Information & Ethics Committee on March 19th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have an amendment from Mr. Villemure. The amendment is—

Go ahead, on the amendment.

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

Did Ms. Damoff move a subamendment to the date?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No.

Ms. Damoff's suggestion was 14 days, right? We're working on the basis that it's 14 days after the receipt of Mr. Wernick's information, okay?

We likely will need a subamendment, then, from Ms. Damoff to do that. I'm going to encourage her to do that: to just subamend Mr. Villemure's motion of 10 days to 14 days.

Ms. Damoff?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Yes, that's fine.

I think he accepted it, so do we need to vote on that separately, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We need to move a subamendment. You can't just accept an amendment like that.

Okay. Just so we're clear, we're on the subamendment proposed by Ms. Damoff to change 10 days to 14 days, and I'm including “after the receipt of Mr. Wernick's documents”. Okay? Are we in agreement with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. We are.

The subamendment as proposed by Ms. Damoff and Mr. Villemure's amendment as amended, are we in agreement with that? That is 14 days after we receive Mr. Wernick's documents. Are we in agreement with that?

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

The 14 days?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The 14 days.

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

That's Ms. Damoff's amendment. Yes, we agree.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. We agree with that.

Now we're on the main motion as amended several times, which includes Mr. Wernick's documents and documents from the Privy Council Office, 14 days after we receive Mr. Wernick's documents.

Hang on a second. What we're voting on, to be clear, if the documents received are not satisfactory, that the PCO provide the documents within 14 days....

Just hang on a second.

[The Clerk]

Would you like me to read it?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, if you don't mind, Madam Clerk, just repeat that. I can't read your writing.

I'm going to need everyone's attention here, because this what we're dealing with right now.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

The amendment that was moved by Mr. Villemure I will repeat, because it was not in written text. Basically, it's after.... On the motion as amended first, it says, “after the adoption of this motion”, and there would be a semicolon.

Then we would add, if the documents received from Mr. Wernick...if the committee judges them not to be satisfactory within 14 days of the reception of the documents from Mr. Wernick, that PCO provide the documents within 14 days. This is what we're voting on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This is what we're voting on right now.

I think that captures the spirit of what you were discussing, Ms. Damoff.

I see your hand.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I just need some clarity, Mr. Chair, on how it's changed.

The committee's going to decide if the documents are satisfactory or not—I want to make sure that's in there—and then it's 14 days from when the committee decides that they're not satisfactory. Is that right, or...?

I guess my first point is that I think it needs to include who is deciding that the documents are not satisfactory, which I think should be the entire committee. Then it also needs to include what the time frame is for the 14 days and when that kicks in.

It's just clarity I'm seeking, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I just need everybody's attention, please, just so that we're clear on this.

The expectation is that it will be the decision of the committee on these documents that are received by Mr. Wernick if, in fact, we need the PCO. If we need to include that in the motion so that it's clear.... However, my understanding and the clerk's understanding, based on the discussion that's happened today, is that that's the way it is. It will be a decision of the committee as to whether to get the PCO documents within the 14 days.

Now, that 14 days is after the receipt of the documents that Mr. Wernick is going to provide to the committee.

Does that clarify things, Ms. Damoff? Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

The challenge, of course, is that this supposes there's an interest in moving forward with the rest of the documents. What I would prefer to see is, if we're not including the PCO in the documents being ordered today, that it's time triggered.

I appreciate that there needs to be some subjective analysis of that, but if it comes back to the full committee.... We've been mired in this for quite some time already. I would forecast that the same would happen again. Therefore, I would rather put it to the chair that the documents have been well received or not, and if not, then the production order is issued. However, if it comes back to the committee, that might just be the end of it then.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Might I suggest that—and I'm just throwing this out there—if one party is not satisfied, then that could trigger the discussion at the committee, which I could facilitate at a committee meeting under committee business. I'm just trying to figure out some sort of mechanism that we can use. To me, that would be the mechanism. If somebody indicates to me that they're not satisfied with the documents that Mr. Wernick provides, then that would force a discussion at committee, at which point we would make a decision on the PCO after our committee discussion.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I think that's reasonable, Mr. Chair. If someone on the committee is not satisfied with the documents, then you can call a committee meeting. I think that's a very reasonable suggestion and approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

My reason for that is to address Mr. Barrett's concern, Ms. Damoff, that this is not prolonging itself and that we're trying to figure out whether we're happy or not with the documents.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I think we're all on the same page here, Mr. Chair. I really do, and I appreciate your suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

I do have to go back to Mr. Barrett.

Does that satisfy, if we have...? We can even put it in the motion that if one party is not happy with the documents that come back, then that would trigger a discussion at committee and the chair would signal when that would happen.

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

Mr. Chahal suggested that a committee of the two Michaels here would be able to decide, but barring that, I think that we have an understanding that it will come back to committee.