Evidence of meeting #35 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
That's a wonderful question, Ms. Church.
We will be sitting until 4:37 this evening.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
In that case, I would like to ensure that other colleagues around the table have a chance to speak in the next 10 or so minutes, but please add my name to the bottom of the speaking order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Here's what I'm going to do. Rather than start that right now and have the unenviable task of cutting somebody off, I am going to suspend this meeting to the call of the chair and advise committee members that we do have resources tomorrow evening from 6:30 potentially until 10:30.
I'm going to suspend this meeting to the call of the chair.
The room hasn't been determined yet, but once it is, I will let everybody know.
The meeting is suspended.
[The meeting was suspended at 4:27 p.m., Tuesday, April 14]
[The meeting resumed at 6:35 p.m., Wednesday, April 15 ]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
As I've been starting off a lot lately, when we last left our superheroes, the meeting had been suspended to be resumed today.
Before we begin, I do want to make a couple of comments.
We're coming into our 12th hour of debating a motion. Many of you have seen the motion. There's an amendment on the floor right now that we have been debating for the better part of 12 hours. I want us to start this meeting with clear heads.
We're on the amendment to remove the last line of the motion. Throughout the course of what's been going on, Conservative members have indicated that they will support this and with the numbers, the amendment will pass, so there's no need to filibuster that part of the motion. I sense as well that there is concern about the part of the motion particularly with respect to the executives—I got that sense throughout the course of the debate over the last 12 hours—and that it may, in fact, include the minister's wife.
I think Mr. Barrett the other day made it very clear that there is no intention to invite the minister's wife to this committee. The motion talks about Mr. Imbleau and executives from Alto. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. When this motion was first drafted, and I think Mr. Barrett referred to this the other day, or may not have, it did include the minister's wife. I know that Mr. Barrett pushed back on that and did not see the need to have the minister's wife there, so that's why it's not in the motion. I believe that at some point, when we get there, we can remove the part that refers to the executives with an amendment when we get to the main motion. That may solve the issue, even before it's discussed. It may.
Given the fact that the Conservatives have already indicated, and the numbers are there, that they will support the amendment, and given the fact that the Liberals have expressed concern about that part of what I referred to as the executives, and that could in fact be removed when we get to the main motion, I am going to leave this to the parties to discuss and find a solution to end this 12-hour filibuster impasse. If one is not found, then we will continue, so I'm looking for some good faith here.
What I'm going to do is suspend this meeting. I'm going to ask the parties to talk this out, and if there's no resolution to be found, then you can come back to me and say so, and then we'll be here until however long we have resources.
The meeting is suspended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you for your patience everyone.
We're on the amendment. I'm going to ask if we have unanimous consent to remove the last line, “And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study”. Do we have unanimous consent to remove that?
Mr. Saini, is that a yes?
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I believe we have come to a consensus on the amendment. We can come to a vote on that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We don't have to come to a vote if we have consensus. Unless you want a vote, sir. Do you want a vote on that?
Liberal
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I would also like to add my name to the list after the amendment is taken care of.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
We have Mr. Hardy, then Mr. Barrett.
We're on the amendment. We've asked for a vote.
I see Mr. Thériault, too.
Madam Clerk, on the amendment. I'll remind everybody that the amendment is that the sentence, “And that the committee report to the House that its undertaking of the study” be removed from the motion. That line would be stricken.
(Amendment agreed to)
We are back on the main motion.
Mr. Saini, you are on for the main motion.
I have a list. I have MPs Hardy, Barrett, Thériault, Goodridge, Church, Lapointe and Ramsay.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
There's Mr. St-Pierre, as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I have Mr. St-Pierre, too. We have quite the list on the main motion.
Mr. Saini, go ahead on the main motion, please.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I would like to move that we delete item number two from the main motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
To delete item number two from the main motion. That's fine, Mr. Saini.
The amendment is to remove line number two. Line number two says, “Executives from Alto, including CEO Martin Imbleau, for two hours”.
It's to delete that in it's entirety, sir. Is that correct?
Do you have anything to say about that?
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Yes. I want to begin my remarks by grounding the discussion in the facts, because as much as the Conservatives wish what they hear to be true, facts do matter. Facts matter to Canadians.
After hours of debate in the committee, Canadians deserve clarity. They don't want the Conservative Party to take them down the road of another witch hunt over a conflict of interest, one that the Ethics Commissioner himself has confirmed does not exist.
How much time did the Conservatives waste in Parliament last year? Why is the Conservatives' only plan for Canadians to delay and stop the government's aim to make life better and more affordable for all Canadians?
The entire motion before us hinges on the suggestion of a potential conflict of interest involving the minister on Alto's high-speed rail project, but the central fact, confirmed by the Ethics Commissioner independently, is that the Ethics Commissioner has already reviewed the situation and has found that there is no risk of a conflict of interest.
According to the reporting on CTV by news journalist Judy Trinh, the Ethics Commissioner's office examined the relationship in question and determined that a conflict, or even in a potential conflict, in the exercise of his duty as the Minister of Finance has not taken place. Those findings matter. It should be disposed.
Because of our system of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner is not a partisan actor. Conservative members and Bloc members of this committee know this. The commissioner is an independent officer of Parliament tasked precisely with making these decisions so that parliamentarians can rely on impartial guidance, not speculation, and with no political narrative, but an evidence-based conclusion. The conclusion here is clear and resolute. There is no conflict.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Saini.
The amendment is on the floor, again, to remove item number two.
I have Mr. Barrett first, on the—
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Chair, I also want to make sure that my name is on the speaking list.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. As it stands right now, on the amendment, not on the main motion, I have Mr. Barrett, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Thériault and Ms. Goodridge. Those are the names that I have, so I'll put you on that list, Mr. Saini, on the motion as amended, okay?
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. This is on the amendment. I have Mr. Barrett, Mr. Hardy, Madam Goodridge, Mr. Saini, Ms. Lapointe, Mr. St-Pierre and Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Thériault is number three. Did I not say that?
Go ahead, Mr. Barrett, on the amendment, please.
