Information & Ethics Committee on July 22nd, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for outlining your reasons for making the decision that you have made.

I will be challenging the decision of the chair. The reason I will be challenging the decision of the chair, Madam Chair.... First of all, let me thank you for laying out your reasons. You didn't have to, and you did. I would respectfully submit that the chair should have taken a look at the green book, as you called it, where it says:

The Chair is not bound to give reasons for his or her vote and is free to vote either way. However, when bills are being studied, the Chairs of legislative or standing committees normally vote in such a way as to maintain the status quo or to keep the matter open for further discussion, just as the Speaker would do in similar circumstances in the House.

That is the only reference to what we're doing. I would argue, as I do challenge the chair, that this does not permit the status quo, but indeed is breaking new ground for the ethics committee and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I'm sorry, Mr. Fergus. Thank you.

It's not a ruling. It's actually a vote. In the same way that you wouldn't be able to challenge the vote of anyone else around this table, you are not able to actually challenge my vote as the chair.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Can I have a ruling by the clerk on that? I'm just looking at the part of the procedure that deals with what happens when there is a tie vote and the conditions in which the committee chair would actually cast a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

If you just give me a moment, I'll ask the clerk.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Please do that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus, the clerk has declined to speak to this; however, it is confirmed that it is in fact a vote and not a ruling, so unfortunately I'm not able to sustain your comments.

Thank you.

Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I hesitate to bring up the speakers list, in light of your comments earlier. However, I am curious and, partly, I admit my relative youth in terms of my time in Parliament. I was on the speakers list when I moved the subamendment. Does that mean my time has expired, or do I have the opportunity to once again address? I'll simply ask that question for clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Kurek, thank you.

In just a moment, we will proceed to discuss the amendment. According to the speakers list, Mr. Kurek, because you did last have the floor under the amendment, and the only reason it went from you to others is that we entered into a discussion of the subamendment, you are still technically at the top of my list with regard to the amendment. It would come back to you.

That said, maybe just before we get going in our discussion on the amendment—Mr. Green, I see your hand—I will ask the clerk to read out the amendment as it now stands, with the subamendment as a part of it.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

The amendment as amended reads as follows: That the motion be amended by adding after the words “one week of the adoption of this Order” the following: “and that the clerk provide these records to the members of the committee and the Ethics Commissioner for study; and that this committee call upon Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to appear to give testimony relating to these matters.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Green, do you want to be added to the speakers list? Okay, no problem. You are already on there.

I will just review the speakers list before we continue. We have Mr. Kurek, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Angus, Mr. Green, Madame Shanahan, Mr. Fergus and Madame Gaudreau. With that, we will continue.

The floor is yours, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will truly keep my remarks brief and simply say that I believe it would be to the benefit of all for the issue we have at hand to be moved expeditiously through these proceedings so that we can not only get on with the further debate of this motion but ensure that Canadians are getting the answers that I believe and that my constituents believe—and as I've mentioned before, they remind me on a regular basis—they should be getting.

I would reference again some of the comments that were made in the last committee meeting. You cannot do indirectly what you would not do directly. It was Mr. Fergus who made those comments, and I believe that is absolutely true. Certainly, in the most transparent way possible, I would submit to all members of this committee and the many who are watching these proceedings on Facebook, ParlVU and whatever else the case might be, that I clearly believe Canadians need, deserve and demand answers on this, and that any action otherwise is doing indirectly what I would simply ask the members opposite to state clearly. What is their intent in a delay?

With that, I would close my comments and simply say, let's get on with it and let's get Canadians the answers they deserve, so that we can move on to ensure that the trust I referred to in my opening comments can be once again worked on, that hard work of restoring trust in our institutions that need to be treated with such care, and so that we can work hard to restore that trust and get the answers that Canadians deserve.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

The next two speakers are Mr. Barrett and Mr. Green.

Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I won't go on long, as we're into hour six on this motion. We're on an amendment to the motion.

I very much echo Mr. Kurek's comments. The situation changes almost by the hour with respect to new information that comes forward. The will of the committee on the subamendment was expressed. As I said at our last meeting, having heard from colleagues, there is certainly enough said that we can get to taking a vote.

With that, I will conclude my remarks. However, to pick up on where Mr. Green was before, if it looks like the speakers list will just be populated until we exhaust our room booking here today, I may make further interventions. I hope that we do bring this amendment to a vote and then the main motion to a vote, certainly before the end of the hour.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Green, you are next on the speakers list. Following Mr. Green, we'll have Madame Shanahan.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You'll recall that in my conversations around the subamendment I was fairly clear about wanting to get to the heart of the matter. We have an opportunity, certainly, to discuss this at length, and I think it will be interesting to see how this conversation develops from here in terms of whether we're going to be in another filibuster situation or whether we're just going to call the question.

I'd like to test the will of the committee and call the question on this motion and just get to the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Green, thank you. I understand your enthusiasm and your desire to do that in the interest of time, and of course in the interest of the Canadian public; however, at this time I am not able to accept that.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's fair. I have a comfortable chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Madame Shanahan, you're up next, and following you is Mr. Fergus.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have to say that I am disappointed with how this situation is evolving, given the very important discussions we had at our first meeting around how this committee would conduct itself, and last Friday, in that personal documents of individuals should be handled with the utmost care, in all confidentiality, and in privacy. That's part of the work we are actually here to uphold.

I would move a subamendment: that any examination of personal documents by this committee be done in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Are you specifically speaking about the documents that would be part of the speakers list requested by this motion?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Just to clarify, it's documents we're asking for, not a speakers list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

That is the document that is being referred to; it's the speakers list.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Yes, so I move that any examination of those documents by this committee be done in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Shanahan.

At this time, we will move to debating the subamendment by Madame Shanahan.

Mr. Kurek, the floor is yours.