Information & Ethics Committee on June 19th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, and I do appreciate that.

Like I said, the work was done by the previous committee. The motion on the floor right now is asking the government for a response to a previous report that was adopted by the committee in the last session of Parliament. It's to get that response back.

This hasn't really been a problem at any other committees—I'll tell you that right now. I've been at most of the committees that have adopted these similar motions, and it hasn't presented a problem.

Go ahead, Ms. Church.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I really do appreciate that.

I'm wondering. Is it possible to move to suspend the consideration of this motion until we've had the chance to look at the reports we're talking about and then address this at our next meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You can make an amendment to the motion to propose that. Then we can have a discussion on that and, then, if there's agreement to that, we can do that. You're well within your right to amend Mr. Barrett's motion to reflect what you just said. If you want to do that, I'll give you a second to consider it. I could go to Mr. Sari if you want to consider that, or if you want to do that right now, you have the floor, Ms. Church.

Just as a reminder to all committee members, anything...all discussion comes through the chair. We obviously have crosstalk and discussion, but I just want to make sure everybody is familiar with that. I know there are some new members on the committee.

Go ahead, Ms. Church.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will take that opportunity, then, to move an amendment to the motion to suspend this until our next meeting, once we've had a chance to review the reports in question.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Ms. Church, but do you want to just say that again for me, if you don't mind?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I just said that I would proceed to suggest an amendment to the motion, so that we suspend this until our next meeting to allow an opportunity to consider the reports in the interim.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Church has an amendment to suspend the request of this report until the next meeting of the committee, when they've had a chance to review the report.

I see that Mr. Thériault wishes to speak to the amendment.

I'll then go to Mr. Barrett on the amendment.

Go ahead, Monsieur Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Is the amendment in order?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The clerk is telling me that it is in order.

It's to suspend this committee so that we do not deal with this until the members of the Liberal Party—all members—get to see the report and then we will have a discussion when we come back.

It is in order and it's amendable.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I understand what Mrs. Church is looking for, but her request is premised on something that cannot happen. If someone says to me that they want to be able to read something before agreeing to it, that implies that they cannot agree to it, which, to my mind, would be a problem in this case, given the practices and traditions of the House. The committee produced a piece of work.

I have been here for nine years, and I have seen all kinds of work be discarded precisely because of a prorogation or general election. It's normal to be able to reinstate that work. It is equally normal for members participating in a committee who receive, from the analysts, a summary of the committee's work to review that information, which I did for most of the materials I had for today.

I want to stress that we cannot do what is being proposed, because it implies that it is possible not to accept the report in question. There is no reason to object to it. We should trust the committee, which did the work and produced a report that Parliament adopted. That is significant. The members adopted a report. The only thing missing is the government's response.

I'm new to this committee, and I could make the same argument, but I trust the committee. I voted to adopt the report. When you vote for the adoption of a report in the House, you are deemed to have read it.

I know I can't call for a vote, but if I hadn't spoken, I would have.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

As I mentioned, the amendment is in order. We're having a discussion.

Thank you for your comments on the amendment.

Mr. Barrett is next, on the amendment.

Michael, do you want to speak on this?

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

Prior to Ms. Church's moving the motion, I was going to say that perhaps, if the desire was to not deal with the item, you could invite a motion to adjourn debate, which would be dilatory and we'd be onto it. However, we have the amendment in front of us, so I'll leave it to you to manage that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll leave it to the members as to whether they want to do that. I have to deal with what's in front of me and the amendment is in front of me. I don't see any further discussion....

Ms. Church, go ahead, on the amendment.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to comment on my colleague's intervention.

I believe that it is our privilege as members to understand what we are voting on. Although it may be convention that we examine the work that was previously done by a prior composition of the committee, the fact is that we have had a new Parliament established. It is our responsibility as members to understand what we are deeming to be put forward from our committee.

At this stage, we are minutes from having adopted standing procedures for this committee that suggest we should have a minimum of 48 hours' notice of motions on substantive items, which this is. I do not for a moment deny that it sounds to me as if the subject matter of the report is something that is probably of interest to this committee. However, I have absolutely no bearing at the moment to understand what that report was. There is not a binding requirement that a committee put forward materials that were created in a past Parliament.

I don't want to impede this committee's work, but I do feel quite strongly that for a motion that was presented to the committee on material that we are not presented with, do not have access to.... We have no knowledge, even at the moment, as to whether the two reports that we're considering are the be-all and end-all of the committee's unfinished business from the past Parliament. Maybe there are others. I have no knowledge as to how the member opposite has brought forward these particular reports for consideration.

It seems to me to be a reasonable request that we reconsider this once we've had the chance to look into the actual reports.

Without any knowledge of the content in them, why are we putting them forward and deeming that this go forward in our names?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Maybe I can try to clarify a little bit here.

This particular report, and the one that I'm presuming we'll be dealing with afterwards—or maybe not—was adopted by the committee in the first session of the 44th Parliament. It was presented to Parliament. All of the recommendations were adopted. They were agreed to. There was no supplementary report by any other members of the committee. There were no dissenting reports at all.

What we're asking for now—and as I said earlier, this has been a pattern, if you will, on other committees and all of them have been accepted unanimously without any dissent at all—is to simply have those reports, which were presented by the chairs of the committee in accordance with all the standard practices, have a response back from the government. Those reports have already been adopted by the previous committee.

As I said earlier, every other committee has been asking for this, given the fact of prorogation. There's no hidden agenda here. The committees did the work. They adopted recommendations as a result of that work, and now they're asking for the government to respond on the recommendations and on those reports. That's what's been going on here for the last week, so I don't know why it's a problem here.

Do you speak to the amendment? We're on the amendment right now, and I have you on the main motion.

I saw your hand up before, Mr. Sari. You were on the main motion, but we're on the amendment now. I can put you on the list. I have Mr. Hardy, Mr. Thériault and then you.

Mr. Hardy.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to address a comment that was made. Nothing is being hidden here. Everything was read and is already in the public domain. It is wrong for members to say today that they had no knowledge of this content. The reports are available on the government's website as we speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I appreciate the reason behind this and I gather that the Conservatives are open to doing it later. The problem is the 120 days. The government could give us a response, and we would have it when we come back in September.

The problem is that, if we don't adopt the motion today, we won't have a response until Christmas. The government has 120 days to provide its response. The people who worked on the report want answers as soon as possible.

When we start working in September, we could review the report and the government's response. At that point, we could decide whether to follow up on the study, undertake a new one or emphasize an additional aspect.

The issue is delaying the committee's work by 120 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Sari, would you like to comment on the amendment?

Go ahead, please.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I think the amendment has more to do with form than substance. I completely agree that the content is already available online. Personally, I didn't know I was going to be on this committee a week ago. I don't think we've had much spare time lately, so we have not had time to read every single report that has been posted on the House of Commons website.

Now, I'd like to get back to the form of the motion. I encourage members to read the motion as proposed again. There are a few things I don't quite agree with from a procedural standpoint.

The motion, as written, calls on the committee to adopt a study because it was completed. I'm coming back to the motion as it is written. I, personally, am not all that comfortable adopting it. That is why I support my fellow member's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Just for clarity, it's a motion that's been adopted by almost every committee this week. There's nothing that has changed.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We are being asked to adopt it. It says so in black and white.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Majumdar, please go ahead. Then I have Ms. Church after that.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Chair, let me try and get this straight. I'm new to Parliament, in a sense, and certainly new to committee, but I'm a bit of a nerd. I enjoy going through the websites and doing the homework before arriving for work.

Mr. Thériault had articulated how in the initial report we have a 120-day deadline for the government to respond to the report, which would allow for us to continue committee business properly and in earnest in the fall, which I think is the intention of every member around this table. Because some colleagues across the table have not done their due diligence and their basic homework, which is part of the obligation of being a public office holder, we are now looking to find a way to beg for time.

I know we are in a new Parliament and we have a new government, but I'm curious whether the tactics in this new Parliament are going to be the same as those used by the previous government. This, I think, is a good-faith gesture to continue the work the committee started in the past in the way in which all other committees in Parliament have been taking on the responsibility to do that work. This strikes me as speciously obstructionist at a point where we should be focusing on the business of Parliament and the business of the people. If the Carney government chooses to employ the same tactics as the Trudeau government and relitigate these old issues by using procedural delays and ignorance as a foil, then that will be very unfortunate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Majumdar.

I'll recognize Ms. Church and then Mr. Saini, on the amendment.