documents related to the Trudeau Foundation that the committee is deliberating on requesting. There's an amendment to that motion.

We can discuss those in a few minutes.

Mr. Genuis, you can put your hand down. I see you.

First of all, I'm pleased to report that, since our last conversation, Mel Cappe, Edward Johnson and the Right Honourable David Johnston have all agreed to appear. I'm going to try to schedule them for June 15. They're not all available for this on Thursday and, given that responses have been coming in this morning, that's perhaps too soon for some of them as well.

Don't answer me yet because I'm just going to address our meeting that is a week from today, where we have some officials coming in to also discuss the Trudeau Foundation. They're generally accepting that invitation as well. We seem to be on track for next Monday's meeting with federal officials with respect to the Trudeau Foundation. I'm going to work hard to have the three we were discussing in the end of next week on Thursday.

There's other committee business that I need to line up before the end of the year. I'd like to have the law clerk in to discuss the drafting of the COVID-19 vaccine review that we did. If required, I might do that in subcommittee because I do want to help my analysts out. If I do it in subcommittee, none of you can put a motion forward and send me off in another direction, so that's my backup plan for the analysts so they have that done for the summer. That's the only item that the analysts require.

For those of you who are touring the Centre Block tomorrow, that is on. I know that is optional. I have done that recently, so I'm not going to be there, but it is worth doing. It is interesting to see the interior of the Centre Block.

That is my update.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

In light of the situation with witnesses, I'd like to move that we resume consideration of Mr. McCauley's motion on requests for documents from the CRA in relation to the study of the Trudeau Foundation. These are important documents that are part of the information we need for our study.

It's my understanding that it's a dilatory motion, so I just move that we resume consideration of that.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right. Where it stands now, there is the amendment that was put forward by the Bloc member, so the debate continues.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just give me one second, please.

By the books, do I have agreement to resume the discussion around this motion and the amendment?

If I have agreement, we just continue. If I don't have unanimous consent, then there's a recorded vote.

[An hon. member]

You don't have unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay. We require a vote.

[Carine Grand-Jean, Committee Clerk]

Mr. Chair, the vote is five yeas and five nays.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll cast the vote to continue with the debate.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Mr. Fragiskatos, you now have the floor to discuss this amendment to the motion.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've seemingly overcome one issue that I thought would have put us on a new path towards actually living up to the mandate of this committee, but here we are again stuck in a situation where this committee has been politicized.

Before colleagues take the opportunity to accuse me of being repetitive, I just wish to draw attention because it has been a number of days since we did discuss this. It's a bit of a reminder, out of courtesy, Mr. Chair, to colleagues around the table, particularly for those on the opposition Conservative side who have brought this forward.

Let's remember what this motion calls for. Ultimately, the CRA would be asked to provide documents from one charity organization that, if one is familiar at all with the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act, would in fact put public servants in a very difficult if not impossible position because they would be asked to break the law.

That's not a small point, Mr. Chair. I repeat—they would be asked to break the law.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

My point of order is not about the falsity of the statements. It's about the fact that he's repeating statements that he made previously.

He's allowed to say things that aren't true, but he's not allowed to repeat those things.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Fragiskatos, that is in fact a point of order.

I'll let you proceed, but you do need to raise new issues, and certainly, to speak to the amendment as well.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It's a courtesy, Mr. Chair. It's a reminder.

Our colleague across the way might be the only one who stays up late at night and reads the blues of this committee. However, the point is that a few days have passed since we last discussed this issue, and I don't think it's out of place for me to remind colleagues what's at stake.

Let me make a new point, which is that I don't know—and perhaps we could have the clerk and the analysts look into this—if this committee has ever put forward such a motion or if there is any precedent that exists that has seen us ask any agency, in this case, we're talking about the Canada Revenue Agency, to provide documents about a single organization. It would be bad enough if it was a number of organizations, but it's a single organization that has been the subject of much discussion and debate and, I would say, politicization in the House of Commons, among other places, and in our political landscape.

Has this committee ever asked an agency of government to break the privacy provisions of the Income Tax Act and, in effect, ask public servants to break the law? I don't know if that's been asked for before. We know now that it is well outside the mandate of this committee. I see a need to look into whether or not a precedent exists for us to go in that direction. I don't believe there is any precedent, but perhaps we could have that assessed.

The implications of this are very real. I used the phrase “a poisoned chalice” in the last meeting. This poisons our debates, discussions and analysis of very real issues. How is this committee to be taken seriously? This is another point. This is a new point.

How are we to be taken seriously as a committee? How are we to have credibility with fellow parliamentarians? How are we to have credibility with the wider public, most importantly, if we are seen as giving way to some sort of effort that is little better than a kangaroo court? This is what you find in emerging democracies, at best, where corruption is the name of the game and where politics define what is put on the table for study, not actual facts.

I'm inclined to also mention, Mr. Chair—and you were there, because you helped chair the meeting last year—the summer meeting of the various committees of public accounts across Canada. I wonder what those colleagues would think of what we're doing right now. There's a lot at stake in terms of our reputation. We should be looking at very important issues that relate to this committee.

I can think of a situation.... I know my friends in the Conservative Party will not want to delve into and address the finer points of climate change, but I know our colleague in the Bloc, Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, and Mr. Desjarlais are champions of efforts to take a serious look at climate change. This committee has the ability to do that. We could ask the Auditor General to study the long-term impacts of climate change in terms of the approach that's been taken federally, provincially and territorially, understanding where that's gone since, let's say, 2006.

I'm prepared to put forward a motion in that direction, where we would look at all the lost years of what's happened across the country—not just federally—with a view to better understanding what can be done from a public accounts perspective to address the issue of emissions. I think this committee would have some very serious things to say on that, looking at what other jurisdictions have done as far as the whole issue of emissions is concerned and where the Auditor General identifies further things that can be assessed as part of that.

Again, if we're going to really keep a focus here, it should be the main focus, and I think something as important as the existential threat of climate change is something that this committee should wrestle with over and above, certainly, matters pertaining to the Trudeau Foundation, which I remind you, Chair—again, as a courtesy before my colleague raises another point of order—other committees are looking at.

The committee on procedure and House affairs, PROC, is looking at it. The ethics committee is looking at similar matters, but it's our committee that's left with the task.... Perhaps it's an enviable task, which is how my colleagues in the Conservative Party would describe it, but it's certainly not enviable from my perspective when we've asked public servants to go against the laws of the land and the privacy provisions of a very important act, the Income Tax Act.

I wonder, Mr. Chair, if you would be open to this. This is something that I think you really need to consider. Going back to the committees, the various committees on public accounts.... Again, we met last year, and you chaired the meeting very ably. We should ask them their opinion on what we're doing and understand what their position would be. It would be, yes, a bit strange if not extraordinary, but, if you're to make that argument, you'd also have to recognize that what's happening here is strange and extraordinary.

In the interests of this committee, for its future reputation to remain as it is, one of the most reputable committees in the House of Commons because of the non-partisan nature of the work that happens here.... I can only think of, for example, a few other committees that operate in this way by consensus. There's the Subcommittee on International Human Rights that operates in this way, but there aren't too many others that seek to do so, and here we've become politicized.

I'm a member of this committee, certainly, and have been for I think about a year and a half, but I did follow its work before and read its reports, because you could count on those reports. Sometimes I think it's the case that committees produce reports, and you have to wonder if there was politics involved in them. You hope not, but it can go in that direction. I think we have to admit that as members of Parliament.

I've looked back at some of those reports through my time as a member of Parliament, and I'll commend my colleague Ms. Shanahan, sitting next to me, because she's a long-standing member, and she knows very well, as previous members know, what this committee is capable of. I'm not even going to stick to praising Liberal colleagues. I'm talking about being non-partisan, so allow me to be non-partisan.

I think, Mr. Chair, that you worked with the former NDP member of this committee, David Christopherson, now retired. He was so passionate about the work of this committee that he participated in the various meetings of public accounts committees that I've already referenced. I think he's still involved, and he would constantly point to the need for this committee and committees like it throughout Canada to remain non-partisan. I would just put that forward as something that comes not only from the Liberal side but from an esteemed former member of Parliament, in this case, the former member for Hamilton, Mr. Christopherson, who, in fact, spoke last year, as I recall now, at the conference that happened, and he might be on the agenda this year when the meeting happens in Yukon, I believe.

Again, I am struggling to understand how we've gone in this direction. There are many other things that we could look at, and I have a hard time seeing how we can come back from this as a committee. This is another point. How are we now as a committee going to approach future issues when this committee has, without any question, become entirely politicized? I'm not sure what happened, because we were working so well together, and we were producing reports that were thoughtful.

I can't think of the last time, in fact, that we talked about a report that we wanted to put forward as a committee. It's been some time, and the public deserves to know what committees like this are up to. It's hard to see how we can really hold our heads up when we've devolved in this way. It's a very unfortunate outcome. We'll see what transpires in the future, but it is difficult to see what this all means.

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if you have put any thought into what I suggested before: for our clerk to go back into...because I think precedent is extremely important when it comes to understanding how committees approach their work. I think it would be important, for example.... Clerks are very busy, and we respect their work very much because, without them, our committees don't function. The same is true of analysts.

However, I wonder what would happen or, rather, what could happen if they went back and looked at precedent. Have we, as a public accounts committee...? Certainly, in my recollection as a member of this committee, I don't remember this taking place before.

Does precedent exist? Previous public accounts committees, going all the way back.... It's such an extraordinary thing that is being asked for here by Mr. McCauley that it would be important for this committee to better understand whether or not there are other examples where we have asked something so outside the bounds, something so extraordinary: for an agency of the government to provide a committee with documents in contravention of established privacy provisions.

It also surprises me because I know that my colleagues in the Conservative Party believe in privacy, or at least they say they do. I wonder...and this brings to mind an example that Mr. Desjarlais has mentioned in the past. If we're going to focus on a single organization, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, naturally, I would expect my colleagues, unless they are politicizing things, to go beyond and entertain, just to name a few examples.... We could look at the Fraser Institute, for example. What documents does the CRA have on the Fraser Institute? What documents does the CRA have on the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights?

Let's be fair. We can't just focus on one organization. We ought to focus on a number of organizations that, I think, Canadians would have justifiable concerns about. Let's think about that. If they want to focus on one organization, we should focus on many, perhaps.

However, I'm not in favour of that, Mr. Chair. I don't think that is a place we should go. I think that we should return to our work as committee members and think long and carefully about what the logical consequence of this motion is.

I would love to hear Mr. McCauley's view on the issue of privacy. Curiously, he has not put his view on the record. I'm not sure what is holding him back. I've never known him to be shy. I've known him to be a thoughtful member of this committee who asks hard questions but always within the mandate of the committee and always within the boundaries of what is acceptable and appropriate from a parliamentary perspective.

I'm not sure if this motion comes from him. Maybe it comes from someone else. Maybe it comes from a particular office—the opposition leader's office. I don't know. I hope not because, as we know, committees must be the masters of their own destinies—that famous phrase. That is key to the parliamentary tradition. If we look at what happens in Westminster, the mother of all parliaments, for example, we see that's a sacrosanct principle. In fact, I have asked you to consider going back and looking at the opinions that might exist among other public accounts committees about our work.

I wonder if you might consider writing to the chair of the equivalent committee in the United Kingdom, its committee of public accounts, to ask that chair's opinion on what this committee is being asked to do by one of our members, or a few of our members, in fact, because it's not just Mr. McCauley who's supporting this. It's the entire Conservative side.

We would be embarrassed, Mr. Chair. There's no question about that.

How can we in good conscience...? In fact, how can we in good faith have delegations of representatives come to this committee, as they do? I think we've been quite happy to meet with them. We've been quite happy to socialize on particular occasions, and most importantly, quite happy to share information about what this committee does.

I think this is something we have to consider, again, from a reputational perspective. We have been an example of how committees can approach work that is non-partisan, that is focused on the national interest and that has members on the governing side asking very difficult questions of public servants not for any other reason than the public interest, the national interest. How can we now turn around to emerging democracies, as we should and as we must, to share our point of view on how committees like this can function?

It's stunning to me how this has—again, I used the term before and it is not out of place—devolved. We should evolve towards a better approach. We should reignite what this committee has always been about. I know my colleagues have things to share apart from what I've already put on the record, and I hope you'll allow them the opportunity, because what's at stake here is incredibly important in terms of the future work of one of Parliament's most important committees.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I'm going to respond to those very quickly.

First, because the debate seems to revisit some of the votes that were taken, the decision to study this topic was unanimous, so I will remind members that, when they're nearing casting aspersions on the direction of this committee, that vote was unanimous. I can understand your being opposed to this, but I do want to highlight that.

Next, I appreciate the advice, Mr. Fragiskatos, but your office is free to use the Library of Parliament resources. What you're asking would not just be limited to public accounts, I think you would have to review all committees. I've done this. When I first joined this committee as chairman, I was informed it did not invite ministers, so I went to check. I walked over myself to the Library of Parliament and asked them to go back 20 or 30 years to let me know if witnesses had appeared who were ministers and I discovered they had. You're free to avail yourself of those resources as well, Mr. Fragiskatos, and come back.

I'll leave it at that. I don't want to be part of the debate, but you posed a direct question to me and I will send your office or yourself to the library to find that information. They have great services for all parliamentarians.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Actually, it's interesting that you speak about that topic. I remember that was the subject of lengthy discussions in the 42nd Parliament, as to why this committee no longer invited ministers. It was actually something that the opposition brought forward, that indeed it had to be deputy ministers who were brought to this committee. Why? It was because of the goal of keeping this committee non-partisan, on topic, objective and dealing with the facts before us.

I think all members will agree, especially my Conservative colleagues, that when you're dealing with financials, it's as close to black and white as one can get. Numbers can be interpreted, but numbers don't lie.

It's interesting when you say to look at the past history of this and other committees. I certainly did, as you have done. It's very interesting. It's like having a window into history when one reads the minutes, which are there for all to see. I certainly recommend to my fellow parliamentarians, for this committee or any committee that they join, that they have a look at how, as my colleague Mr. Fragiskatos said, there has been an evolution in the operation of committees. That's for very good reason. It's always with measured debate and input from all parties as to how a committee could better perform its function and complete its mandate.

When we talk about bringing innovation to this committee, let me just say how proud I am that this committee was able, last week using fulsome debate, to come to a good place regarding the invitation of witnesses to this committee.

Chair, you'll recall that the motion of Mr. Genuis was for using a full-on, scorched earth summons to a committee when intermediate steps had not been taken. Intermediate steps are part and parcel of what Parliament is about. It is about the process. It is about working together to get to a place where.... I always like the word “Parliament” because it's parler—where people talk.

It's a place where we talk together.

In this case, because it was done in such a drastic and unprecedented way, particularly for this committee, it was egregious. I thank very much my colleagues, Madam Sinclair-Desgagné and Mr. Desjarlais, for having contributed to bringing a result, which I think we will agree was a very happy outcome. The witnesses have now agreed to come of their own volition.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I don't want to interrupt my colleague because she's putting a number of important points on the record, as she always does. However, just out of respect, I think it would be important for our colleagues across the way—I'm looking at the Conservatives, not the Bloc or the NDP—to at least, if they don't want to listen, to please remain as quiet as possible out of respect. It's a decorum issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll endeavour to do that. I hadn't noticed that, Mr. Fragiskatos.

I would remind members they are certainly free to step back and have a discussion amongst themselves, so speakers can speak and be heard. That is a valid concern. I was trying to police that. I wasn't aware of that round, but I had previously called for order.

Mrs. Shanahan, the floor is yours. I will endeavour to maintain order.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I thank you very much for that, Chair, and I thank my colleague for stepping in. I do credit having grown up with eight brothers and sisters to the fact that I am used to a lot of chatter around the dinner table, but it was always done with respect, and that is something that we all learned from our parents.

Chair, this committee has shown that it is able to innovate and that it is able to evolve. That would have been in the instances when we invited the environment commissioner. That was something that had been requested of this committee a number of times, and due to the unanimous nature, the consensual nature, we were never able to get the consent of all members to indeed invite the commissioner of the environment, who comes under the Office of the Auditor General. Indeed the Auditor General at that time was certainly favourable to our—not just the environment committee—looking at those reports again from a performance and cost-benefit angle, which is the purview of this committee. Given that we know that the environment and the economy go together, it was very appropriate for us to call the commissioner forward to review those reports and to hear from the deputy ministers of those departments as to how they were progressing in reaching the targets that we all wanted to see attained.

That is another way that this committee, again in a consensual way, was able to work together to get to a good outcome. I think that is the kind of practice standard that Mr. Fragiskatos was alluding to when he looked at how the Canadian public accounts committee is considered internationally. In fact it is so highly considered on the international stage that the Office of the Auditor General is often called on to participate and to consult with other parliaments and other governments in other countries, and we often have delegations here from public accounts committees from other countries to observe the work that we do.

Chair, I'm very proud of the fact that we can serve as that kind of model, because we know that in some countries—it's the parliamentary and democratic processes that we take for granted—not only are they still evolving, but there's also the integrity of institutional processes, the fact that you need to separate the political from the partisan from the institutional aspects of government. Each one does have its role, but when they are conflated, then it serves no one.

We do not wish to see the Canadian government turn into a bureaucracy, so that it's strictly bureaucrats who are running the country. That is why we elect people who run on a platform, who propose different ideas and, as we all know, the party that brings in the most MPs then forms the executive end of the government.

Then they can bring forward the policies that they proposed or, indeed, policies.... I have seen this already, and I think it's quite a healthy process. Very often something seems like a good idea at one point, but when the environment changes, and I'm talking about not just the physical environment but also the economic, socio-political or geopolitical environments, then policies must be brought forward. Again, that is rightly the purview of the party that is in power, but it is done with input from all the other parties because, of course, legislation must be proposed and votes must be taken so everyone knows exactly where everyone stands.

Then, in the event of an election, it's very clear that the electors have the chance to make a decision as to whether they like what the current government is doing or if they do not. As we have seen during an election period, the government must still continue to function. That is the institutional side of the government, our public servants.

Our public servants are bound not only by their professional ethics, by their training and by their education but also by law. They must conduct their duties in a way that is compliant with the law of the land. That includes keeping certain documents and certain pieces of information confidential, because that is the only way that we can ensure that their work will not become politicized in such a way that it serves a partisan purpose, not to mention the other harms that can transpire from divulging the private information of an individual, which could be harmful to them, to their business, to their financial situation and to their person.

Depending on the agency in question, we know that this legislation protects us all from the abuse of any institutional arm or agency. We saw an example of that when the Auditor General was asked by members of this committee to divulge information about the contracts that she and her officials saw that were signed with the pharmaceutical companies. She made it very clear that it was not something she could do. It was made very clear that she and her officials are within the Auditor General Act, which is another text that I certainly recommend everyone involved in this committee read.

It makes it very clear that the Auditor General, on one hand, has the duty, ability or one might call it privilege, and it's part of her professional work, to see any and all documents that are required in the performance of her work. On the other hand, she and her officials, under pain of criminal prosecution, cannot divulge that information, not even in an in camera setting, because that is not sufficient for the purpose of the legislation.

There again, after much fulsome discussion here, there was a compromise that was reached with the highest assurance that the documents in question would be kept completely confidential and that permanent members of this committee could view those documents and then proceed with the study that we had at hand.

It is not without precedent that this committee is able to reach a place where, while some members are looking for a blank cheque, if you will, on seeing anything and everything that they want, without any clear direction, quite frankly.... That is where I say that, even when all members agree to conduct a study, the understanding is that it's conducted in the normal manner and in a legal and professional manner, as per the practice of this committee. In other words, that study is not turned into a kangaroo court.

This committee, perhaps more than any other.... Certainly, I have seen how some other committees operate. I've seen how some committees have operated in other international settings, and it is extremely unfortunate when committees just become a place to destroy reputations and hurl accusations behind the veil of privilege. Ordinary Canadians would not like to go the way.... I'm thinking of American committees we've seen. I remember, during the height of one crisis, every member of the American U.S Senate Select Committee on Intelligence walking out and—blah blah blah—talking about whatever they had just heard in a confidential audience. It was very distressing to see that.

When this committee agrees to do a study, I think that members—even those who are not too enthusiastic about, for example, our studying a report from the commissioner of the environment—would not appreciate it if we then became a wholescale environment committee. That would not be the appropriate use of this committee's time. I know that was a concern members had in the 42nd and briefly in the 43rd Parliament, before we had to move on to other matters when the pandemic hit.

It is certainly something that I personally would respectfully bear in mind. I would never want to see this committee, even if there is a majority of members who wish to conduct a certain study or to go about it in a certain way, do a study without any consideration whatsoever for the concerns and objections of the other committee members. We lose exactly what we hope to achieve, which is to conduct a study, to hear witnesses, to put together findings and to have a report that has the name of the public accounts committee of Canada in its title, where it's very clear that this is the view of the members of this committee.

We lose that if members ride roughshod over the wishes of other members. I am adamant—as I have seen it work in this committee—that there be a way to work toward a common understanding of how we conduct ourselves and how we continue in the review of documents, and that it always be with respect to the law, which I think would be the very minimum that any parliamentary committee would subject itself to. It would not ask members of the public service to break the law. That, Mr. Chair, is a bridge too far. That is not acceptable whatsoever, and it's where I feel—and I hope that other members are thinking about this as well—it could have consequences, intended and unintended, for years and Parliaments to come.

I've already witnessed some committees that turn into a circus. It's no secret. We tune in on the television, and we see a public display that, quite frankly, does not behoove our Parliament, but there you have it. If the public accounts committee, of all the committees, was to fall in that direction, I would find it extremely disturbing because we have been able to get the answers that we're looking for.

When we had a member here.... I'm thinking of Mr. Desjarlais' rightful insistence and persistence that we have a minister of the Crown here to explain the continual delays and failures to meet not just stated goals but also basic services for indigenous peoples. That is something that we supported because, indeed, that is when.... If the institutional arm, on a repeated basis, is not able to meet its mandate...and this is where, Mr. Chair....

You know, I don't go nuclear right away. We have the meetings. We've had successive reports. We had the Auditor General—both the late Mr. Ferguson and Ms. Hogan—speak to this issue. Indeed, rightfully so, Mr. Desjarlais brought this forward so that we've had the minister once, perhaps twice, already, and we hope to see the minister again.

It is something that, on this side, we are certainly more than willing to support. It becomes part of our job. It is what we need to be doing because we're talking, again, about the performance of a department. However, we never want to let go of having the deputy ministers come because, apparently, at one time, that was—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

This obviously has nothing to do with the motion we're talking about, and it hasn't for some time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, you know what's going on here as well as I do, but the member has the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

With regard to the point of order, members do have unlimited time to speak to motions. Mrs. Shanahan, as you implied, is clearly filibustering and she's entitled to do so, but she is required to do so on topic and without repeating herself. I don't think those rules are being observed at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

I'll hear from you, Mr. Fragiskatos. Is this a new point of order or the same point of order?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It's on this point of order. Maybe I should have specified that.

Regardless, I didn't consider it deviating it from the topic at hand. Mrs. Shanahan is staying on track and within the motion. I guess it's a point of disagreement, but if you wish to continue to raise points of order, that would be fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to allow Mrs. Shanahan to continue speaking. I will point out, because we are addressing the amendment to the motion, that what that amendment says is that we basically all voted for the study, so the government members are, in fact, arguing against their own vote by speaking against this amendment.

However, you have the floor, Mrs. Shanahan, and you're welcome to continue to inform us. To Mr. Genuis's point about repetition, I've not noticed that yet but I'm all ears.

It's over to you.