Information & Ethics Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Are we still talking about the witnesses who are listed here, these two witnesses, along with the minister and then the Ethics Commissioner?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The Ethics Commissioner has been removed by Mr. Green.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Okay.

Do you agree with that, René?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're on the subamendment, so we can deal with that, and then we can deal with Mr. Villemure afterwards. That's where we're at on the subamendment.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you for clarifying that, Chair; I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would just say that from my experience with the commissioner, and I'm sure you can refer to Hansard—I was trying to find it—he makes it very clear that it is not his job to propose any legislative remedies and that he operates only within existing legislation.

I would put to you that three-quarters of the work that we do here is because of the grey areas, and I think it's our committee's opportunity in this to not ambulance chase Mr. Boissonnault. On the face value of it, I accept what's been reported.

I don't think, though, that because it's legislatively compliant it's necessarily ethical, and I think that is the mandate of this committee—to study and examine where we can make progress on our legislation to close loopholes, to have greater clarity and to ensure that there isn't this continued cynicism and erosion in our institutions in this very nefarious world of lobbyists, corporate power and procurement. That's my intention.

My intention is that we have testimony that provides us, hopefully, with some insight that allows us to have recommendations that say, “Here's what the legislation says. This is what happened as a case study, and here's what we propose to eliminate the future opportunity for this.” I'm not presuming any guilt, because I take at face value what has been reported, but I still don't think it was right, and those are two very different things.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm a little bit confused procedurally here, Chair, but if required, I would move a subamendment that the Ethics Commissioner be added back in, because I do think that we need to hear from the Ethics Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes. Procedurally, we cannot move anything further. We have a subamendment. We cannot move another subamendment.

I hope it's clear among the committee what Mr. Green has proposed in his subamendment, and that is to remove the Ethics Commissioner—or defer—and allow for the other witnesses, including the minister, to appear.

I have Mr. Fisher. Go ahead, Mr. Fisher.

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

Yes, I don't think I would support Mr. Green's subamendment, but I would support where René was going with this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Here's what we're going to do. We're going to vote on Mr. Villemure's amendment. Then, if Mr. Green wants to reintroduce an amendment after that, we can do that. I want to clear up the confusion here.

I'm going to call the vote on Mr. Villemure's amendment.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. That's exactly what I was trying to seek clarity on. Are you able to just disregard a subamendment and then go to the amendment? Technically, what Mr. Green has done is subamend Mr. Villemure's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The clean thing to do right now is to not deal with the subamendment but to deal with Mr. Villemure's amendment.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Don't you think Mr. Green should withdraw his amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll go to you next, Mr. Green. You can withdraw your subamendment.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll withdraw.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Now we're dealing with Mr. Villemure's amendment. I'm going to call the vote on—

Go ahead.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. My apologies.

Can we get Mr. Barrett's motion, amended by Mr. Villemure, read into the record so that we know exactly what we're voting on?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I can ask the clerk to do that, Mr. Fisher.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Just give me a second. Sorry about that.

The amendment from Mr. Villemure would be.... Okay, this is different from the other version I got.

The amendment from Mr. Villemure would be to keep the beginning that says, “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), and in light of new media reports”. Then it would delete everything after, and replace it with “that, in the first place, the committee invite the minister, Randy Boissonnault, for a one-hour meeting and, after, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein, for one hour also”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That was Mr. Villemure's amendment.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm just a little confused, because I think what Mr. Villemure had said is a bit different from what I just heard. I'm trying to make notes here. What is being proposed here is that it will be two meetings or it will be one meeting where the first hour—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's one meeting and one hour for each witness.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Okay. It's not the two witnesses together at the same table.