Evidence of meeting #42 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
It would be helpful if you would supply it to the clerk in both official languages.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
That makes it much faster, in our experience.
We'll suspend until such time as it has been distributed in both official languages.
The meeting is suspended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We'll call the meeting back to order.
The amendment has been circulated. It would insert the text sent by Ms. Shanahan between the words “That” and “pursuant”. Based on the amendment, it would add to the motion proposed by Mr. Barrett. That is the amendment.
As the chair, I'm in a little bit of a conflicted position in that I don't know that it's out of order for us to do this, but I do know that that is not done: Committees don't tell other committees, and don't have the power to tell other committees, what to do. So we are restricted. This amendment, based on the way it has been proposed, would simply be an addition to the motion and the instruction that Mr. Barrett's motion would provide. It would effectively make simultaneous or concurrent investigations by two separate committee, if in fact BOIE took up the recommendation. We aren't able to instruct other committees what to do.
I do have a speaking order on this. We have Mr. Barrett, Ms. Lattanzio, Mr. Fergus, Mr. Carrie and Madame Gaudreau.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but my amendment would remove everything afterwards. It is a request that it be moved that—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Okay.
We will debate the amendment as it has been proposed.
Mr. Barrett.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could you just read the amendment, then, and the motion as it would be amended?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I believe you all had it sent to you. Effectively, Ms. Shanahan's amendment would be inserted, as it prescribes, after the word “That” of Mr. Barrett's motion. Ms. Shanahan's amendment would be inserted there as per her instructions.
Mr. Barrett.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
This is on the same point of order, Chair, before you recognize me in the speaking order.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
The amendment seems to deviate from the scope of the original motion. It seems to me that by referring it to another committee and including other elements that are not included in the original motion and that are not part of members' disclosures because they are not paid for by members' office budgets, we've really gone off track here from the original motion.
I'm not sure, Chair, if you can give us a definitive ruling, but if you're ruling this motion in order, because based on that, I question whether or not it's within the scope of the original motion.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I understand what my colleague just said, but in terms of the interventions that have been made here this morning, the original motion of my colleague speaks to “in light of recent media reports”. Well, media reports, if we base ourselves on the various articles of The Globe and Mail, have discussed not just the ones that are pertinent to what my colleague is putting into his motion. We've spoken about the CIMS and Populus and about other data that have been used by all of the various parties. I think on that point, the amendment of my colleague Ms. Shanahan is very much on point.
Mr. Barrett, you make reference to “in light of recent media reports” on this issue. The issue, if I'm understanding you correctly, is with regard to using constituency data for political purposes. The participants this morning have referred to these media reports. I think that's why you came up with this motion.
In all fairness, Mr. Chair, I think the amendment is very pertinent.
Conservative
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Yes. I wanted to speak to this point of order, Mr. Chair. What I'm concerned about is that we've seen this tactic before by the Liberals. They like to talk out an issue that they really don't want to address. I'm concerned because the amendment is, in my viewpoint, ridiculous. To be sending....
She mentioned CIMS in her statement. My colleague mentioned taxpayer dollars versus partisan dollars. It seems the Liberals have no idea about the difference between them. The CIMS is not using taxpayer dollars. The original motion that we're talking about is about the Liberal Party using members' operating budget dollars, taxpayer dollars, to fund partisan activities. That's what we're talking about. The scope of her amendment is entirely beyond the scope of anything we would be doing here. I would submit that even the Board of Internal Economy wouldn't be looking at it, because they look after members' operating budgets. They don't look after partisan activities at all.
Mr. Chair, I think we're going to end up talking this out because the Liberals just don't want to deal with this—again—and I'm worried about a cover-up.
Conservative
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
On the point of order raised by my colleague Dr. Carrie, I would just like to make sure that we understand, that everyone understands, that CIMS is paid for by the party to be used for partisan purposes. The real issue is that CIMS is also being used by constituency and Hill staff, who are paid with taxpayer dollars. Therefore, who pays for the actual database is not relevant. It's that the staff, paid by taxpayer dollars, are doing partisan work by using that partisan database from their offices or from their equipment, which is also paid for by taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chair, that's the reason. I'm just clarifying that for Dr. Carrie.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Okay.
It seems that we've gotten into a point of debate. I believe the point of order was Ms. Shanahan's originally. She was making a point of order with regard to whether her text would be inserted or whether it would replace existing text. I have ruled that, based on how she submitted it, it would be inserted between the words “That” and “pursuant”. This would be an addition.
It is not common—it is something that actually is impossible—for one committee to tell another committee what to do, but I am going to allow this amendment to be voted on by the committee members to determine. Whether or not they appreciate our instruction, if in fact it passes, that's up to them. I think it would probably be best to move to a vote on the amendment, if the committee would allow for that. Then we can get on with debate on either the amended motion or the original motion.
We'll move to a vote, unless members want to....
We still have a speaking list. Okay. We'll go back to a speaking list on the amendment.
I'm getting different signals here. Some don't want to go back to the speakers—
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Before you call the vote, could you please tell us again what we are voting on, so we know exactly what's what.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
The debate right now is on the amendment. It's just on the amendment. It's not on the motion but on the amendment from Ms. Shanahan.
If members want to speak to that, I do have a list of members.
Mr. Barrett.