Evidence of meeting #32 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The member has listed a variety of amendments. In the interest of the committee, rather than deal with each element separately, I will read the amendments as a comprehensive amendment, all as one motion to amend.
With regard to the amendment, is there debate?
I have Ms. Davidson.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We have an amendment that means we're going to have two votes, but that does not restrict your input solely to the amendment, because the amendment has to be dealt with in the context of the fuller motion. We normally would not restrict your comments as long as they're at least on the global subject matter.
Would you like to say some words now?
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Yes, Mr. Chair. I was going to propose an amendment as well, so I will wait until we have dealt with the amendment.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
I realize that, so I will wait until we have had a discussion on this amendment.
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Since there are amendments on the table, I'm going to save my comments for later.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Mr. Chair, I'll speak to the amendments if that is what I must do.
With respect, Chair, I caution this committee that this motion is vague and imprecise on a lot of levels. By the very fact that we're talking about a number of amendments, I think the committee deserves the opportunity to look with more clarity at what a motion would look like. It's not going to be amended; it's going to be transformed, in effect.
There are a number of serious implications about the language of this motion that the particular member who's tabled it may not be concerned about, but I share the concerns of the NDP member. There are a lot of good reasons why we should invest confidence in the commissioner to work through this process within the scope of her duties and respect that position. Then we can, as a committee and as many have done before, build on the recommendations she might have flowing from her decision. That seems to me to be a better way to conduct our investigation in the broader context of all members of Parliament, instead of turning this into the circus it could become when the language in this motion as it stands unfairly impugns a specific party. There are a lot of issues that are “ethical” that may be opened as a result of this. Its loose language is unacceptable from my perspective.
Liberal
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I do not have difficulty with the first two parts of the amendment; however, with the third part I do.
There is no inference in the committee dealing with the issue at hand expeditiously that we don't have confidence in the commissioner herself. Absolutely we do have confidence in the commissioner; that's why we have her appear before us to testify. In her testimony she made it clear that it's not an issue of the commissioner, it's an issue of the act. The act does not even include the word “ethics”, although her title does. She made it quite clear, and I've already read it into the record, that she wonders whether her abilities extend at all to be able to deal with the issue. She's obviously going to look at it.
Having the commissioner say that she doesn't have the confidence that the act allows her to look into this puts the onus on us. We can't slough it off, especially after the commissioner has stated quite clearly that she doesn't believe the act's mandate allows her to act on this.
I'd just like to make it clear that we have absolute confidence, but at the same time we have an absolute responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada to look into this matter and to do it in an expeditious fashion. I liked the first two parts because I think they provided greater clarity to the motion. Unfortunately, I would not be able to agree to the third component of the amendment.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
On a point of order, which list are we reading from? It appears that we're reading from the speakers list for the motion itself and not the amendment. I know that right after the amendment was provided, my name would have been the first on that list.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
When Ms. Dawson appeared, I asked her questions specifically on her role as Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. My questions were well prepared. I wanted her to tell us specifically what her role was, in view of the fact that she has to administer the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.
However, the word “ethics” appears nowhere in the act or code that form the basis of her mandate. She herself said so. When she was asked what her mandate was with regard to ethics, the answer was vague. It is possible to consult the notes on that subject. She clearly said that the notion of ethics is very vague, very subjective. She clearly has no act on which she can rely as such. Of course, complaints can be filed in various places, but you have to know whether the people you speak to are empowered to respond to them as part of their mandate. She has no ethical mandate as such under the act.
It is also urgent that parliamentarians examine the question. By that I don't mean that I don't trust what the Commissioner might do or say. We can hear her recommendations, but that doesn't prevent the fact that, in the context of this committee, we as parliamentarians take precedence over the rest. I think we can conduct a more in-depth study and determine the exact situation with regard to what certain members are doing. I don't think we have to wait.
I'd like to introduce a subamendment. The idea is that, first, we take into account the wording of the first amendments that have been made. The subamendment would mean that we delete the second part proposed by Mr. Siksay and vote on that subamendment.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I think that Mr. Siksay raises a lot of good arguments in his presentation. It's already on the record that I don't believe that this is a motion that falls within the mandate of this committee, but I respect the fact that the chair has ruled to allow the debate to proceed even though I think he had some sympathy with my observation.
All of that being said, if the purpose of this motion is to ensure that public funds are not used for partisan purposes, I think that we can be consistent by ensuring that the resources of this committee are not used for strictly partisan purposes.
I would like to propose a subamendment that would remove the word “Conservative” and add “public office holders past and present”. So after the words “public office holders” you'd have “past and present”. The purpose would be that we would study the actions of all public office holders, not just those today.
Now, that doesn't exclude the possibility that Conservatives could be invited.
Bloc
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The subamendment would remove any reference to the words “Conservative“ or “Conservative Party” where you see the word “logo“ and it would be replaced by “of a political party”.
I'm not proposing that we would remove a discussion about party logos on cheques. I think that's a discussion that clearly Ms. Freeman wants to have, and I'm not proposing that we would remove that. I'm just saying let's make it about all party logos on all cheques.
The second part of the amendment would be to remove the word “Conservative” where it appears as an adjective after “funds by”. Then, where you see “members of Parliament“, you would put “public office holders, past and present”.
I know that the Liberal members of the committee have already indicated they're not supporting the subamendment. I expect further that they will not want to have any scrutiny of the behaviour that occurred under a past Liberal government, so I suspect that they will be ferociously opposed to the idea of having a fair and balanced motion that's non-partisan. But for other members of the committee who are interested in having an open discussion about what public office holders have done and continue to do, this amendment allows the discussion to go forward and at the same time opens the door to ensure that it is fair and balanced.
That's my subamendment.
October 22nd, 2009 / 11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The subamendment, as I understand what you've just said to me, is that we drop the word “Conservative” after the words “funds by” and we incorporate after “members of Parliament”--
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
No, sorry: “members of Parliament” would be replaced by “public office holders, past and present”.