Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.
Are you calling a point of order, or do you wish to speak?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
I will answer that question in just a moment, thank you.
According to the Standing Orders by which this committee is governed, only one motion can be put on the floor at a time. That motion then must be voted on before we can hear another motion.
Given that, this is the motion before this committee, and I can receive another motion after this one has been voted on.
We will have an opportunity to hear all motions that this committee wishes to bring forward. In hearing these motions, we are not necessarily determining the order in which they will be studied. That will be determined after.
At this point, I believe what you are being asked to determine is whether or not you would agree to this motion being studied. It's not to the exclusion of other motions. They can all be studied if this committee so chooses. You're simply voting on whether or not you believe that the material of this motion is worthy of study.
(Motion as amended negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
I would like to nominate Ms. Gaudreau as vice-chair of this committee.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
As I said earlier, not coming with my friends, I'm not ashamed to nominate myself, having spent eight years on this committee, leading most of the reports and most of the studies. I'm hoping that, in a non-partisan manner, I will see some support for the work that I've done in this community and the work that I can continue to do.
So I nominate myself.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Having two nominations on the floor for the second vice-chair, we would have to move to a vote by secret ballot at this point, so I will allow the clerk to lead us through that process.
I'm going to suspend for a moment and give her a chance to organize.
4:11 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for going through that process.
The outcome of the vote is that Ms. Gaudreau is now the second vice-chair.
4:11 p.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
4:11 p.m.
Conservative
4:11 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
This is not to belabour the point around these vice-chairs, because we seem to be spending quite a bit of time on them, which has some procedural consequences from what's going on in PROC. But, understanding that PROC is going to be meeting on this in the next day or so, maybe tomorrow, can I ask that, if this issue has been resolved at PROC, we get an opportunity first thing on Wednesday to please deal with the appointment of a third vice-chair? Can I ask that we please seek agreement to do that as a first act of business?
I know we're going to have a busy docket, but this thing has been dragging on. It would have been better if all parties had come to this outside of this committee, whatever the machinations have been. Can we deal with this first thing on Wednesday, please, if it's okay with colleagues?
4:11 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
No. I'm discussing something and asking, I suppose, to bring this to the attention of the chair so that she may govern to the will of the committee, if the committee feels this is something we can deal with on Wednesday as a first item.
4:11 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Sure. Mr. Levitt, assuming that something of urgency does not come up between now and then, I would be more than happy to accommodate that request.
4:11 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I want to congratulate my great colleague, my neighbour.
I want to put forward a motion, so we can get back to work here. I move:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in light of recent media reports of inappropriate partisan consultations over judicial appointments, invite key actors named in those reports, including, but not limited to PMO senior advisor Mathieu Bouchard, to testify before this committee to account for these serious allegations.
This motion is very similar to the one put forward by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois on this issue. It is very important that this committee study the possibility of partisan interference in judicial appointments. It's unacceptable.
I was very shocked, Madam Chair, when I saw this.
The question is this. Is this within the purview of the ethics committee? Well, when you're dealing with partisan issues and potential partisan interference, that becomes the role of the ethics committee, because our role is to ensure that public office holders reach a certain standard of serving the public and not just partisan interest.
This is very much within the purview of our committee, because we are not looking generally at how judges are nominated, and we're not looking at other issues of the judiciary. We're looking only at whether or not a partisan lens was used on the nomination of judges, and whether people who had no right to participate or to give advice because of their partisan role were part of this process.
I would move this forward for debate.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
I very much like the idea of studying the process regarding judicial appointments.
I very much like the way our colleague Ms. Gaudreau worded her motion. As Mr. Angus just said, the motions are quite similar. I'm going to give the floor to my colleague Mr. Fergus. I think he has an amendment to propose.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to make the following change to the wording that Ms. Gaudreau suggested, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics study the current selection process for judicial appointments, and how it compares to the previous system and allegations of partisan interference in their selection”.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I want to make it clear that the amendment is included in your remarks.
