Information & Ethics Committee on May 30th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Kurek is giving us a lesson on how parliaments are running. What we're talking about is how Mr. Brock said that I furthered and propagated disinformation essentially originating from Beijing and China. That's the motion. That is the false allegation he made. That's what we're talking about here, and I think we need to get on with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate your point of order.

Mr. Kurek has the floor, and he knows he has the floor, Mr. Bains. We always try to give a little latitude, and I expect the same from Mr. Kurek and that he's going to bring it back to where it needs to be—specifically, on the motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek. You have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm glad the member is paying such close attention to my remarks, because what I've been talking about comes down to the absolute crux of the matter, which is that members of Parliament have to be able to ask tough questions.

What the member has suggested that Mr. Brock has done, I would suggest, through the motion that we are debating here today, is an attempt to silence.

Mr. Bains has, and he could have moved a motion to further deliberate on the subject of foreign election interference, but he didn't do that. He wants an apology and a retraction.

The reason I've provided the information I have and included some of the exact references, Mr. Chair, is that Mr. Bains used in his original argument that he made to you in the meeting on Tuesday.... I find it interesting that he would somehow suggest that the evidence that he provided, that I've expanded on, is somehow not relevant. The irony of that is certainly rich.

What I would like to bring it back to is exactly the point that I was endeavouring to make. When we attempt to silence a member, it is an attack on the very fundamental tenet of what our democratic system is. When it comes to the issue at hand, and that is the very real allegations of election interference, Mr. Chiu, when he came and testified before this committee, was protected by the same privileges that we are protected by around this table. Mr. Bains is also protected by that parliamentary privilege. Mr. Brock is also protected by that parliamentary privilege.

We have to ask those tough questions because, as I have talked about before, the foundational element that allows democracy to work is that Canadians have to be able to trust that when they take that single ballot into a voting booth, mark it and put it in the ballot box, it was a free and fair process.

There have been serious allegations that have been made that include Mr. Bains and other constituencies.

Mr. Chair, I would like to highlight something. When Mr. Bains originally brought forward some of his concerns, he made false and misleading allegations. You don't see me calling a point of order on that, but, specifically, he talked about firearms. He made an accusation that was undeniably and patently false. I didn't call a question of privilege on that, because we're allowed to have free and fair discussion around this table, and we should have that. Let's have those debates.

I would suggest that this is a continuation of a trend. It's an intricacy that I talk about often with my constituents. I will share with this committee that I have many constituents who are so frustrated that they share with me how they feel like they are giving up on the idea and the notion of Canada.

That's a pretty significant statement to make, but I share that because that's something I hear. This committee is one of the proof points that I use that Canada's not worth giving up on, that our institutions are not worth giving up on. I explain some aspects, as I've shared before, like the ability for members of Parliament to represent their constituents, the rights and privileges that we have, the strength of our democratic system and how we are working to ensure that's protected. It's the structure of this committee, and I believe there are four committees referred to as oversight committees in Parliament.

Those who are watching may not be aware of some of the structure as to how they work. There are, I believe—and don't quote me on this—30 or so standing committees. There are also special committees, which are temporary. They only last for a Parliament, although they can be reconstituted after a new Parliament is formed, as we see. I am a member of the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship.

There are four committees that have a chair who is a member not of the government but of the official opposition. I highlight that because I think it shows there is strength in aspects of our system, which is designed to ensure that when a regular Canadian looks at our parliamentary institution, they can say, “Okay, we can trust that. It's not simply a historical building with green roofs”—although they've been replaced in the last couple of decades. They're brown for now, but they turn green over time.

What I think needs to be emphasized is that there are four committees where there are opposition chairs. Now, the chair of a committee operates in a way that is meant to be fair and impartial. I thank the chair of this committee for doing that. I have worked with chairs who have been operating.... I know there is at least one other committee chair sitting around this table with whom I've worked. In fact, I was having a conversation with one of my colleagues from another opposition party before. I hope it's okay to mention this. There was an individual who was very partisan in the House of Commons, but I was pleased by how fairly they adjudicated a committee I was recently a part of. I would hope this individual would take that as a compliment.

It's a fact that our Standing Orders and tradition, Mr. Chair, allow for and ensure that there are four committees—what are referred to as “oversight committees”—that have opposition chairs. What I fear, not just because of the happenings at this ethics committee.... Quite often, when I share with people that I'm on the ethics committee, the lack of trust in government is emphasized. People will chuckle at the fact that I sit on an ethics committee, because they're so frustrated when they look at the actions of the Liberal government and the lack of ethics therein. However, the fact that there is an opposition chair, a vice-chair—in this case from the Liberals—and a second vice-chair from the Bloc Québécois speaks to how there is strength in the structures that exist.

What I find so troubling is that there seems to be a trend among government members to not allow oversight committees to do their work. Rather, we are seeing committees bogged down by attempts by the government to slow or stall the work oversight committees can and, I would suggest, should do.

Let me share with you why I find that so troubling, especially in the context of where we're at in a minority parliament. In the case of every committee right now, there is an opposition majority, just as there is in the House of Commons. I'll park NDP support for the government here. The fact that this structure exists should be something championed by those who promote Canadian democracy. I would suggest it is very troubling when we see attempts by the government, often backed up by the NDP, to reduce the ability of oversight committees to do their work. That work includes asking the tough questions. Prime Minister Trudeau and his government govern like they're in a majority or have a resounding mandate from the people. You can simply look at the last election and see how patently false that is, to the point where, for two consecutive elections, the Liberals got fewer votes.

I'm not suggesting our system should be changed—the make-up and whatnot. That's certainly a larger conversation that can be had. I'm not suggesting that be part of this conversation. However, when it comes to the attitude with which the Liberals should approach governing, I hope they would look at the number of people who voted for them in the last election and realize they have a job to do to make sure the party that actually received the most votes, which was the Conservative Party.... There is great care that needs to be taken to respect the fact that we don't always agree and that there are differences of opinion and a need for answers.

In the lead-up to the 2019 election, we saw the SNC-Lavalin affair explode. I won't relitigate the specifics of that, although certainly we could because it bears more relevance all the time, especially as we see some of the dynamics of that still playing out to this day. We have an example where the ethical conduct of the government and many of its ministers, and then the direction to which...

In the 2019 election, Canadians sent a minority Parliament to town, yet you had a government—with the pandemic and everything associated with that—that certainly didn't operate as a minority, which is too bad, because I think if they had had a little more respect, things wouldn't be as divisive as they are today.

Then, in 2021, we had literally.... I'll share with you, Mr. Chair, this committee and the people watching, how disappointed I was in the conduct of the Prime Minister. I remember very specifically that in, I believe, June 2021, the Prime Minister and his government—all Liberal members—said that they would not call an election. They voted as such, because it was a difficult time for the country. We were still in the throes of COVID. There was increasing division over certain aspects of that, some of which were being weaponized by the very public figures that were trusted to make decisions on behalf of all Canadians, which they weren't. We saw the consequences of that in the months after that 2019 election.

Only two and a half months later, the Prime Minister called an election. Two and a half months before, he had promised that he wouldn't. Two and a half months later, he called an election.

I would suggest that it was one of the most divisive elections that the country has maybe ever seen. I won't go into great detail about that, although certainly it bears further discussion if members of the committee would suggest so. We saw some of the challenges, when it comes to foreign election interference, be brought to light.

The result of that was an almost exact.... It was not quite exact; there were a few changes. I know Conservatives picked up a few seats in Atlantic Canada. Liberals picked up a few seats in B.C. There were a few other changes in Ontario and Alberta, but largely the makeup of the House of Commons was fairly similar.

What did the Liberals do? Instead of trying to pursue an agenda that focused on the fact that, once again, they lost the popular vote.... Conservatives won the popular vote. That doesn't necessarily suggest that the makeup of the House of Commons should be different from what it is, but you would think that a leader who cared about unifying the country would take great pains to acknowledge that fact. However, when I've brought that very fact up in the House of Commons, there are Liberal members—I could point them out and I'm sure that even Liberal members know who I'd be referring to—who laugh about the popular vote suggestion.

I'm not suggesting there should be a change in the seat makeup, Chair, but I think it bears mentioning. The reason it's so germane to the conversation we're having today about the attempt to use a privilege motion to essentially censure a member of the opposition is that a leader would ensure that the voices around the table have a chance to speak.

It comes back to that fundamental point that the Prime Minister, his government and those who are calling the shots in the PMO—a building not too far from here—don't want an opposition to ask tough questions. They want an audience that applauds, that is lily-livered at best and is not able to be effective.

I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that under the leadership of the member for Carleton, Pierre Poilievre, we are not going to back down from doing the job that Canadians sent us to Parliament to do. We're not going to back down.

That's why I find it so concerning that when.... The Liberals have now obviously realized that the member for Carleton, the leader of the official opposition, is not one who's going to back down, nor is the member for Brantford—Brant. Mr. Brock's not going to back down. It is clear that this is, in fact, the case.

Mr. Chair—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Excuse me, Mr. Kurek.

Mr. Villemure, you have a point of order.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

As fascinated as I am with what my colleague is saying, I would like to point out to committee members that it's after one o'clock, so we should probably end the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have until 1:30.

Are you moving a motion to adjourn the meeting?

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

No, I'm just raising it for discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Committee members, we have support staff until 1:30, so we will continue until then. After that, we will no longer have resources.

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Kurek, go ahead. You have the floor, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that clarification as well.

The point I was attempting to make is that now the governing Liberals, supported by the New Democrats, seem to realize that Conservatives are not going to back down, that we are going to do the job that Canadians sent us here to do, and that we are going to do it passionately. Quite frankly— and I can't speak for everybody—when it comes to the passion I bring to the job, it is exactly the passion I believe my constituents expect me to bring to the job. They want me to defend their interests, whether that be the energy industry, which I will talk about extensively—not in the context of this committee, but I have and will continue to do so—including oil and gas; the agricultural sector, because I'm not only proud to be from a farming family but also so very proud of the area that I represent, which provides so much food to the world; or the institutions of Parliament and the need for that strong democracy that I believe all Canadians and, I would hope, all parliamentarians want.

However, there has been a clear and concerted effort, it seems. Certainly, this is the trend, and I would invite members from the government to explain their actions if it is not, in fact, the case. I would hope that they would be on the speaking list to be able to do that. What we see is that when it comes to the oversight committees that I've referenced, there seems to be this effort to bog them down with anything but the issues of actually providing oversight.

I'll expand on one example that I believe is very prescient, and that is when we had the Information Commissioner at a meeting scheduled over the last break week. I know that it's not always convenient. I had a series of different obligations back in the constituency, but when that meeting was scheduled, I was pleased to be able to join it. Now, I did join virtually, as is an option under the rules that Parliament has passed allowing for virtual participation. There were some Conservative members here in person, but I was able to join from one of my constituency offices.

Instead of being able to do the work that had been outlined for that, it should not have been a surprise to anyone that it was shut down after the first round of questions for the Information Commissioner, the independent officer of Parliament who is tasked with making sure that Canadians' quasi-constitutional right of accessing information is upheld. What I would suggest is that this was not only an egregious act by the government, supported by the NDP. We see now that when they're not getting their way, it's almost like they're simply going to throw tantrums. As a result, we see the sorts of tactics that we have here.

What I hope, and with further discussion.... Just to enlighten members of this committee, I will say that I think part of the reason expansive discussion on this is required is that, as in the case of a debate on privilege in the House of Commons, the debate on this matters a great deal. Certainly, my hope would be that there is context, which I'm providing. Whether it be the historical context or whether it be the contemporary political context, it is key to ensuring...including the highlighting of the false claim that Mr. Bains made about firearms in the context of the explanation that he initially made with regard to why he was moving that.

On page 112 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, there is a quote from Speaker Fraser that was made in 1987:

The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions.

I will get back to that word “impede” in a minute, because that word, the impeding of the ability for a member to fulfill their duties and functions—this motion is attempting to do that.... This motion is attempting to impede.

Now, I understand that it may be uncomfortable for some members of this committee. Quite frankly, the opposition should make a government uncomfortable, regardless of which party is in government. That's the point, and I would hope that there would be widespread agreement about that. Asking the tough questions is okay, and it should in fact be encouraged.

The quote from Speaker Fraser continues:

It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment.

What I would suggest is that when we're asking these tough questions in debate, it is fair game, but to then try to use parliamentary procedure, the Standing Orders, which permit a committee to function...the fact that a member would attempt to use the heavy hand of the majority of a committee—or attempt to, anyway—to silence a member is, I would suggest, a push that ultimately would impede a member from being able to fulfill his duties. I would hope that not all Liberals would be on this page.

I would hope that there are those who would even appreciate the work the opposition does. I would hope that's the case, anyway. When it comes to my deep respect for democracy and our institutions, like Pierre Poilievre said to President Biden, in Canada “opposition is an act of loyalty”. That can and should be emphasized again.

We can ask those tough questions, whether that be here in this committee or in the House of Commons, Mr. Chair, and I would suggest that it goes beyond this. We are protected by privilege in the circumstances—parliamentary discourse and debate—and there has been extensive debate. actually, including court procedures and whatnot that define what some of the limits of that are. I'm sure—in fact, I know—the place for those discussions is at PROC when it comes to the specifics of that. I'm not sure if it went to the Supreme Court, but it certainly went through an extensive court process when it comes to some accusations against previous members.

The point that can—and I believe should—be made is that we have the obligation as members of Parliament. I speak about this often to constituents, and I actually shared this a few weeks ago. I am proud that I've never asked somebody who walks through my constituency door who they voted for. Do you know why that's the case, Mr. Chair? It's because I care deeply about every constituent I serve.

Now, I have very frank conversations with all of my constituents, many of whom I agree with—and from rural Alberta, people will not be surprised that there's often a lot of agreement when it comes to the political issues that Conservatives care a lot about, whether it be issues surrounding many things like firearms, freedoms, energy or agriculture—but I still take great pains.... In fact, I had somebody walk through my constituency office door, a fairly new Canadian who had only been a Canadian for a few years, and I happened to be there.

In a large, rural constituency, sometimes that's just a pure stroke of luck, because I'm often in communities. I represent around 60 different communities. I have two constituency offices. I wish I could have a constituency office in every community, but that's just not feasible. Over that 53,000 square kilometres, I spend a lot of time on the road, travelling between different offices and whatnot.

Chair, when this fairly new Canadian walked through the door, almost with hesitation—they needed help with a concern about a federal government problem—they said: “But I didn't vote for you. Is it okay that I'm here?”

What was so profound in that moment? We had a fairly extensive conversation about the issue. Then we talked about some other things, including what would constitute pretty serious policy differences. That's okay. We had a very frank conversation. I appreciated the conversation. The constituent, as well, appreciated the conversation. My suspicion is that they probably won't vote for me in the next election, and that's okay. That's okay. That's what democracy is about. That's why we have a secret ballot.

But what was encouraging, I hope, for that constituent, was that when they said, “But I didn't vote for you”, my first response was that it was okay: Regardless of who you voted for—you don't need to tell me—I want to serve you. I want to help you. I care about your feedback.

Whether it's replying to correspondence or whether it's conversations I have at town halls, that is a key aspect of what makes our democracy strong. In fact, this is more of a societal conversation that I would suggest needs to be addressed in the context not only of parliamentary process and procedure, in the debates we have here, but also at kitchen tables and in classrooms and whatnot. Disagreement does not equal hatred. I would hope that this opinion is shared by all members of this committee. We can disagree on things; again, it's one of those areas where we should.

In fact, I often share a joke about this. At a town hall I hosted recently, somebody was asking me very specific questions. I was answering, and we disagreed about something. I said, “Good. That's okay. That's part of what democracy is about.” I emphasized how, when it comes down to it, I would imagine that every person in the context of that room in that small town in rural Alberta—probably every single person, even some of the husbands and wives.... Well, certainly husbands and wives; when it comes to areas of disagreement, that would be the case. When it comes to every single issue, you find things that you agree with and you find things that you disagree with.

This brings me to the motion at hand. The plan is that we will have Minister Boissonnault at committee next week, on Tuesday, to answer questions about the conduct of a company that he is a principal of and about the contracts they received. What is concerning about the timing of the issue we have before us—

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as much as I'm enjoying the member's speech, I know that you said we have resources until 1:30. I would be interested in the chair's thoughts on how we'll be proceeding with this. Will we be coming back with the same speaking order? Page 154 says that this privilege motion gets priority for the committee. Would it be the expectation of the chair that you'll be resuming this meeting with the exact same speaking order, so that everybody who has their hand up can speak?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I can get back to you on that, Mr. Fisher, if you don't mind. I'll do that before the meeting adjourns.

I'll seek some clarification from the clerk. I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is, but I just want to be sure.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll go back to Mr. Kurek.

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

I appreciate that.

Here we have a member of the Liberal Party—the governing party—who has moved a motion, when we have clear questions that need to be asked of a senior minister of the Crown, who happens to be the only member of cabinet from Alberta. Out of the 34 seats in Alberta, there are two Liberals elected and two New Democrats, and the rest are Conservatives. One of the concerns that I would suggest.... If this was a one-off, it could be explained just in passing as happenstance or circumstance or whatever the case may be, but there has been a clear effort to bog down oversight committees with things that do not have that significant impact on getting Canadians the answers they deserve on the conduct of their government.

What are the practical implications of that?

I hope, as the committee agreed to, that Minister Boissonnault will be able to testify, because I think that answers to some of the questions that Canadians have need to be brought forward. Why that's not only relevant in terms of what's required for the operations of a committee like the ethics committee, but what is key here and why I would suggest that this motion is simply an attempt to censure a member from asking tough questions, is that instead of Conservatives or Liberals—it could be a Liberal member as well who could ask a tough question—is that any attempt to limit the ability of that to take place is certainly very concerning.

I think what needs to be highlighted in the context of this is that when some of the allegations have been made, when we've talked about some of the evidence, whether that be Justice Hogue's report, whether that be what the Prime Minister himself has said, very much a changing story.... In fact, I would just highlight something that I think hasn't received the press that it deserves, which is that the Prime Minister's chief of staff, when she was asked if the Prime Minister reads everything, said very clearly that he did, yet it was, I believe, in some of the interviews associated with foreign election interference that the Prime Minister said very clearly that he didn't.

I found it very concerning, that disconnect, that you would have the Prime Minister's top boss, so to speak, the chief of staff of the Prime Minister.... For anybody who's operated in political circles in either Canada or the United States or the United Kingdom, and I'm sure this is the case in other countries, the chief of staff of the leader of the government, whether that be the Prime Minister or whether that be the president.... In fact, it was Ronald Reagan who brought forward—and of course they have a different system—and gave his Chief of Staff cabinet-level standing in, for sure, his first term. Off the top of my head, I don't remember all the specifics of that, but that's how much authority the Chief of Staff wields.

When you receive a call—I'm sure that if there are any political staffers in the room who have received a call from the chief of staff, they'd know this—I tell you, it's quite something. That chief of staff has significant power, and the chief of staff of the Prime Minister made a very clear statement. It was definitive. She didn't even say, he tries to, or he references, or whatever the case is. There are a hundred ways that you could say what she said.

However, when the Prime Minister was asked a similar question related to security briefings about pressing matters that had called into question direct contradictions in the way that he had acted when there would have been the possibility of impacting him politically, there was a clearly different type of response.

I believe that bears highlighting in this context, because it's that sort of attitude that filters down.

What is the direction that may have been given to Liberal members and parliamentary secretaries that suggests there may be this need to slow down or for oversight committees to not function as they should? What's the direction that suggests there need to be these motions that take up time, or whatever the case is?

What about the fact that we have the federal government's use of technological tools capable of extracting personal data from mobile devices and computers? The fact is that the report is not necessarily sitting in limbo but will be delayed, because we're now two meetings in when that's been listed as a topic we were to have discussed.

Although there are certainly exceptions to this, sometimes, when reports are less controversial, you can go through them quite quickly. Sometimes it takes an extended period of time, whether it's because it's a more controversial matter or because there were some contradictions in the testimony.

The fact is that we have now, for two meetings, been inhibited in our ability to get this stuff done.

I would highlight again that one of the issues I expect this committee has been seized with is the documents that were requested at a meeting a number of weeks ago. I believe it was the New Democrats who requested those documents, if I recall it correctly.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. It's very clear that Mr. Kurek is just talking out the clock. Is there a chance that you can back off a couple of minutes before you adjourn, so that we can bring this to a vote? We're ready to vote if you folks are.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

He still has the floor.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I understand, but he's talking about a waste of time. We could get this to a vote today, so that we can move on with our regular agenda, starting....

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

As long as he has the floor, Mr. Fisher, he's allowed to continue.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That's fair enough. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I can't call for the vote as long as somebody has the floor.

I'm working on the answer you were looking for, so I expect I'm going to have to cut Mr. Kurek off in a couple of minutes just to provide you with the answer, and then we'll move on from there.

Thank you.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I appreciate that, because if there had been a willingness of Liberal members, including that member, we could have had a very productive last two meetings that would not have been spent talking about the need to ensure that all members of this committee, including the member from Brantford—Brant.... That's something I would emphasize here, and hopefully, I can make this point very briefly.

One of the things about the protection of privilege is that it applies to all members, so I would ask all members of this committee and all those who are watching to consider this carefully. If they're okay with a member being silenced because they ask tough questions, this is a reasonable path forward. However, I'm not comfortable with that, Chair. That includes members of the government, of the official opposition and of the two other opposition parties here.

Further to that, I find it somewhat rich coming from that member.... I believe it was he who moved to adjourn a committee meeting that was scheduled during a break, which would have given this committee the opportunity to be productive. It's interesting that they would be so critical of the fact that I believe—and I am certainly hopeful—the case I have made emphasizes the need to ensure that we do not allow a committee member to be censured for asking tough questions. That's what it comes down to here.

We need to make sure that MPs are allowed to question their government, as it is a fundamental tenet of our democratic system. When it comes to the work that committees need to do, we absolutely need to get to work, as I'm proud to have been able to do during the course of the committee meeting here today, and will be happy to do each and every opportunity I have.

When it comes to the hypocrisy that exists, would you have that member suggest that somehow it's not relevant to talk about the need to protect members so that they can question his boss? Mr. Chair, I think that question answers itself.

Let's make sure that as we are tasked as members of Parliament to.... This unwritten rule....

In fact, I had a chance to meet a constituent who's a former Olympic coach. She gave me a card that she hands out to everybody she meets. It says, “Leave it better than you found it.” My exhortation to every member of this committee is let's make sure we leave it better than we found it, and that includes the rules of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Kurek, you still have the floor, sir, but I'm going to have to cut you off for a second.

We are running out of time and resources at 1:30, as I mentioned earlier in the meeting.

To answer Mr. Fisher's point, we are debating a motion to refer this to the House. We are not debating a motion of privilege. The motion can be brought up at a future meeting, as long as members agree to that.

As it stands right now, resources have expired, and I adjourn the meeting.