Information & Ethics Committee on July 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Madam Shanahan is next, and then Mr. Kurek.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Maybe because we've had the benefit in the subcommittee of talking about the motion that was passed yesterday and the kinds of witnesses and study that we're going to be doing there, ultimately I can't support this motion because it is redundant to the work we're already doing.

We spoke at length about how difficult it is to work during this time, with the limits put onto us by COVID, and about how difficult it will be to bring witnesses here and so on. It seems to me that these motions were brought at and around the same time. I think they were trying to achieve, maybe in different words, more or less the same objective.

For me, ultimately the motion is redundant to the work we are already engaged to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Mr. Kurek.

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

I'd like to move forward, but just in brief response, there's a government being rocked by scandal. We're seeing that there needs to be a full evaluation, as the motion I think quite clearly lays out, of many things regarding the ethics laws of this country, so that we can move back to restoring the trust Canadians expect to have in their politicians and their public institutions.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Mr. Barrett.

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

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Having heard Ms. Shanahan's comments, I don't want to debate at length the subamendment, if the mover of the subamendment is not intending to vote for the main motion.

If the intention is not to get this across the goal line, then I'm satisfied with the intent of the mover of the main motion. I think it's sufficiently broad, with the amendment to the main motion. I will vote against the subamendment proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I think it's entirely appropriate to vote in favour of an amendment and then vote against a motion as amended. Sometimes “not as bad” is better than “bad”.

I saw Conservatives—Mr. Brassard, as well as a number of others—do it in PROC recently, when we were going on about virtual voting. Conservatives clearly didn't want that, but they were okay with voting in favour of amendments that made things weaker, fully intending not to vote for the motion afterward.

It happens, then, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it either.

Just coming back to the point Mr. Kurek made, I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about what he wants to talk about, but it begs the question of why he withdrew his motion. His motion specifically was about this. Now we're debating something that is actually a genuine policy being brought forward by the NDP, and he would rather talk about what his motion was about during this discussion.

I'm confused with the discussion that's going on at the table today, but I digress.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

We're happy to have you, though.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The essence of the main motion that Mr. Green has put forward is very interesting, and Mr. Gerretsen has explained why. The motion is appropriate for the work of the committee. It will give us an opportunity to look at the policies in place, to talk to academics and to people very familiar with this issue. As a result, we can make recommendations and propose a new policy that will benefit not only this current government, but future governments also.

I know there is a bit of politics at the beginning of the motion, but that is fair enough. A number of things lead me to support Ms. Shanahan's subamendment. The subamendment improves the motion and will allow more support than has been proposed so far.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

I will move to a vote on the subamendment.

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

Can we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

You may. I will ask the clerk to do that at this time.

The vote is tied, with five voting yes and five voting no. As chair, I vote no.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

We'll move, then, to the amendment to the motion as moved by Mr. Barrett. I have no other speakers on the list, so I will move to a vote on the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, can I have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Yes.

Again we are voting on the amendment as brought forward by Mr. Barrett.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Is this the part that says “witnesses must include, but are not limited to, the following”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Yes. This is the addition of what you see highlighted in blue.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Again we have a tie, with five voting yes and five voting no. As the chair, I vote yes.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

We'll move then to the motion.

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

On a point of order, can we have the speakers list?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

That's not a point of order.

We've covered quite a bit of ground, so I'll definitely give that to you. The speakers list going forward on this motion includes Mr. Gerretsen and Mr. Green. Mr. Fergus has asked to be added to this list as well. Mrs. Shanahan, you will be after Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Gerretsen, the floor is yours.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

When I was speaking earlier to the amendment, I said that I would speak to the resolve part and then get to the “whereas” part afterwards. I will reiterate what I said earlier, which is that I actually think that doing this study is very important. Although I'm not a permanent member of this committee, I hope that some good information comes out of this study, or any study similar to this, that can help inform all elected officials and, in particular, those in cabinet positions, as is being sought out in this motion.

I say this with all due respect to the NDP, but I see this time and time again in the House. We get a motion that has a pretty decent resolve clause that gives the direction to do something pretty well, and that I don't disagree with, but then we end up with preceding whereas clauses that become problematic. These are the ones that really don't even mean anything other than to put a statement on the record, because it's the resolve clauses that are the ones that really give direction to proceed. In the whereas clauses, there is only one that is factually accurate and two of the clauses are opinions.

Basically, and I say this with all due respect to the NDP member, but I saw this for four years in the last session of Parliament. I could not vote for something because of the whereas clauses. You wonder if it's actually being set up that way as a bit of a poison pill to tempt you into voting for something but then leaving it open to the fact that you might end up voting for a whereas clause that you don't necessarily agree with.

If the NDP member would be interested in removing those whereas clauses that specifically go after particular individuals, strip all of that out of the motion and just have the resolve clause that actually gives direction, it would definitely be a lot more palatable in terms of my being able to vote in favour of it and supporting what could actually end up being really good work going forward.

However, in the current form that it's in, with the three whereas clauses, two of which are really just opinions, I have a very difficult time supporting this motion. I do want to reiterate that this is really important work, and regardless of the outcome today, I hope that we can see substantive work come from this committee on this topic.