Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2020

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will now yield the floor to the next speaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Madam Shanahan.

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

I too will yield the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Right now the bells are ringing. I will need unanimous consent—

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

Mr. Chair, if there's consent to vote on the amendment and then to let everyone go for bells, could you poll the committee to see if we could do that?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I will assume that if the committee wants to vote on the amendment, then you are also giving me unanimous consent to continue for a few minutes into the bells. It's my obligation to adjourn unless there's unanimous consent—or suspend, I should say.

Colleagues, would you like to move to vote on the amendment? I see consensus. I will call on the clerk to record that vote.

[The Clerk]

On the amendment of Madame Gaudreau, please say “yea” if you are in favour and “nay” if you are against.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We have a tie.

Colleagues, there are lots of precedents in regard to how the chair should vote in a case of a tie. In this case, I think it's rather easy for me, because the mover of the motion just voted in favour of the amendment, so in that regard I am going to vote along with the yeas, and the amendment will pass.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Do we vote on the main motion now?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We will go to the main motion now. I will rely on the clerk again for another recorded vote.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

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

I thought the unanimous consent was given to voting on the amendment, but not on the main motion. I still have a couple of things to say about the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

First, the bells are ringing. We would need unanimous consent to continue to debate the main motion. Is there unanimous consent to do that?

No, consent is withdrawn.

Colleagues, we are going to suspend for votes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, colleagues, thanks for the quick response in coming back.

Colleagues, right now, from the previous list, I have Mr. Angus, Mr. Dong and Mr. Warkentin.

I see Madam Shanahan's hand up as well.

Unless there are some issues, I'm going to continue on.

You have the floor, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Chair, we have now been weeks into this. I think it is ridiculous that I had to hear the Bloc claiming that they didn't hear a vote that we had debated for 17 hours, but that's water under the bridge.

We need to move to the vote and carry on so we can get to work. We are here to work for the people of Canada. We have to get to work, so I would say let's just put it to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, is there consensus to move to a vote?

I have a signal that there's no consensus.

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Chair.

With respect, I want to share my thoughts with the committee members on why I thought this was pretty bizarre and why I supported my government colleague's challenge.

We've been at this for a long time. Every member on the committee has participated in the debate and has spoken their thoughts on Mr. Barrett's motion last week, and we came to a vote. The majority of the committee have spoken. To my understanding, that was the end of that motion. For the Bloc member to move a motion that's substantively similar to Mr Barrett's motion....

You made a decision confirming the voting record last week, and for the member to basically take the core, the central points, of Mr. Barrett's motion—which was deemed out of order and which we voted on—back as an amendment to Mr. Angus's motion, I think, as you said, sets a bad precedent for moving forward.

Members on this committee are acting on behalf of their constituents and making sure that there's accountability in the government's actions. Our decision stands, especially after we all agreed to move to a vote. We stand by that decision.

Using tactics and coming up with creative ways to try to get our way sets a bad precedent going forward. Every member on this committee from this point on is.... What I've seen so far, in accepting this amendment and then debating this amendment, is that members can basically move motions to revive previous debates.

To me, that is not productive. I'd rather we moved into something that looks at facial recognition. I'd rather we talked about something that addresses the immediate concerns of Canadians, given COVID. I think this kind of gaming with technicalities back and forth is not doing good service to our constituents.

That's why I disagreed with accepting the honourable member's amendment. Their party was well represented last week. They debated. They voted on an amendment and they voted on the main motion, and that was the outcome.

To revive Mr. Barrett's motion, to take the central part, the core part, of that motion and try to reintroduce it in the form of an amendment into Mr. Angus's motion sets a bad precedent. I want all members of this committee to consider that and to make sure that our committee going forward can be productive and, quite honestly, that all party members can practise good faith.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Dong.

To review the list, we have Mr. Warkentin, Madam Shanahan, Mr. Fergus, Mr. Sorbara, Madam Lattanzio and Madame Gaudreau.

We will go on to Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It seems as though the Liberals are now moving into another lengthy filibuster in their attempts to ensure that Canadians and this committee don't find out what's included in these documents.

At one point earlier, they said that they would support it if in fact the family members were taken out. The family members are not included in the amendment, and it seems as though the Liberals have decided that these documents are so dangerous to them, that they have such a bombshell included in them, that they would rather filibuster this committee than allow for transparency and accountability.

Mr. Chair, I believe that we do need to move to a vote. I will cede the floor in the hope that we can move expeditiously to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin, but immediately I could see that there was no consensus.

We'll move on to Madam Shanahan.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

It is important that every member of this committee have their voice, and I commend the chair on his patience in ensuring that this is the case.

That said, I will yield my time again to Mr. Fergus, so I hope he takes due note of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Fergus, I usually don't comment on anything, but you have two good videos now, so at least that's a good takeaway from this committee.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair...?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It will lose something now in the delay. It's okay. You have the floor.