Information & Ethics Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Dong, I just want to make sure this is a point of order, not a point of debate.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

It is a point of order, Chair. You made a ruling. In your interpretation the comment was withdrawn but none of us actually heard Monsieur Fortin say to withdraw.

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

Then challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Pardon me, colleagues. I'm going to call this meeting back to order. I did not state that Mr. Fortin's language was unparliamentary. I did not rule that. I did not call him to withdraw the comment.

Mr. Fergus was offended. He can take that up with Mr. Fortin, but I would suggest that happen in a private conversation and not at this committee. I did not demand anybody to withdraw a comment. Mr. Fergus requested a withdrawal. It wasn't forthcoming to his satisfaction. That is between him and Mr. Fortin. That's a private conversation that probably should happen, but quite frankly, this chair has not ruled Monsieur Fortin's language unparliamentary and therefore there is nothing that is required to be withdrawn.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

That's contradictory to what Mr. Barrett said.

Wow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Dong, we're not going to continue with regard to a debate. I am the chair. I have not ruled that unparliamentary language was used, and therefore let's move on to the text of the subamendment.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Sorry, I just want to get this on the record, because it is a very difficult job to be chair, and I think that what you're being subjected to is not fair. I think these are delaying tactics. I want to say that I have confidence in the chair.

If the Liberals.... Mr. Dong doesn't have confidence in the chair. He has a mechanism. Rather than saying, “wow”, he can challenge the chair. If Mr. Fergus wants to continue this fight, he can challenge the chair.

You ruled that this was finished, and as chair you represent all of us, and so I accept your ruling. I think it's a wise ruling. I think you're trying to get to the heart of the matter so we can get back on track.

I would say to my Liberal colleagues, either challenge the chair or let's move on and actually hear if Mr. Fergus does have an amendment that is in order. That's what I'm interested in hearing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Colleagues, I think it would be helpful for us to move on.

Mr. Fergus, if you have the text of the subamendment, that will allow us to suspend the meeting so that that can be circulated to the members and then we can vote on it.

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

We'll see, Mr. Chair, if you find this subamendment to be in order. It is to amend the motion. After the words, “adoption of this motion” replace that with, “that the chair write to Mr. Ben Chin and ask him to provide in writing to confirm any communications he had with the Kielburgers or WE Charity in regard to the CSSG”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Can you explain to the committee members how that's [Technical difficulty—Editor] subamendment that was proposed, the one by Mr. Dong, specifically?

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

It is substantively different in that, Mr. Chair, we are moving away.... We are allowing for the clerk, or a representative of the clerk, to bring forward the report, which we would have, as well as making sure that we are trying to move...that the communications are just larger than the LinkedIn aspect of it. I put it out that it is the “any communication” with regard to the CSSG that makes it different. I'm also requesting that written testimony be submitted to this committee and to all members who sit on this committee. It doesn't presuppose the outcome, which was suggested in the previous subamendment.

For those reasons, sir, I think it's substantively different.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I respectfully disagree. I believe that it's substantively the same as the previous one that was already voted on. Let us now move to the vote on the amendment. We can have a recorded vote on that.

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

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Fergus, do you have a point of order?

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

I'm not certain if it's a point of order or an actual motion, Mr. Chair, but very respectfully I disagree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Are you challenging the chair?

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

I would like to challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

The question is whether the chair's ruling is sustained. We'll now move to a recorded vote on that.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, let's move to the amended motion. Let's move to a recorded vote on that. I will move to Madam Clerk with a vote on the amendment.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I see Mr. Fortin's hand is up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Fortin, were you on the speaking list?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

No, it was a mistake.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll move to the vote on that, Madam Clerk.