Evidence of meeting #8 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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
I'm sure they will do no less. If it's the will of the committee, I'm happy to suspend for one minute while we wait for those documents.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Mr. Barrett would like to clarify his amendment. Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
The circulated document has the amendment highlighted in blue, and the original text is omitted.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
I would like to move a subamendment to remove this amendment, because the witness list is determined by the committee. I'm seeing a redundancy and an overlap. I have to vote against this amendment, and I would like at this the time to move a subamendment to remove this amendment, and the names of the witnesses, because it's the prerogative of this committee to name the witnesses as we go into subcommittee and so on.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
That's the whole point. You can vote against it, and then you can propose—
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
This is an amendment to the amendment. That's the whole point.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
It's not to negate. It's dilatory. You can add to a subamendment.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Mrs. Shanahan, I'm a little bit confused by the subamendment, so I'm going to suspend the meeting and ask the clerk to confer with you.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
In the helpful blue highlighting of the amendment, we keep “that the witnesses” and then my subamendment starts “be determined by the committee” and then “thereafter” be deleted until “Prime Minister's Office”.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
It's “that the witnesses be determined by the committee”, and then how would we finish it?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Then delete the next two lines, “but are not limited to the following: the Clerk of Privy Council, Ian Shugart; and Katie Telford, chief of staff, the Prime Minister's Office”. Delete to there.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
It's unclear to me. I'm going to need you to state it. I understand the deletion.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
It's “that the witnesses be determined by the committee”. Then it would go to “and that the committee, upon completion” and the motion continues.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
I see. Okay. Thank you.
Are there any speakers to Ms. Shanahan's subamendment?
Yes, Mr. Green.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
While I appreciate the scope has changed from when she first presented, I believe we're doing that right now. We are deciding as a committee on this vote who we want to have before on this study, as we just did in the last vote regarding calling the Prime Minister, and I believe it also to be the case in previous scenarios. Certainly with committees I've sat on, within the main motion we've provided a scope that included certain people we would call to testify. I think the subamendment is allowing for future input, but I certainly stand by the original parameters through which the motion has been put.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
The confusion for me comes from the fact that if this is a study—and I think the objective of a study like this is a very good thing—most governance boards, most organizations, would undertake this kind of work. I think it's extremely relevant to an organization, and I think it's good, especially if something like this has never been done before. I'll focus on the resolve part of this right now, which is what we seem to be focusing on, where the amendment is.
I don't understand why we would dictate within this motion who the witnesses specifically are to be. If I was going to do a study on conflict of interest policies and setting up that infrastructure to be able to handle monitoring that kind of thing, the first thing I'd want to do is talk to a conflict of interest lawyer. Rather than that, what we see here are political people who are playing politics. If this is genuinely about doing a study, which I think is a really good thing, I don't know why these particular individuals are the first ones listed, completely leaving absent any kind of scholar or expert on this particular issue.
That's why I thought we were trying to propose something through the subamendment that gives the committee the ability to tap into whoever those resources are to bring them to the table so that you can get the best quality individuals and the best testimony, so that you can produce the best possible result to deliver to Parliament. I think ultimately that's what this committee wants to do.
Unfortunately, other than the Clerk of the Privy Council, everybody else named here seems to be more politically motivated than anything else. I would never suggest that was the intent of the motion, but certainly it comes across that way, because you've completely neglected to include anybody who would give some actual bona fide information on how to set up that kind of policy.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Regarding the subamendment, the amendment and, quite frankly, the motion, I've heard a number of my colleagues opposite. It's almost as if they've forgotten that their government is being absolutely rocked by scandal.
The amendment broadens the scope, which is exactly the intent that they seem to be painting, by removing a few of the individuals specifically mentioned.
We have, however, moved into some different territory here, because we are in the middle of a massive scandal. To name some individuals who are bringing on the need to see these issues studied, I think, is distracting from the fact that we right now in this country have a government that is totally wrapped up in scandal—in the world, actually. We see foreign press talking about it. We see daily further revelations regarding this WE scandal.
The amendment certainly addresses the scope issue, but the subamendment distracts from what needs to be accomplished by this committee, and that is restoring the trust that Canadians have put in their publicly elected officials.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
That's not what the motion's about. This is an interesting turn of events, with all due respect, Mr. Kurek.
The NDP introduced a motion that was specifically about doing a study. Mr. Barrett attempted to broaden the scope of it by including more witnesses. We have put forward a subamendment that would increase that even more, and you've completely reverted back to talking about a current scandal that's going on.
That actually supports what I previously said, that it appears as though this is more politically motivated than a genuine study of this report.
This is extremely troubling. Please correct me, if I'm wrong on this.