Evidence of meeting #6 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 chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
We are voting on the amendment to remove parts (a) and (d).
I'll leave it to the clerk for a recorded vote.
The Clerk
Thank you.
On Mr. Fergus's amendment, please say “yea” if you are for the motion and “nay” if you are against it when your name is called.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4) [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
We'll now move on to debate of the amended motion.
Mr. Sorbara, do you want to remain on the speakers list for the debate on the amended motion?
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
It's great to see everyone this morning.
Thank you to my colleague MP Fergus, whom I've known for many years, for the great work in putting forward the amendment to Mr. Angus's motion.
I'm not going to speak too long, as I know there are others on the list and we're working within the confines of time.
In looking over the amendment, I don't have many grave concerns with the amended motion. We've removed some elements of the motion. Obviously the Ethics Commissioner ruled on the recusal, on point (a), and there was some feedback that nothing wrong was done. It was great to see the Ethics Commissioner early Friday and over the weekend also provide commentary to the former finance minister, and that's proceeding.
I had significant concerns with (d), so I'm very happy to see that removal.
I have slight concerns on part (c) of Mr. Angus's motion. The former Canadian ambassador to the United States, David MacNaughton, has done a phenomenal job representing Canadians abroad and our interests in the United States for many years, particularly during a time when NAFTA was being renegotiated into the USMCA. His record speaks for itself.
I'm going to stop there, as I know there are others who want to speak, and we're at 11:35. I will yield the floor to my colleagues here.
That was great work by my colleague Mr. Fergus, and thanks to MP Angus for putting forward his original motion.
Conservative
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'll summarize what we've been going through over the past 17 and almost 18 hours.
We've had plenty of time to discuss where we stand on Mr. Barrett's original motion. After a great deal of deliberation, we encountered a communication issue.
Something is bothering me right now. I was in the House for good reasons, because my file was being discussed. The communication didn't work properly, and we immediately pointed out that an error had been made. I encourage you to listen to the interpretation again. Even Mr. Warkentin, just 20 minutes ago, had issues with the delay in communication.
We must take into account the fact that we're sitting virtually. We've never in history experienced a situation like this. It's difficult to change things. We did our research, and you knew that I was in favour of this. We moved a motion that's in order, but somewhat different. From what I can see, either people changed their minds over the weekend, or this isn't coming from them.
I'm asking you again about the role of the ethics committee. Is it to obtain results? Is it to increase the confidence of the people who elected us? If the answer is yes, I want to see that we can achieve our shared goals. My goal wasn't to move a motion, but rather to capture what was written in the stars. You knew how I intended to vote.
Given all this, the motion under consideration, from which parts (a) and (d) have been removed, is in order. I want to move an amendment to achieve our goals in the time that we have left.
I want to amend this notice of motion to include parts (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), which I could reread for discussion purposes. I believe that we can reach a consensus and adopt it.
Would you like me to read it, Mr. Chair?
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
It's very simple. Look at the motion that I moved this morning. Part (b) says:
... the Committee study mainly ... contracts with regards to speeches ...
This continues until the end. My amendment seeks to add an additional paragraph to Mr. Angus' notice of motion. Should I read the entire thing, or do you have it in front of you?
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'm talking about the amendment that I'm proposing to add to the motion tabled.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Perfect.
The letter that should technically be (c) has been added to the amendment:
... the Committee study mainly ... contracts with regards to speeches of Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau within the framework of activities organized by Speakers' Spotlight since October 14, 2008;
(c) that the Committee invite Speakers' Spotlight representatives ...
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We just voted on this motion. If it's voted down twice, we can't bring it back a third time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Let her complete, Mr. Angus. This is an amendment to a motion we're debating right now. I will certainly confer with the clerk in that regard. Let's hear the entire thing, and then we'll suspend for a moment.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'll continue:
(c) that the Committee invite Speakers' Spotlight representatives to testify about all files related to speeches organized since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau;
(d) that an Order be issued to Speakers' Spotlight to obtain a copy of all records related to speeches organized since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau—including, for each speech, the amounts paid, any expenses reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity that organized it;
(e) that the documents ... be delivered to the Clerk of the Committee within 7 days of the adoption of this motion and that their consideration be in camera;
(f) that, for the consideration of documents studied during closed meetings:
i. only Committee members be allowed to participate;
ii. no mobile or electronic device be allowed in the room during these meetings;
iii. numbered hard copies of documents be given to Committee members by the Clerk at the beginning of each meeting scheduled for that purpose and that these copies be given to the Clerk at the end of each meeting;
iv. copies of documents be kept in the Clerk's office and that outside of meetings Committee members can only view them by going to the Clerk's office, and no mobile or electronic device be in the room during the consultation of documents.
The words could be changed again, Mr. Chair. The motion was amended at the start of our committee. After almost 18 hours of discussion, I believe that we could come up with a solution in order to meet our obligations and shed light on what we've been studying over the past few months.
Since time is flying by, we could go around the table and vote. We've already heard from our colleagues over the past few hours. We've already made a great deal of progress, so I'm moving this amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much, Madame Gaudreau.
We're just going to suspend for a few moments so I can confer with our clerk.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay, I was encouraged by the fact that this was a unique circumstance for even our clerk as well as for me.
In the precedents that we looked at in regard to the previous aspects that we were dealing with, there's a measure of what's called “means and variance”. Although we've heard this in an independent motion, because it's embedded within an entirely different motion, an amendment to a motion outstanding on the floor right now, the means is different from the previous motion, so I will rule this amendment in order. I think it's always better for the chair, whenever there's a question in regard to a ruling, to take the broader latitude rather than the narrower latitude, so I would always argue for more freedom for members, rather than less. I will rule that this amendment is in order.
We will now be debating the amendment from Madame Gaudreau to our existing amended motion.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Yes, it's a point of order. I'd like to challenge your decision.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
You're certainly allowed to do that.
We'll go to the clerk for a recorded vote in that regard.
