Evidence of meeting #3 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Chair, I think it's very clear that my colleague had an amendment that he intended to make at some point after my amendment was considered by the room. Now, I don't think that any of us here want to get into a debate about who put up a hand before you looked in the general direction and called this vote. We have another at least 35 minutes allocated to the business of this committee, and I think it is more than appropriate that my colleague be given a chance to move the amendment that he so clearly indicated to the room that he intended to make.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Church.
The ruling of the chair was sustained by the committee. I am going to, again, proceed on the vote. I appreciate your intervention on the question of privilege, but the committee did speak on the chair's decision, so we're going to go to the vote.
Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I raised a question of privilege, but you have not yet given me the floor.
I just want it noted in the minutes that I am raising a question of privilege about what happened. I asked to move an amendment, and you answered that I would have the opportunity to do so. We then voted on another amendment, but now you want to vote on the motion without hearing our amendments. I want it noted in the minutes that you promised me, very clearly, that two other amendments could be proposed, but that you then changed your mind, perhaps because you're in a hurry.
Right now, we don't have freedom of expression in this committee. We can't speak clearly and propose the amendments we want to propose. We could have moved them once and for all to debate them, but you told us we had to wait and proceed one amendment at a time. That's what you said, Mr. Chair. You said it in English, and that was interpreted into French in my ear. So I expect us to be able to propose our amendments. You promised it, and then you changed your mind.
Please at least explain to us why you changed your mind. That would be very relevant. Right now, we have two amendments that are very relevant to the motion, to help you and to ensure that we can work together. However, now, we can't speak our minds.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Sari.
Again, I go back to the fact that the decision of the committee has been made. I accept the decision of the committee, so we are going to go to the vote on the main motion.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Chair, I find it very difficult that the committee is not prepared to listen to the member on such an important issue as changing the ethics rules. I don't know.... I think it's just.... You're trying to force your will onto other members when Mr. Sari had an amendment and I had an amendment, and you're saying no. I want it to be recorded that this is not how democracy should work.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. Saini, the way the minutes of the meeting work is that those decisions that are made either by the committee or the chair are what are going to be recorded in the minutes of this meeting. Again, the decision of the committee is clear. It sustained the decision of the chair, so we are going to go to the vote on the motion.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
I have a question of personal privilege.
Mr. Chair, I think the Standing Orders say:
Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate.
I believe that this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in right now. The chair has brought an end to the debate arbitrarily while there are members who clearly still wish to debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I will respectfully disagree with you on that. The decision of the chair was that there were no hands to continue any further debate. I went to call the vote. My decision was challenged, and the decision was sustained by members of the committee, so I am going to go to the vote.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
I did indicate that my two colleagues wanted to move an amendment. You asked that we conclude debate on Ms. Church's amendment. You really said we were going to wait.
Now you're saying that we won't be hearing from our two colleagues. We've sat on other committees together before. I didn't expect that from you, as someone with so much experience. I'm disappointed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
You can have the opinion you want. I didn't see any hands. I made the decision, and it was sustained. You can raise all the questions of privilege you want. The committee sustained the chair's decision, which means that we're going to go to the vote on the main motion.
Call the vote, Madam Clerk.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Chair, I find it very difficult. When we were debating Ms. Church's amendment, my hand was up, and you said we'd deal with that one and then you'd come to me. I find it very difficult that now you're saying that you didn't see my hand when it was clear that you were indicating that you'd come back to me after we dealt with Ms. Church's amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I think I made it very clear that we can't debate any further amendments. You weren't proposing a subamendment.
When I made my decision.... When I thought the debate was over and I didn't see any hands up, that's when I called the vote, Mr. Saini. I'm not going to make something up, that your hand was up, because it wasn't when I called the vote. You rightly challenged, and I appreciate the fact that you can do that. I gave you that opportunity. The chair's decision was sustained, so there's no further discussion on this. The committee has made its decision, and we're going to go to the vote.
I'm going to call the vote on the main motion.
Madam Clerk.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
When you ruled that debate was over, it was on the amendment. There was only one amendment on the table at that time. You made that decision before moving on to other amendments. You asked the committee to wait for the other amendments. I then told you that I would send you amendments by email. You told me that we could wait.
When debate is on the table, it always concerns a single amendment and not the others. In fact, you yourself postponed the other amendments to debate them at a later time.
That said, will you behave like this at every committee meeting? If so, it will be difficult to work with you in the future. To take for granted what the chair is saying is information we can understand. Is that how we will operate and work in the future?
Today, I'm learning that what we can gather from your comments isn't necessarily the right thing. That is disappointing, especially in the case of a committee that is supposed to set an example when it comes to ethics. We all understood the same thing, that we had to wait to move on to other amendments. I think we're smart enough to understand what you're saying, whether it's in English or in French.
My question is simple: Will you always behave like this? If so, we'll have to be careful in the future. Although I don't have any experience at the federal level, I have sat on commissions for quite some time. However, I've never experienced such restricted opportunities for expression as what I'm experiencing today at the federal level.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Sari.
My decision was based on the fact that there was no more debate on the motion, and that's why we moved to that. The decision was made by the committee to sustain the decision of the chair.
We are now going to the vote on the motion.
Madam Clerk.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We've started the vote, sir.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1)
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Chair, we also want to move a motion, which I will give you after I read it.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Our motion reads as follows:
That the committee undertake a comprehensive study of the Lobbying Act to assess its effectiveness in ensuring transparency and ethical conduct in lobbying activities; that witnesses include the Commissioner of Lobbying, representatives from civil society, former public office holders, and ethics experts; that the committee report its findings and propose legislative or regulatory reforms to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109 the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.
Mr. Thériault, do you have something to say on the motion? No.
Is there more discussion? I don't see any.
Do we have consensus on the motion proposed by Madame Lapointe?
(Motion agreed to)