Evidence of meeting #6 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 chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
I want to make sure I have the speakers list correct.
Mr. Fergus, you had your hand up. Do you have a point of order, or do you want to be on the speakers list?
I will remind the committee that we are now entering the debate on the amendment that has been moved by Mr. Angus, so I move into a new speakers list for the amendment, starting with Ms. Shanahan.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair.
For everyone here, could we have the clerk read out the amendment and where it would be situated in the motion?
Thank you.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
2:35 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Miriam Burke
The amendment moved by Mr. Angus would follow the words “...provided that these records shall be provided to the”, and the amendment would read, “Ethics Commissioner, and that this committee calls upon Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to appear before it.”
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
2:35 p.m.
A voice
At the end.
2:35 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I have point of clarification on Mr. Angus's motion. It's a little fluid, and I hope the committee will indulge this.
Was it meant to be an “either-or”? Is it to provide the documents to the Ethics Commissioner, or that the Prime Minister will come and testify or be compelled to testify? I'd like clearer language around that, and to know if it is the full extent of what you were intending.
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
If I can just clarify, yes, we would agree to have the documents transferred to the Ethics Commissioner and they would agree that the Prime Minister would testify.
Then, of course, if they don't, then we're back to the original motion, which we're more than ready to vote on.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
It is my understanding, then, that it is the wish under this amendment that the documents would be transferred directly to the Ethics Commissioner and not be a “pass Go” kind of thing. With regard to that aspect, I guess I'm just wondering why that is even necessary, since the commissioner has full powers to call for any documents or, I suppose, any record or anything that he has a need of in the execution of his duties.
I'm just posing that question because it has been very edifying this afternoon. We have sort of done three studies in one here, all trying to get an understanding of how the act works and how the office of the commissioner works.
That is my understanding. It is my understanding that the commissioner has those powers already, so for that reason I'm just a little confused as to why that would be considered an important amendment. It's as if we're telling the commissioner how to do his job, and I think that is outside our remit. I think we can have that kind of discussion once he has completed his review. In fact, that's why we would have the commissioner appear before us once he has actually tabled his report: to ask exactly what processes he went through and why he did x, y and z. I can see that, but I'm not sure it is necessary. I mean, I could be wrong. I'm just throwing that out there.
Then on the issue of the Prime Minister appearing, I think the Prime Minister appears almost daily and has been very open. He has already apologized for his actions or lack thereof, so I don't see the validity of that either, but I understand that it's important that we do some kind of reflection on this. I think that we want to reflect further on this amendment.
I'm happy to come back to another meeting, actually, to resolve it. That's where I would leave it. Thank you.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Angus, for trying to bridge the gap and come up with a solution.
Before I get into the changes you are suggesting, let me reiterate what my colleague Brenda Shanahan just said.
I think there is a fair bit of merit in what you're proposing. Certainly I feel that it's important for us to provide this information to the Ethics Commissioner. If we have an opportunity to adjourn the meeting now and come back to this at a date set next week on this specific motion, I think there are a few things that can happen.
First, I think we can get to where we want to be. It would also give an opportunity, as we all are waiting for.... We do know that this is not the only committee that is looking at this matter, and there may be an opportunity for both conditions to be satisfied on this. I would certainly like to put it out there that there is an opportunity for us to do this and try to get to the nub of the problem and come to a resolution that could satisfy everyone on each side.
Before I get to that, I have to say that my colleague Mr. Scarpaleggia is quite right. You are quite the experienced debater. I like how you, in all friendliness, took a strip off me for going back to take a look at the history of democracy, and yet you—
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
On a point of order, Madame Chair, I would never take a strip off Mr. Fergus, specifically when he's talking about ancient Athens.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
That's in the friendliest of ways. You could talk about ancient Athens.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I resent being called a master debater when I'm a high school dropout who played in a punk rock band, but if he wants to continue ragging the puck rather than getting to the motion, he can talk about me as long as he wants. I can stay as long as we need to get this motion dealt with.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Well, that's great.
I can certainly say he keeps raising ancient Greece, yet he will quote Luke. I didn't know you had been an altar boy. We've had this conversation in the past.
It's really quite funny, because we're only about 400 years from each other in terms of deciding to quote figures from the past. Over a period of 2,500 years, that's chump change. Anyway, he's very good at making me feel the push of that, yet we do know that he's quoting from sources that are, frankly, in most people's minds, almost just as old.
I would like to also return to and correct the record again with Mr. Barrett. I am really quite convinced.... I look forward to reading the blues of this committee. It is not my habit to use the term “hardball”, and I certainly didn't say that in English. If that is what came across in French through the translation....
First of all, hats off to our interpreters, who are doing a phenomenal job day in and day out in making sure they can provide us with all our words and share them not only with members here, but with Canadians.
Hats off to the interpreters, who are always there for us. I can tell you one thing, and that is that I don't even know how to say "hardball" in French. So I don't know what I might have said in French to have ended up with this translation of it into English.
The whole thing that we really get back to—and this is where I think we have a pretty positive approach to this whole debate—is that half of that suggestion Mr. Angus has brought forward is one that I really believe we should do, one that I've argued for at some length and one that my colleagues have argued for at some length. We should take this matter and provide it directly to the Ethics Commissioner.
This will ensure that it is impossible to play politics and further ensure that political rhetoric does not enter into this matter. We also have this opportunity, as MPs and as representatives of our fellow citizens, to ensure that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has all the required information. I would imagine that if it had been relevant, he could have obtained it himself, but if we want to take a twofold form of remedial action, I have no problem with that.
I would like to move that the meeting be adjourned to give us a chance to study this amendment, and that we return as soon as possible next week to settle this matter and proceed to a vote. I am hoping that all of my colleagues around the table will agree.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Just to be clear, then, Mr. Fergus, you are putting forward a motion that this meeting would be adjourned and the debate suspended, and it would be continued at the earliest time possible on Monday.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Earliest time possible? Okay, I want to make sure that is correct.