Evidence of meeting #86 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was friend.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Okay. With that, I give the remainder of my time to Mr. Fergus. I know he has a couple of questions.
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I think there was a criminality aspect to that one that coloured it. It was a different situation.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Hopefully it will soon go away, but that's right.
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. In fact, I phoned the Speaker or somebody, I think, and said, “There's criminality in this one. Just get rid of it.”
12:55 p.m.
A voice
Send it back, Nathaniel.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
I'd like to narrow it down. You talked about the Prime Minister receiving facts from the report in October. Are you certain of that time frame? Can you be specific or provide the committee with the—
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I think I have the date in the report. Maybe it's in the process section. I don't know. I'm sure it was somewhere in the middle of October. We can find that for you easily enough.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
To clarify, it's in the facts section, not in your conclusions.
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
No, no. It's probably described in the process section. Right up at the front somewhere, I think that date was mentioned.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Just for the sake of the committee, we'll extend by just a few minutes to allow some paper turning.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Dawson, for appearing before us today.
Chair, in light of the testimony from former commissioner Dawson, given openly and generously today, and given that I believe there's still an abundance of unanswered questions that one can draw from “The Trudeau Report”, I respectfully propose to this committee the following motion, or a version of this:
That the Committee invite the Prime Minister to discuss the findings of the Ethics Commissioner contained in The Trudeau Report released in December as well as her testimony before this Committee today.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Can you repeat that motion one more time, just for the clerk and me?
1 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
You can correct this grammatically as you will:
That the Committee invite the Prime Minister to discuss the findings of the Ethics Commissioner contained in The Trudeau Report released in December as well as her testimony before this Committee today.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Just give us a few minutes.
Dealing with the motion, I've heard comments that it's the same as it was yesterday, and some are saying, as Mr. Kent is, that it's different. The part I see as different is that it makes reference to Ms. Dawson's testimony this very day. I see that as a different motion, so we will discuss the motion as it is before us.
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much.
I'm not a regular member of this committee and I would not wish to put my foot in the wrong place, but as we talked about in testimony today, it would strike me that we're really doing indirectly what we couldn't do directly. It strikes me that the substance of the motion is exactly the same as what was presented yesterday. Although there are some different words, the effect is the same and the intention seems to be largely the same, and it was considered by the committee before.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Thank you, Mr. Fergus, for that.
I was discussing with the clerk just now that very point. Again, due to the difference that it references the testimony of the former commissioner before us today, I see it as different. It's similar, but it is different.
We have Mr. Cullen speaking next.
1 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think what would be obviously different is the two hours of testimony we've just had from the commissioner who investigated this and wrote the report we referred to yesterday.
I too join Mr. Kent in thanking Ms. Dawson for her testimony today. Two hours is unusual.