Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That part would be related to what we just did.

[The Clerk]

We had Mr. Barrett's motion, then we debated it. Next, Ms. Damoff moved something, and that was followed by another debate. Then we discussed an amendment with Mr. Villemure and adopted it.

So we resumed debate on the motion as amended, and now Mr. Villemure is going to move an amendment to another part of Mr. Barrett's original motion. Therefore, it's not a subamendment because the amendment was adopted. It's an amendment to the motion as amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's another amendment to the motion as amended.

Mr. Villemure, you may now move your amendment to the motion.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The amendment comes in after the words “if this order is not satisfied”. It reads as follows: “the Chair be instructed to present the following report to the House forthwith: Your Committee recommends that an Order of the House do issue for the unredacted version of Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton's ‘Fact-Finding Exercise Report’ for Sustainable Development Technology Canada”

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The amendment is in order.

Do you have any comments?

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I'd like to propose a subamendment to Mr. Villemure—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You'll have to hang on for a second. The clerk is dealing with one thing at a time.

We've heard the terms of the amendment by Monsieur Villemure. Ms. Damoff is proposing an amendment to the amendment.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

It is just adding “That, if the committee is not satisfied” before that amendment begins. The committee will have to decide if what it receives is satisfactory. If we determine as a committee that it is not, then you send the order to the House.

The change would just be that if the committee is not satisfied, you send the order to the House, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. I guess my question would be one of process. If the committee is not satisfied, how would we handle that?

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

You send the order to the House, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, but my point is that we need to have a process in order to do that. I called this meeting today because we didn't receive the documents. I was looking for direction. I'm receiving some direction. Who will determine that on behalf of the committee? Will it be the chair who determines that or will it be the committee?

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

It will be the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

What's the mechanism, then, for the committee to advise the chair that they're not satisfied with the documents? That's my question.

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

I guess you'd have to call another meeting, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

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

I don't know if there's another process that we can do. If there is, if it can be done by an email vote, Chair, I'd be fine with that, but I think it should be up to the committee as a whole to decide whether or not what we get is satisfactory.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Playing the cynic here, if this means that we need to call another meeting, if I'm a department official, then I'm just sort of ragging the puck on this. Then we have to have another meeting to determine where we're going to go.

At some point there has to be a final issue that lets the department know that they're not fulfilling the request of this committee. If we have an understanding...or I don't even think I can put it as an understanding; I'll need it to be specific. If the department officials don't do what we're asking them to do, I don't want to have another meeting about it. I want some final decisions. If that means that we can deal with it by email to say that we're not satisfied....

I'm not even sure we can do that procedurally. Give me a second here. I have to consult with the clerk on this.

You understand my concern. If I'm a department official and I know that they're going to have another meeting, then I'm ragging the puck on this and I'm not giving them what they want.

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

In fairness, Chair, we don't know that. With the first deadline, I put some of the blame on us for not putting a date on it. They didn't respond in what the committee felt was a timely manner, but we didn't put a date on the first one. You've brought up, and quite rightly, that in the future we need to be more specific on timing.

I'm new to this committee. I'm going to go on good faith that we can do this. From my side, the Liberal side, I certainly will be pushing to make sure that we do get something, but I think it should be a committee decision on whether or not it goes back to the House, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate the amendment. The amendment is on the floor. I've shared my concerns with respect to it. We may not be able to dispose of it or deal with it as quickly as we might if they do come back and don't give us the information, but the amendment's on the floor.

Is there any further discussion on Ms. Damoff's amendment to the amendment?

Do we have agreement on that? Let's take a vote on Ms. Damoff's subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on the amendment by Mr. Villemure, as amended.

Is there any further discussion on that? We don't have agreement, so we're going to go to a vote on Mr. Villemure's amendment as amended.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now on the main motion as amended.

Do we have agreement?

Mr. Barrett, go ahead.

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

I'm just looking at the time, Chair. I hope that we can get it to a vote, so I'll be very brief.

Mr. Kurek said very well, earlier, that the good faith the government could have been afforded cannot be afforded to them because they have missed deadlines twice for a document that was already prepared and available in both official languages. It should have been furnished to the committee by end of business on the day that the motion was passed or on the first day by which the ministry would have been aware of it, which would have been the next day.

My concern is that the information that's being kept redacted is not personally sensitive information. It's politically sensitive information. We'll be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Barrett, the purpose for calling today's meeting was to receive direction from the committee. Two hours later, I think we do have direction.

On the main motion as amended, I'm going to refer to the clerk to call the vote, please.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

I have just a very quick question, Chair.

Can you just clarify that it is 24 hours from the adoption being...? Is that 6:30 tomorrow?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to proceed on the basis that it's 6:30 p.m. tomorrow, 24 hours after the motion has been adopted. Thank you for clarifying that.

That's all the business we have today.

Again, I want to thank all the members for making themselves available, with apologies to the European delegation we were supposed to meet with informally today. We had important business before us that I felt needed to take precedence over that meeting.

Thanks again to all the committee.

The meeting is adjourned.