Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 17th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be more direct, in that case.

I would like to propose an amendment to the motion in the hope that my colleagues might be amenable to it.

Part (a)(iii) now reads as follows:

that it be an instruction to the committee to consider, as part of its review, whether the act should be amended or expanded with a view to enhancing transparency, preventing conflicts of interest, avoiding potential or apparent conflicts of interest, regulating public office holders’ ownership of assets in tax havens, limiting the availability of blind trusts as a compliance measure, extending the act’s provisions to political party leaders and leadership candidates,

I'm wondering whether here we could amend the motion by including “expanding consistency between the act and the Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House of Commons”. This would come before “and increasing penalties for non-compliance; and”. It would be just that one addition.

The rationale there, Mr. Chair, is that many of us wear multiple hats as parliamentarians. We are guided by both the Conflict of Interest Act and the code, yet there are some discrepancies between the two. We have two regimes, not one. Again, since many of us do wear multiple hats, I think it's worthy of review as to whether or not there's an opportunity to actually bring these two closer together. There are many instances when, for example, members are provided with briefings that can provide early insight into government programs and announcements, yet only the code applies, not the act. Wouldn't it make more sense for us to be under a more consistent regime of conflict of interest guidance?

If we're going to undertake a study of the act, I think it might be interesting to see whether there's some value in bringing the code into this discussion as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

There is a challenge with what you're proposing, Ms. Church, in that Mr. Barrett is talking about the act and you're talking about the code. The code is generally under the purview of the procedure and House affairs committee. It doesn't fall under the mandate of the ethics committee. The act itself could, so I have a bit of a challenge with the way you've done that, because the code actually deals with the code of conduct for members. The act actually speaks specifically to the Prime Minister and ministers.

Just give me a second here while I confirm this with the clerk. The fact is that what you're proposing as an amendment may not only be outside the mandate of what we can do as a committee but also be out of order.

Let me deal with this for a second.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

As I explained, the act and the code....

Mr. Thériault, are you raising your hand to speak to the topic at hand?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Actually, Mr. Chair, I'm waiting for your ruling. If your decision is to keep the amendment, I will intervene to request that the written document be sent to me by email, because I'm not sure the interpretation is enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

As I said, there is a difference between the code and the act. The code is administered by the House.

Your amendment specifically deals with the code of conduct as it relates to members. I would suggest that a better vehicle for that would be through the procedure and House affairs committee, if you want to talk to your colleagues about that, because I know they had a comprehensive review of the code in the last Parliament.

Anything that deals with the act itself, as it relates to designated public office holders or ministers, is well within our purview as a committee to deal with and to make those recommendations.

Maybe, in the scope of any discussion or study that we have, we'd recommend that it change, but as it stands right now I'd have to rule the amendment out of order, given the explanation I just gave and the discussions I've had with the clerk and the analysts as well. I apologize for that.

Mr. Sari, go ahead, please.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

First of all, I have a point of order on this amendment that you're ruling out of order, which is fine. However, if an amendment is in the interest of each and every one of us, I think we should at least receive it in writing, whether in French or in English. That would give us a clear understanding of the meaning.

When I talked about the first wording earlier, I made a mistake, and I apologize. It was actually an amendment I wanted to move. I was expecting the text of the amendment to be sent by email so that everyone could read it. As long as the amendment is in order, we have to study it. Where appropriate, there could also be a subamendment that we could accept.

Right now, we can't rely solely on our auditory memory to follow the debate on this motion. It's impossible. At one point, we received a motion in writing. We were able to read it and then discuss it.

I don't personally have the ability to analyze the amendment based solely on my auditory memory. That would be really impossible.

I'm simply asking that whenever an item is added, we at least receive it in writing and suspend the meeting for a few minutes so that we can discuss it. That's really in the interest of each and every one of us.

I'll go back to the first point I made earlier. I have to say that I'm not very comfortable with the first wording. I think it would be very important to say the following:

…that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government provide a comprehensive response to the report.

That's much more how I really see the role of our committee. I think that's what we need to discuss.

As for the other items, I do indeed have other amendments to propose, and I'd like for us to be able to discuss them. If you want us to bundle the amendments, we need a little time to send them and analyze them, one amendment at a time. I still have four amendments to propose for the three paragraphs.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

On this particular amendment that was moved, I've already ruled it out of order. You are well within your rights to move other amendments, if you would like.

The next speaker on the list is Mr. Saini.

Mr. Saini, I had you on list. Go ahead, sir. We're on the motion now. We're not speaking on the amendment. We're on the motion.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I would like to ask the clerk for clarification. Does the House have the authority to do what Mr. Barrett is asking?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, sir. Could you just repeat that?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

On the motion that is in front of us, does the House have the authority to deal with it? I'm asking the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to suggest that if it's the desire of the committee to support the motion as presented, which I've ruled is in order, then it would be up to the committee to decide that. The text of the motion and the ask of the motion would, in that case, go back to the House, but there are other parts of the motion that we would start dealing with right away.

We have the authority to deal with the motion that's on the floor right now.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

The House has given this committee the authority to deal with it under Standing Order109. Why are we going back to the House?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We want to make sure—and I don't disagree with you that we do have the authority—that when it does go back to the House and the House gives us this, then we can actually deal with this study in its entirety and not worry, and we can get the House's blessing on this.

I assume this is why it was written this way, Mr. Barrett. I'm going to go to you for an explanation, and I'm going to talk to the clerk here.

In talking to the clerk, just for clarification, under Standing Order 109, the committees may make a request to the House for global orders and answers, and the committees can report back to the House, so it's well within our right to do that, sir.

I have another hand. Go ahead, Ms. Church.

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

Thank you again.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to try this again. I have another amendment I'd like to propose to the motion at hand. I'd like to propose this as subparagraph 4(a)(iv):

that it be an instruction to the committee to consider, as part of its review, whether the act should be amended or expanded to ensure it meets the objectives set out in the Conflict of Interest Act to encourage experienced and competent persons to seek and accept public office and to facilitate interchange between the private and public sector;

Those are words taken directly from the act itself. This would be important for us to consider as well, because if we're looking at the expansion and enhancement of the act in different ways, it's important that we also return to the overall objectives of the act and whether or not the act itself is meeting those objectives that were originally set out. I think a lot of those objectives are behind many of the considerations in the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Before we get into debate, just let me check with the clerk here for a second.

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

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

What the clerk and I were talking about is this. For you to move your motion, I need you to speak slowly and clearly, so that the clerk can take the motion and understand what the words are, because she will write it down and then we will distribute an amended motion, if accepted, to the committee members as well.

Ms. Church has the floor.

Mr. Sari, I'll come to you after Ms. Church, unless you have a point of order.

Okay, go ahead with your point of order.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much.

Since we're on the same team, I would prefer that we suspend the meeting so that we can draft the amendments and send them to you. That would be much better than proposing them orally and then having them transcribed, because that could leave the question of which version is the right one, and it isn't ideal to have to amend amendments. It's better to suspend the meeting and come back with well-written amendments, which the clerk can send to everyone. That would be ideal, and it would save us time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

This is why I asked Ms. Church to speak slowly. If we start suspending every time we have a written amendment.... This is not a long amendment. I've asked Ms. Church to speak slowly and clearly on this, so that the clerk can translate. She will send it to everyone. I can't suspend the meeting every time somebody wants to move an amendment, unless it's a substantive, long-winded amendment. I want to make sure that we're getting through this. Is that okay?

We're still on the point of order. Go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Thériault had his hand up before the others.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Mr. Thériault, do you have a point of order?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's on the issue—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. If you want to raise a point of order, please say so.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Liberals are putting forward amendments. I imagine they had already read the motion, which had been put on notice before the meeting. It's up to them to send us the written amendments they want to propose.

I would agree with suspending the meeting so that all their amendments can be written and sent by email. That way, there will be no more discussion. If you rule them out of order, we'll have the exact wording. At present, it's very difficult to follow with simultaneous interpretation, especially since the way in which the amendments are presented isn't very clear.

I agree that we should suspend the meeting, but this is probably the last time for this motion, because I don't have an amendment to propose. It seems as if it's only the Liberals who want to do that. However, I wouldn't want us to take a break every time an unexpected amendment is proposed. That's their business.

In short, I would take a five-minute break because I can't keep up, but I'd like us to continue the meeting afterward.