Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 26th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, I actually have a gavel here, but I think it's inconsequential considering how far away everybody is. Consider the meeting officially gavelled in.

Colleagues, up until now our tradition has been to begin with a new speakers list, but because of the nature of the way we ended last time and finished with—

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Excuse me, Chair, on a point of order, just because you mentioned the last meeting, I would like to have explained and to understand a bit more about how that....

I heard a bit of echo in my sound. Has that been resolved? Can you hear me without echo?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I don't hear any echo from you, no.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Okay. I'll continue. I just want to understand for the benefit of everyone here exactly how that happened and that we were adjourned, because there was still a discussion going on and the potential for a vote to occur. I'm the first one to say that I am happy to adjourn when there's a hot lunch waiting, and we did meet in the lineup over at West Block—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I was just going to remind you of that, but that's okay.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

You're right. Then I thought that I do need to understand how that happened. Maybe we'll want it to occur again. Who knows? All joking aside, I think it's important for the members to understand just how that went down.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Sure. I'd be glad to explain.

First off, to go back, generally, except for extenuating circumstances like we've had where the committee has not agreed on particular issues and we've continued on past the published time, the chair would exercise their opportunity to stick within a time. That meeting was scheduled for eleven to one. I think it was about 12:40 when Mr. Fergus, on a point of order, alerted us to the fact that all staff had been cut off from the meeting. The technical crew got on that, and it took quite some time.... In fact, it wasn't resolved until five minutes after we adjourned the meeting, actually.

That was how it happened. We got into technical difficulties. I asked the committee whether they wanted to adjourn because it was five minutes to one and our scheduled time to adjourn was one. There were no dissenting voices, so we adjourned our first meeting on time.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

All right. Thank you, Chair.

There was a question of the vote, though. I know that my colleague Mr. Dong asked about whether there was consensus for voting, so was it for technical reasons or—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, that was not the case. In fact, I have the speakers list beside me. The speakers list was not exhausted, and there was not unanimous consent to go to a vote.

As long as there are people on the speakers list, colleagues, then my job as the chair is to make sure that everybody has their voice heard. In fact, right now, I was going to review the list with you, so I might as well do that now while we're dealing with how the eventuality of that meeting happened.

Monsieur Gourde was speaking when the technical difficulty happened. That's why I think that because of this eventuality I'd like to go with the speakers list, because it terminated due to a technical difficulty, not because of any ongoing debate of the committee.

Presently, I have Monsieur Gourde, Mr. Barrett, Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Warkentin, Mr. Dong and Mr. Fergus. Also, is that Blaney that I had on there? Yes, it is, and Mr. Drouin, neither of whom, of course, are on right now, I think, and Madame Shanahan. That was the list when we adjourned subsequent to the technical difficulties. Right now, I think the best way to proceed is that we'll start with Monsieur Gourde, and then we'll ask all these others who are on the list if they want to remain on the list.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Are we addressing the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's correct. We're still on debate on the amendment.

Let me go through these names right now. Monsieur Gourde has already reached out to me and has said that he wants to continue, because he had the floor, so let me just go through these names. Anyone who does not want to be on the list can just say no. If you want to be on the list, just give me the affirmative.

Mr. Barrett, do you want to remain on the list? Okay.

Madame Gaudreau? Okay.

Mr. Warkentin? Okay.

Mr. Dong? Okay.

Mr. Fergus? Okay.

Ms. Blaney is not on the call, and Mr. Drouin is not on the call.

Madame Shanahan? Okay.

We will begin with Monsieur Gourde.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

I've heard that the phones are not working and that people are trying to dial in. Is that true? Can the clerk check?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I hope that's not true, but that's what we finished with. We're going to check into it right now. The technical crew is going to check into it at the moment.

Mr. Gourde, could you just wait so we can see if our staff is able to dial in?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Miriam Burke]

It should be good now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

I am told that it should be good now, Mr. Dong.

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

Okay. I heard that the toll-free number, the other line, isn't working. I guess it's working now, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes. IT has just checked. They say it's all good to go.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please alert me if anything is different, colleagues.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We are all going to become specialists in these virtual meetings. Personally, I'm starting to find it fast and enjoyable. We may be able to do it more often in the future, especially during the weeks when we are not always in Ottawa.

Last week I was interrupted, unfortunately, when I was almost finished. Today, I will only take a few minutes, because there are still a lot of speakers who want the floor. I was talking about the importance of the work we did last summer, and it has a lot to do with the amendment. We need to give the witnesses we invite to appear a chance to explain themselves. It gives them a voice. Often, documents are requested and the documents sent by the department are redacted. Witnesses can speak to us, especially in parliamentary committee, because it gives them some immunity. Tongues are loosened and we get other bits of history. That is why our committee is important. In fact, it has become even more important since last week, when the motion to establish a special committee was defeated in the House.

At the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we all have a great responsibility to shine a light on ethics issues in Canada. This is our mandate, and our committee is growing in importance.

May I remind you that in politics, one week is a long time. Last week, we learned that there had been problems with the appointment of judges. We also learned that special contracts had been awarded with large margins. We have a lot of questions. I also hope that our committee can function. Perhaps there will be an outcome, in the short term or the long term, so that we can undertake a study.

Mr. Angus also made a very interesting motion. I hope we can vote today on the amendment and the motion, and then move on to another motion that might finally let us get to work. We have a duty to Canadians to shed light on ethical issues in Canada.

That's it for me, for now. I'm looking forward to hearing from the others, and I hope today's meeting goes fairly smoothly.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

We'll now go on to Mr. Barrett.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

For about 15 hours over the course of three meetings, we've heard from members of this committee and many substitutes who have carried the debate—the filibuster—over those many hours and days.

We have the amendment that Mr. Angus has moved and, of course, the main motion; both are to be voted on. The opportunity to move expeditiously to deal with this amendment and with the main motion, and to allow this committee to do its work is important. I think that if there were a point to be made by members of the Liberal Party, the point has been made. Their objection is definitely a matter of public record now, but there does come a point when we need to advance the business of this committee. I see that a number of motions have been put on notice.

The members of this committee have given various reasons for the days-long debate. One of the reasons was that the House leaders would have to have a discussion about the work we're doing. I can tell you that for a period of successive days—we'll close in on a week this week—our House leader's office has reached out to the government House leader's office on this issue, and a proposal has been made. The response from the government House leader's office has been that, “We have no response”. There was no counter-proposal, no claim that there was no room to negotiate or that their position was firm, just simply, “We have no response”.

If we're locked up at the House leader level; that is, that the government House leader refuses to dialogue with the House leader for the official opposition, and that's what the Liberal members of this committee are waiting for, resolution at that level, well, it doesn't sound as if it's coming. I think that members are going to need to vote based on the merits of the motion. If they don't believe it is meritorious, then they should vote against. If they believe there is merit to the motion, perhaps if the amendment carries and then they support the motion as amended, then they should vote to support that.

Mr. Chair, after three days and 15 hours, and starting another week, another meeting, I ask if you could canvass the committee to see if there's a will to call the question on the amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We still have Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Warkentin, Mr. Dong, Mr. Fergus and Madame Shanahan to speak, but if they're willing to surrender their position and go to a vote on the amendment....

No. There is no consensus.

Next is Madame Gaudreau.