Evidence of meeting #32 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's funny that my colleague is talking about conspiracy theories because the whole story around Reed Cowan and the WE Charity is in the same realm.
However, I'll come back to the subamendment—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Ms. Shanahan. I do want you to return to the debate with regard to the subamendment; otherwise, I will move to the next speaker.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Mr. Chair, thank you for your patience.
In this whole witness thing, why mention some witnesses who had nothing to contribute, when we still had the information? Why make this report separately?
We disagree strongly with the subamendment.
The amendment, as suggested by Mr. Fergus, is the purpose of our study, and I think it represents all the points of view of the members of the committee, my colleagues around the table. We must defend the principle—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Chair, on relevance, the witnesses were referred to the committee by an order of the House. This was not a decision of the committee to invite the witnesses. To conflate the two is not relevant to the issue of having the witnesses appear, nor to the subamendment that is being proposed.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you. I think that's debate. It is a demonstration that I think members are getting caught up in the different stages we're undertaking.
Ms. Shanahan, again, it sounds like you are moving to the debate with regard to the amendment. You will have an opportunity to speak to that once we move to a vote on the subamendment.
I think that having exhausted the discourse in moving on to a different subject, you're demonstrating that you've probably completed the debate with regard to the subamendment.
Is there anybody else who would like to speak to the subamendment, not the motion at hand, but the subamendment on the amendment?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Yes.
I've heard two speakers from the Liberal side express an unwillingness to support the motion.
Because the motive that is suggested is that this is an effort to circumvent advancing and reporting the conflict of interest and pandemic study to the House and that there's an ulterior motive, I would offer, respectfully to the chair, that I would withdraw my subamendment, if all parties would agree to a timetable to report the study to the House.
I withdraw my subamendment, with unanimous consent of the committee, if all members would agree that over not more than two meetings, we could report the conflict of interest and pandemic spending study back to the House.
That should alleviate a concern about ulterior motives, Chair.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Do I have unanimous consent for Mr. Barrett to withdraw his subamendment?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Chair, thank you very much for choosing to sound this out—this very serious point that Mr. Barrett has proposed.
If you can please give me a couple of minutes to just consider this, I'm trying to understand the full ramifications of what he is proposing.
I would like a couple of minutes, without the pressure of an immediate determination. I compliment you on trying to find a solution to keep this going, but could we have a couple of minutes to consider the proposal by Mr. Barrett?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Well, as we seek to move to a solution, I will suspend the meeting to allow for members to discuss it. I will suspend for three minutes, and in three minutes, I'll call this meeting back to order.
The meeting is suspended.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I am looking to committee members to see if there is unanimous consent for Mr. Barrett to withdraw his subamendment. Is there unanimous consent to do that?
Mr. Dong.
Noon
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
On a point of order, Chair, I just want to clarify this. I'm wondering if there's any way that we can have Mr. Barrett, in the form of a motion or an amendment or subamendment...because I think what he's proposing is pretty smart. It probably will get us moving along.
I just want to try to understand this. Is there any way that we can have him send us an email so that I can understand it from reading it? My understanding is that he is withdrawing his subamendment to Mr. Fergus's amendment and he is asking for everyone's commitment to deliver the report on this study within the time frame. Is that correct?
How do we put this in writing? Would it be in the form of a motion?
I look to my colleague Mr. Angus. He has been on this for many years. Maybe he can chime in on this.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Well, we'll go back to Mr. Barrett to clarify exactly what he is asking for.
Mr. Barrett, I'll turn it back to you.
Noon
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thank you, Chair.
My proposal is just an agreement between honourable members to do basically what Mr. Dong said. That is, if we get unanimous consent to withdraw my subamendment, I would be prepared to support Mr. Fergus's amendment and to then support the main motion, but to do that with the view that members of the committee agree that we would dedicate the next two meetings to send our final report on the conflict of interest and pandemic spending study, meaning that I wouldn't put forward a motion and my colleagues in the official opposition would agree not to put forward another motion for more witnesses to include in that study before the conclusion of those meetings.
We would put it behind us in a week, provided the analysts have had enough runway.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Okay.
The challenge is that there are two different parts here. For Mr. Barrett to withdraw his subamendment, all that is required is unanimous consent of the members. The second point, in terms of the timeline, would require an agreement of all members. That would be in a motion.
My sense is that Mr. Barrett's own support for his suggestion is contingent on the second part. So unless I get a sense from committee members that there is a willingness to proceed on both points, I think it's probably pointless to continue down the road of seeking unanimous consent on that part but not on the condition that would result in the unanimous consent.
Mr. Fergus.
Noon
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
First of all, Chair, thank you. I know this is not normal parliamentary procedure, so I appreciate your recognizing me on this.
I would like to ask just a further point of clarification of Mr. Barrett, because he had mentioned the importance of an agreement amongst honourable members, which I am quite happy to do and I am always willing to encourage. Did I understand him correctly that if we were to agree to provide him with unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment, he would be supportive of my amendments to Monsieur Fortin's motion—of all the amendments?
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. Fergus, I am seeing by the indication of a hand that Mr. Barrett is indicating support for that.
Noon
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I think this is a sign that we can work together. I am very suspicious, though, because we had an agreement on Pornhub for one more meeting, and that got completely blown out of the water by the Liberals. I don't really have a lot of trust for them right now. I'd like to have an assurance that we are actually going to start to work more focused on the agreements that we have made and we can start to put these issues behind us.