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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
That's a very creative suggestion, and I think that the clerk will happily accept any submissions that she receives before the next meeting, and we can distribute those.
Mr. Dong, go ahead on a point of order.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
It's just to understand what Mr. Fortin has suggested. Is he suggesting that all of the Liberal members who are on the speaking list can submit what they have to say in writing so we can talk at the committee? Is that what he's suggesting?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I won't speak on behalf of Mr. Fortin, but it appears that's what he was suggesting.
Mr. Fergus, we'll return to you.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
The final point of order is that we have been suffering patiently the abuse of our Liberal colleagues.
Mr. Fergus, there's four minutes left. Could you just call the meeting so we don't have to listen to any more of this malarkey? Give us a break. It's Friday. Come on. Let us go off. Call the vote.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Colleagues, that's not a point of order.
Mr. Fergus, we'll turn back to you.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate you standing up for my rights as a member of Parliament. I don't want to sound too sensitive, but too often people have encouraged me to keep quiet. I know that was not the intention of my honourable colleagues. You can understand, Mr. Chair, that I take this very seriously. I appreciate the fact that you're defending my right to speak on an issue that all members of Parliament have as well.
That said, Mr. chair, Mr. Fortin would like me to put something in writing. I'd be pleased to put my thoughts in writing to share with the committee.
Mr. Chair, this takes the form of an amendment to Mr. Fortin's motion. I'll read it:
I move that Mr. Fortin's motion be amended by deleting point 5 and replacing it with:
The committee noted that Minister Pablo Rodriguez appeared on Monday, March 29, 2021, instead of Rick Theis who followed the government's instructions that staff are not to appear before committees which were outlined during the debate in the House on Thursday, March 25, 2021;
Furthermore, point 6 would be deleted and replaced with:
The committee noted that Minister Mona Fortier also requested to appear on Wednesday, March 3, 2021 and Thursday, April 8, 2021, on behalf of witnesses Amitpal Singh and Ben Chin who followed the government's instructions that staff are not to appear before committees which were outlined during the debate in the House on Thursday, March 25, 2021;
Finally, the words “That the committee report these events to the House of Commons in order to express its dissatisfaction” would be replaced with:
That the nonattendance of witnesses be added to an annex to the main report on the study on questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending.
Mr. Chair, I will be pleased to distribute this amendment to the clerk so that all hon. members can read my views on this matter.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Colleagues, as it is our custom in this committee to ensure that every member have a written copy of that in both official languages, I'll ask Mr. Fergus to supply that to the clerk. That way it can be translated and distributed to members. I will now suspend this meeting, because we can't go beyond the three o'clock time frame, which is in less than a minute.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I'm sorry, but could you just quickly tell us what the speaking order is, so I have on record who is next to go at the next meeting?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I will. Thank you for noting that.
At this point it is Monsieur Fortin, followed by Mr. Carrie, Mr. Dong, Mr. Angus, Mr. Barrett, and then Ms. Shanahan. Many of the members who are on that are redundant. That's where we'll start.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I was on the speakers list, as you did mention me the last time you clarified the speakers list. I just want to maybe ask you to revise your list. I was right after Mr. Barrett, if that can be of any help to you.
April 26th, 2021 / 1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Okay, we'll put you on. Pardon me, I do apologize. I had Ms. Shanahan. I meant to have you there. That's where the speaking order will finish.
Just so that it's clear to members, I am suspending in the next 30 seconds due to our constraints here, but it will be Monsieur Fortin, Mr. Carrie, Mr. Dong, Mr. Angus, Mr. Barrett and Ms. Lattanzio when we restart.
Colleagues, we will now suspend this meeting until our next meeting time frame. The meeting is suspended.
[The meeting was suspended at 3:00 p.m., Friday, April 30]
[The meeting resumed at 11:01 a.m., Monday, May 3]
I'm going to call this meeting back to order.
This is the 32nd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. As everyone will remember, this is a continuation of the meeting that started on April 30, which was a continuation of meetings that preceded it.
Colleagues, today we're picking up where we left off, with Mr. Fergus having moved an amendment to M. Fortin's motion.
Mr. Fergus, it has been translated and circulated to all members. I believe that all members should have received it by email.
Mr. Fergus, I have reviewed it. I do believe that it is close to inadmissible, but I believe we will proceed with it because it is probably as close to inadmissible as it possibly could be without being inadmissible. I will rule that it is permissible for us to debate this amendment.
Mr. Fergus, you had the floor when we last met. We'll return to you if you want to speak to your amendment to the motion.
Just for the edification of other members, Mr. Fergus is on the speaking list, followed by Ms. Fortin, then Mr. Carrie, Mr. Dong, Mr. Angus, Mr. Barrett, Ms. Lattanzio, Ms. Shanahan, Mr. Dong, Mr. Sorbara, and then back to Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Fergus, we'll turn the floor over to you.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate your ruling that my amendment to Mr. Fortin's motion was in order.
I wanted to do three things. As I explained in my remarks last Friday, since several people implored me to put my comments in writing, I tried to make the motion much clearer and more factual. That's why I made three changes, which you all had a chance to read over the weekend.
I'd like to come back to the last part of my amendment, which I'll read in English.
That the nonattendance of witnesses be added to an annex to the main report on the study on questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending.
Mr. Chair, I think these changes would allow us to get as much consensus as possible from members of this committee. They would give us an opportunity to continue our work and move on to other discussions.
I won't speak for too long this morning, because I would really like to hear the reaction of my colleagues to the changes I have proposed to the motion. I'd especially like to hear the reaction of my colleagues across the aisle. I won't comment at this time. I'll listen to all the members on the other side before I share my thoughts on these amendments.
Mr. Chair, I'll now turn the floor over to my colleagues.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Are we discussing Mr. Fergus' amendment or the substance of my motion?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We are discussing Mr. Fergus' amendment to your motion, Mr. Fortin.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
In that case, I won't discuss my motion. I'll talk about it when it's my turn.
With respect to Mr. Fergus' proposed amendment, I welcome his intention to move the process forward. I think it's valid. I'm glad that Mr. Fergus is taking this step in the right direction. As I've said many times since the filibuster began, I think it's an undemocratic process and not worthy of the office we hold. I'm glad to see that we're trying to work our way through it.
That said, I did read Mr. Fergus' proposal. Personally, I suggested that it include that the witnesses didn't appear, even though they had been summoned to appear. What Mr. Fergus is proposing is to write that they complied with the government's orders. In my opinion, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I can live with that, as long as it is indeed the government's direction. I was alleging in my motion that the ministers instructed the witnesses not to be present—that's offended me the most. That is fine. However, with regard to the third element, we're playing with words.
The purpose of the motion is to report to the House a situation that we have experienced on an ad hoc basis in relation to this testimony. Mr. Fergus is proposing that we not report it to the House; he just wants us to put it in an appendix to the main report at the end of our study.
I can't agree to that, because it completely distorts the motion that I put forward and that is currently before the committee. For that reason alone, I don't agree with Mr. Fergus' proposal. As for the rest, I can live with the wording of points 5 and 6, as Mr. Fergus suggests. However, I cannot support the third point. It's not my motion anymore, it's completely different.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Fortin stated things quite accurately.
I just want to take this opportunity to say that I would like to see our committee move forward, so I appreciate Mr. Fergus' attempt, but I think, as Mr. Fortin said, it really doesn't reflect the reality. I think he was quite accurate in his original motion, Mr. Chair.
I'd just like to say that I'm getting a little frustrated because I'm seeing this filibuster more as a procedural tactic to avoid accountability and continue a cover-up on the WE scandal. We're seeing it at PROC. We're seeing it at the national defence committee with the sexual assault issues. We do know that the Liberals would like to engineer an election. On the sexual assault issue, for example, they knew in 2018 before the last election that this was going on, but they hid it from Canadians. It makes you ask what else they are hiding.
I come from Oshawa. Before the last election the auto sector was extremely important, and it still is very important to us. The government negotiated a CUSMA deal, and they said it was a better deal for the automotive sector. We found out from Global Affairs and other reports that it was actually a hit of $1.5 billion to the auto sector. My big concern here is that we have to be accurate. The Liberals want to do everything they can so that we don't talk about their scandals, but we have to be accurate.
The House of Commons directed us to do this. Our colleagues deserve the right to have a response in the House of Commons. For that reason, unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I won't be able to support Mr. Fergus' amendment, but I do appreciate the attempt.
I will cede to my next colleague to discuss this. I don't want to dwell too long on it.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative