Information & Ethics Committee on July 29th, 2020

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

Madam Chair, we heard suggestions by Liberal members that the scope of the main motion should be narrowed. That was proposed by the Bloc, and they voted against it, so I think we know that a productive discussion is not going to be had. I encourage all members to stand to be counted. Let's vote on the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus.

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

I'm going to stop making this personal.

I'd like to point out that this is the second time the Conservative members have put forward a motion like this. The first time, they withdrew it. They essentially moved the same motion, which, once again, was really poorly written. I commend the honourable Bloc Québécois member for trying to make it better, but the fact remains, Madam Chair, that the motion is really poorly drafted.

I can speak only for myself, but I imagine some of my fellow members feel the same. It's not my responsibility to fix the second version of a poorly drafted Conservative motion. I'm going to do my best, in any case. Sometimes, a mistake can be corrected, but this is the second time. It's understandable to make mistakes the first time around. Everyone makes mistakes. No problem, just try again. This is the second time, though, that the Conservatives have put forward a motion that I think is problematic or that the committee deems inappropriate—not to presuppose the outcome of the vote.

What's the expression? Make a mistake once, shame on me; make a mistake twice, shame on you. Fool me once, I think the expression is.

That's precisely what's happening here. I am asking my fellow committee members, imploring them, even, to vote against this motion for a variety of reasons. We don't want to see history repeat itself, with the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics being used to conduct a witch hunt, as was the case under previous governments.

We should be bolstering the work of our independent officers of Parliament to help them do their jobs properly. We should be asking them what they need to make sure they have the tools and resources to do their jobs. I think it's crucial that we support them in their roles.

Doing so ensures they, not we, are the ones conducting the investigations into the members of the government and the honourable members of Parliament. That's the best course of action, but I know it isn't as satisfying for those with something to gain politically.

Nevertheless, that's how we should proceed because it's in everyone's interest.

Madam Chair, I'll be voting against this motion for the reasons I've just outlined. Above all, I want to make sure we get to a place where, rather than playing partisan games, the committee supports and bolsters the work of the individuals to whom the responsibility has been entrusted.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I have Mrs. Shanahan and then Mr. Kurek.

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

I have nothing further, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Mr. Kurek.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have a couple of final comments to make in the last few moments.

I find it interesting that the members opposite have changed their tack. They went from looking at the motion for a few technical things that could be adjusted, to talk about the scope of family, a few definitions and whatnot, to now. They just don't like it and won't be supporting it.

I took very seriously some of the issues that were brought to my attention in the initial motion, and asked that it be withdrawn from the committee, because I wanted to ensure that it could be palatable when brought forward again. As was mentioned earlier, I didn't receive any feedback on that matter from any members outside my own caucus. There was an opportunity, and it wasn't taken advantage of.

We heard the debate at the beginning of this meeting, the debate at the last meeting, talking about the motion's scope, and family and whatnot. They didn't propose an amendment. My colleague from the Bloc did. The members opposite voted against it. I would note that the previous motion was withdrawn with unanimous consent. So the Liberals opposite agreed to that, I would note for the record.

They've changed this tack, and it's obvious. What could have been an opportunity to shed light on the ethical failings of the government and to simply ensure that light be shone on all aspects of where these relationships may or may not exist, Canadians deserve to know. My constituents are asking very clearly that I get answers as their representative in Canada's Parliament, and I don't want to speak for what the other members of this committee may be hearing from their constituents, but I have a suspicion that their constituents would like answers as well.

What started as a gesture of goodwill, a willingness to adjust the motion so it would be more amendable to some of the concerns raised, has now turned into, as my colleague suggested, something that looks like more of a cover-up, and I think that's incredibly unfortunate.

We had the opportunity, and still have the opportunity, to see light shone on a decision by cabinet. This wasn't every member of Parliament. These were decisions by cabinet, by members of the Queen's Privy Council. They have a responsibility to understand conflicts of interest, understand family relationships in that regard and, quite frankly, even with the wording, although I did support the amendment, I think that Canadians understand what we're trying to accomplish here, and that's to get answers.

So I would encourage all members of this committee from all parties to take a good, hard look at what they are going to say to their constituents on their doorsteps when they had an opportunity to shed light on such an important issue.

With that, I will close my comments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Okay, Mr. Kurek.

We will now allow Mr. Kurek's motion, that a letter be sent by the chair to the members of the cabinet, to stand for a vote.

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

Can I get a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Barrett, we would love to make that a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

Mr. Fergus, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to you for making some of my comments very personal today. I will endeavour not to do so in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus. That was very kind.

With that, ladies and gentlemen, this committee is now adjourned.