Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 17th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

I have Ms. Church and then Mr. Sari.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In respect to Mr. Theriault and his comments, part of the rationale for bringing forward the amendment actually had to do with the points that were raised by Mr. Theriault at our last session.

Just as a point of clarification, the language that I have proposed here for the amendment is directly from the Conflict of Interest Act.

The purpose of the act is set out in 3(d) and 3(e) of the act, as follows:

(d) encourage experienced and competent persons to seek and accept public office; and

(e) facilitate interchange between the private and public sector.

Part of why I believe that this actually is in scope and is an important part of the review is that these are delineated objectives of the act that we are seeking to review here. If we look at Mr. Barrett's motion, we see that he set out in his third sub—(a)(iii)—that all of the pieces of the review that in his view we should actually be reviewing as a committee, which are within the scope of the act currently as well—blind trusts and such, how we deal with ownerships and how we deal with conflicts of interest—are elements in the act currently.

Mr. Theriault, I appreciate how you've set out your intention to vote against the amendment, but I just wanted to be extremely clear that my intention here was to pull language from the act itself, just as in the preceding subparagraph of Mr. Barrett's motion, to emphasize the areas that we should be looking at as parliamentarians when we are reviewing the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Church.

Mr. Sari, you have the floor on the amendment.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes, I will speak to the amendment, and I would also like to respond to Mr. Thériault.

I agree that, when someone wants to become a member of Parliament, they have to apply—in other words, run for office, and earn people's trust. However, the door must be open to everyone, especially people who have the required skills. Fundamentally, I believe that we shouldn't create barriers that prevent people from entering politics, and that's where Mr. Thériault and I disagree. We have to encourage people to enter politics, and that means not creating barriers, as was done for visible minorities and feminist movements. It's very important. Maintaining these barriers will prevent us from accessing the skills of people who have proven themselves in the private sector. The reason I don't agree with Mr. Thériault is that, by leaving this element in, we are creating constraints and barriers and depriving ourselves of skills that could serve the public interest.

Concerning the actual amendment, the reason our party is so keen on it is not because we want to favour the private sector; it's just to make room for people who have experience and expertise. Right now, these people are aware that coming here could harm their future or they could be singled out, as we see in this kind of a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

I don't have anybody else on the list, so we are going to the amendment proposed by Ms. Church.

There is a tie. I vote against.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We are now back on the main motion.

Is there any discussion on the main motion? As there's no discussion on the main motion, we're going to call the vote on the main motion.

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

I would like to amend the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have already called the vote, Mr. Saini.

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

I had my hand up before you called the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

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

Mr. Chair, long before you asked for the vote, I had my hand up.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Saini, I called for the vote. I didn't see any hands when I asked if there was any other discussion, so I am going to the vote. If you would like to challenge my decision on that, please, go ahead. We're going to the vote, sir.

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

Yes—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You mentioned it earlier, but you didn't mention it just now when I asked if there was any other discussion. That was the time for you to raise your hand.

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

As a new member, maybe I misunderstood you. When I say I want to speak and propose an amendment, that should be considered.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

My ruling is that when I called for further discussion on the main motion, there was no other discussion. We are going to the vote. There will be no other discussion on this.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

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

Mr. Chair, before the vote on Ms. Church's amendment, my colleague had already stated his intention to move another amendment afterwards. So, if he can no longer move his amendment, I don't think that's fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I've made my decision. If you'd like to challenge me on my decision, I invite you to do that. Otherwise, we're going to the vote.

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

I would like to challenge going to the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have a challenge to the chair on the decision to go to the vote.

Madam Clerk, would you pose the question, please, and explain what a yea or nay vote means?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Nancy Vohl]

On the challenge on the ruling of the chair, the question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? If you think that the decision of the chair should be sustained, that it's the decision that you think is correct, you vote for. If you think that the ruling of the chair is incorrect, that it should not be sustained, you vote against.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have a challenge.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I think there will be minutes of proceedings. Before we go to a vote—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Mr. Sari, but a challenge is not debatable. Those are the rules. The challenge has been made to the decision of the chair. We're going to go to a vote.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I said that before we even get to a vote on the chair's ruling—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, but there's no debating this. The challenge has been made. It's a non-debatable challenge, so we're going to go to the vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)

Look, it's the first week back. I'm still getting used to things. The vote is to sustain the decision of the chair, which means we go to the vote on the main motion.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.