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.
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
Mr. Dong, I think that's been expressed by many members. Maybe for the benefit of committee members, because maybe I'm missing the connection, you could draw the connection between Momentuum BPO Inc. and the amendment that we're considering.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I said earlier, in my previous opportunity to speak, that Momentuum has made contributions to the Conservatives.
3 p.m.
Conservative
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Perhaps you'd like to bring in an additional amendment, or a subamendment at some point that might be relevant, but the discussion with regard to Momentuum is not indicated in the amendment, so I am ruling it out of order.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Are they not a service provider to a Conservative member of Parliament?
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I appreciate that agreement, so let's move on to the subject material with regard to the amendment.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're only here because Mr. Barrett and his colleagues are alleging that there was a mix-up with the database we use to serve our constituents and the one that the Liberal Party uses for partisan purposes.
Mr. Dong gave a perfect example—
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
I would note, Mr. Chair, that you are not affording Mr. Dong the latitude—
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We'll move to a vote on the ruling of the chair.
Madam Clerk, could you call the roll?
July 12th, 2021 / 3:05 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Miriam Burke
The question is this: Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 4)
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know exactly what I was voting for. I just want to repeat the point I want to make. I'm not here to challenge the chair, but I do want to say that I appreciate my colleague's intervention. Obviously Mr. MacKinnon sees a clear connection between the evidence I'm presenting and the point I'm making. Hopefully my opposition colleagues will see that point as well, and understand why it's very important that we need to call in a service provider, not just for the Liberal caucus members but also for the Conservative caucus members.
I heard my colleague Mr. Fergus trying to bring a solution that would really serve Canadians by shining a light on what's going on between these service providers, the contracts and the parliamentarians. I'm obviously open to doing that. I was ready to support his proposal that Canadians have the right to know, when they elect an MP, how their privacy is being protected, how the database is being managed, what the requirement is when it comes to procuring these services, who, quite honestly, makes these decisions and who, whenever there is a need, will be going there and fine-tuning all of these requirements so that taxpayer dollars are respected. I think the public needs to know.
If you were to canvass your respective ridings and ask your voters if we should be looking at just the Liberal MPs, because we think they are using public funds for partisan reasons, I think they would tell you that every MP should be looked at.
It's unfortunate that my good friend and colleague MP Fergus's proposal was not supported, but I'm here to ask my NDP and Bloc colleagues to consider the amendment and bring forward the service providers for the Conservative MPs as well, so that at least we will have a broader scope.
If you see this as fitting the mandate of this committee—if that's what you honestly believe—then we should do something constructive. Hopefully, at the end of the study—I know that one meeting is being talked about, but I don't think it's going to end with one meeting—we will have something constructive to move forward with. Then, when you go back to your riding and people ask what happened with the study, you can say that we provided recommendations A, B, C and D, and that we will improve the system. If at the end it's just to prolong the news story and give more material to attack the ruling party, or the governing party, I think the public will see through that.
My colleagues talked about this as being preparation by the Conservatives for an election, a near election. They assume that there will be a near election. I haven't heard that called by my leader or the writ dropped. This is sort of preparation for that and they have created some news stories about it, using public dollars.
I hope the Bloc member and the NDP member will see through that and not be supportive of it. If we are, indeed, to have some value from today's meeting and future meetings, let's call in a few more service providers. Then we can compare and see the differences.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll cede the floor.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
We have Mrs. Shanahan and Ms. Lattanzio on the speakers list.
Mrs. Shanahan.