Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 17th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

The difficulty is that, if an amendment proposes several changes, I have to make a decision on the admissibility of each proposed change.

Ms. Church is now proposing an amendment. The clerk and I will decide whether it's in order. If the amendment is in order, we will then suspend the meeting for three minutes to give the clerk time to write it down and send it to all committee members. After that, we will continue our work on the amendment.

I am going to suspend for three minutes.

Ms. Church, I need you to read that amendment slowly one more time, please.

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

That section (a)(iv) be added to the motion:

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;

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, I'm going to accept that amendment.

Just to be clear, are there any other amendments that you want to propose here?

Go ahead, Madame Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Since this is a very technical text dealing with subjects such as the act, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and those kinds of things, it's very important for me to have the French version too. Of course, I speak English, and I could speak to you in English like you speak to me in French, but I want to be sure I understand everything properly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You're right about that, Ms. Lapointe.

If there are other amendments, I ask you to send them to the clerk right away, because I won't suspend the meeting every time. Our time is limited. Maybe we'll be able to vote on the motion, but maybe not. It would be easier for me and all committee members to work that way.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

In fact, my goal was to ensure that the text was available in both languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, I know that.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, I'm going to suspend for probably three minutes.

Do you have a point of order, Mike? Let me suspend, and we'll get this out.

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That took 20 minutes to write up what is effectively a one-line amendment. I'm going to suggest that if anybody has any other amendments, they do it right away. Send it to the clerk and she'll work on it. Then, if the amendment is moved, she will share it with members of the committee.

I don't want these suspensions. I dealt with too many of them in the last Parliament, and we just wasted time.

We are aware that there may be some typos. I appreciate that, Ms. Church. That's what happens when you work on the fly. The clerk is going to correct the typos.

We are on the amendment that was moved by Ms. Church, which I've accepted. Everybody has it.

Does anybody want to speak to it?

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

I'm going to propose another amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You can't do that, sir, until we dispose of this amendment.

Is there any other discussion on this amendment?

Ms. Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, none of this would have happened if we had received the amendment beforehand so that we could read it. That would have been a lot easier. Hearing it today in committee puts us in a situation where we have to make sure we understand all the implications. As I also explained, it has to be done in both official languages.

Thank you for your understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, thank you.

I have Mr. Barrett and then Mr. Sari.

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

The motion was transmitted in both official languages, so that was never an issue. You got it in English, and you got it in French. It was read very slowly, and we had the highest standard of professional simultaneous translation for the benefit of all members of the committee, so there's no need for that.

My challenge to members opposite, Chair, would be to furnish the committee with amendments that they have prepared for the motion that was on notice, which is not that different from the one we have today. I suspect we will find that many of the amendments we're going to see today have been written since we have been in the room, as would have been the case if I had moved the motion that was on notice. This isn't a question of making sure that things are given in both official languages.

After that 20-minute pause, I would be amenable to being able to see all of the amendments that are going to be proposed.

If this is just an exercise in running down the clock, we're not going to support any of the amendments. If we have a couple of good-faith amendments, we want to have a discussion about it where necessary, but if we're just going to pull on every lever to slow things down as much as we can, then we're not going to support the amendments. They can move them. We'll vote against them. We won't speak to them. If we're truly looking to improve on this, let's do that. I don't think it's helpful to say that this is happening because they didn't get it in advance.

First of all, when committee business is before the committee, it's a member's absolute right to not provide the motion in writing. The committee is not entitled to that, but it was provided in writing in both official languages. This is what happens. Amendments can be made on the matter at hand. You can move an amendment without furnishing the committee with it in writing.

I very much understood the intent of Ms. Church's amendment, with the exception of whether it was replacing or supplementing point four. That wasn't said. Once that was simply said, it was crystal clear and I did not have it in front of me.

My colleague, who speaks French as a first language, heard the motion read in English and was able, he tells me, to understand Ms. Church's intent as well. That's how we're able to do this with the services being provided to us.

On what looks like delay for the sake of delay, please prove me wrong.

Through you, Chair, I would ask the members opposite how many amendments they're going to ask us to consider. The request from Mr. Thériault was to see all of the amendments. They had 20 minutes to furnish you with all of them.

Let's just understand what we're dealing with. Do we need to make a request for additional resources? I don't think there are a lot of committees sitting tonight, so let's figure that out.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Barrett, I think I made my point very clear as well: that if there are any amendments they be sent to the clerk so that she can dispose of them very, very quickly and send them back to members of the committee. If need be, members of the committee can talk while that work is being done.

I appreciate the point that Mr. Thériault and others made—that, you know, you might want to have it in writing—but we do have the services that provide simultaneous interpretation, especially on.... I wouldn't consider Ms. Church's amendment to be that complicated. It was easy to understand, so we're going to proceed on that basis.

Mr. Thériault, I see your hand up, but Mr. Sari is next. Your turn will come after his.

Go ahead, Mr. Sari.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Are you speaking to the amendment?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes, exactly.

We're actually saying the same thing.

Mr. Saini really wanted to add an amendment, but we're not exactly sure how to send you our other amendments. The goal isn't to delay the process, but to get a clear understanding of things. I don't agree that we should just say that we sort of understand the meaning of the amendment. Wording and language are very important. Every word carries weight, and the French translation can sometimes be harmful. In fact, in the motion itself, which Mr. Thériault drafted well, some elements were very poorly translated. That's why I'm bringing this up.

My question to you, Mr. Chair, is this: Do we need to send all of our amendments to you right away, because we have other amendments, or, as you said to Mr. Saini, do we have to deal with this amendment first before moving on to the others?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll answer your question.

Mr. Saini indicated that he wanted to move an amendment.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We deal with one amendment at a time. If he wanted to move a subamendment to the amendment, that's possible—

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Oh, okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

—but that's not what he indicated to me. That is why I intervened and gave him the procedural, correct answer, okay? That's why.

We're on the amendment right now. Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For a few minutes, we discussed an amendment that seemed clear, but anyway….

I have a bit of experience in committees, and I feel that delay tactics are being used.

I find the amendment superfluous. It's superfluous because section 67 clearly states that the act must be reviewed every five years. However, what the committee is doing today is asking the House to give it the mandate that some would like it to have. I don't think that encouraging or not encouraging someone from the private sector to apply, to get elected, is part of the act or should be part of it. That position can be defended and will be discussed during our work, but I don't think it is relevant. I mentioned this to the Ethics Commissioner on Monday. In my opinion, there are stations, jobs and structural positions of people in the private sector that, unfortunately, are incompatible with public office. We will be able to assess that aspect. We'll need to hold that discussion.

Now, to say that we as a committee need to make sure that these people are going to be solicited…. I don't want to solicit anyone. Someone who wants to get involved in politics has to meet the criteria established to ensure there is no conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest. Full stop. We are not a recruitment agency. Competence has nothing to do with wealth, and it has nothing to do with the interests someone defends. Competence has to do with a person's experience, and that's it. They have to prove it. We, as elected officials, have to prove it to the public and will be judged by the public in an election. Those are my thoughts. Therefore, I will be voting against this amendment.

However, I want to say that the motion is written by the book. What needs to be understood is that, earlier, during the first interventions, I understood that the Liberals wanted us to conduct a study calling for a review of the act. In our opinion, we are already at the stage of reviewing the act.

We are asking the House to give the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics the mandate. Full stop. If we agree on that, we can add things to the recommendations and amendments during our study. However, right now, what's important is to know whether we want to have this mandate and ask the House to review the act and to do so as soon as possible.

What the Liberals are proposing, or what seemed to be coming out of their remarks, is to conduct a study so that one of our recommendations to the House would be to review the act. We'll move past that. In any case, it is consistent with section 67 of the act.

Let's speed up the process. I know I have been speaking for a while, but we need to speed up the process.