Information & Ethics Committee on May 4th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

By my count, we have four amendments to the motion, including two different sections, sections (b) and (c). It's not substantive, but I think it does warrant a suspension just so that members of the committee are aware of what they're voting on.

Ms. Church, I'm going to ask if you're able to share that with the clerk. I think the clerk has captured most of it, but are you able to share that?

I'm going to suspend for a few minutes until members are comfortable enough to understand what they're going to be voting on here and the changes.

Are you ready?

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

We're ready.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Bonin, do we need to suspend the meeting? Have you had a chance to look at Ms. Church's proposed amendments?

I can see that you're ready to continue.

We're on the amendment. I'm going to go to Mr. Hardy on the amendment. I'm not going to suspend. Let's keep this going.

Go ahead, Mr. Hardy.

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

I'll be brief.

Ms. Church, again, on our end, we decided to let it go through and to support your proposed amendment. However, you always have an ulterior motive in mind. You're basically amending the motion again to reap more benefits by introducing other amendments. Honestly, that's disingenuous. We've been discussing this for a long time. I agreed with your proposal to remove section (b). I even voted in favour of it. We expected a clear signal that we were moving forward.

In the end, you have other proposals to change things once again. That's a shame. That isn't collaboration. You just want to pull in what you want in order to get your way. That's exactly what you have been doing for the past year. You'll be doing this more and more now that you have the majority in the committees. It's a shame, but that's your proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that I don't have the amendment in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I don't know whether it was sent to the clerk and whether we can have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We don't have the amendment in French. However, I can suspend the meeting for a few minutes so that you can receive it.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I suppose that the Liberals were ready to move their amendment. It can't have come out of thin air at the last minute. There must be a French version.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Church, do you have the amendment in French, or is it only in English?

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

I can send it over.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to call the meeting back to order.

An amendment has been shared with the committee. Now, I will say that my understanding of what Ms. Church proposed is quite different from what we have received.

The motion as amended would read as follows:

That the committee:

(a) require the Privy Council Office (PCO) to provide the committee, on a quarterly basis, with a report detailing each time an assessment was undertaken relating to the application of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen;

The amendment to the motion that we received strikes every part past “interest screen”, which isn't my understanding of what Ms. Church proposed, and I think it's not the understanding of the majority of the members of the committee.

The amendment continues:

(b) post the reports publicly on the committee's website; and,

(c) invite the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner every quarter, to discuss the contents of the most recent quarterly report from PCO.

I'll just make this clear for the members of the committee. The amendment is proposing to, one, replace “the fifteenth day of each month” with “a quarterly basis”; two, delete from “pursuant to the Assessment Tool” to “came into effect”; three, add “(b) post the reports publicly on the committee's website; and,”; and four, add “(c) invite the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner every quarter, to discuss the contents of the most recent quarterly report from PCO.” That is the amendment we are dealing with right now.

I'm going to go to Mr. Hardy on the amendment, please.

Please go ahead, Mr. Hardy.

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

Again, we've just experienced something quite extraordinary here in the committee.

Ms. Church, you're proposing to delete 75% of the motion. There were 12 sentences, and you're proposing to keep three. That's your proposal.

Not only did you propose to delete section (b) in its entirety, which we agreed to do, but you're now proposing to delete 75% of section (a). You'll probably go on to make videos saying that we don't want to participate and that we aren't working collaboratively. However, from the start, your proposals have sought to make ours insignificant enough for you to be able to ultimately say that we voted against them. You're basically proposing to take away 75% of the work that we believe must be done to make the government accountable.

Today, people are looking at us and wondering what's going on in these parliamentary committees. What's going on is what we've just experienced today, once again. Not only did you move the committee meeting in camera last week and not only did you ask us today to delete section (b)—which we agreed to do in the interest of collaboration—but then you were ready to delete 75% of section (a) right afterwards. Your documents were ready and you knew where things were going. You don't want to work in good faith, so you come with the proposal to delete 75% of section (a). The only words remaining would be “That the committee”. I suppose that you should be proud of this. You're proposing to leave just one short sentence. You'll then hold a press conference to tell the world that the Conservatives are the ones opposing it.

Honestly, this is a sad state of affairs. The collaboration was there. We wanted to work with you. We've done this before, and you're doing this. So keep at it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

I have Mr. Barrett next on the list.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

We're building this plane in the air. This is going to complicate it because I don't have this in writing, so we'll have to write it, send it to the clerk and then get it translated. This is likely going to precipitate a suspension, but I would like there to be a discussion about whether Liberal members are amenable to this. Perhaps that could productively happen between now and the next meeting. We'll need to get some indication of that. Otherwise, perhaps we just continue on until the wee hours of the morning.

My subamendment would be that the amendment be amended by replacing “pursuant to the Assessment Tool” with “(iii) any records of discussions”, and that's in part two.

Recognizing that it's as complicated to write after I have said it as it was for me to have said it.... I'm not sure at what juncture you'd like to suspend, but I'm also happy to attempt to articulate what that is and why it's important.

Mr. Chair, just while you take a quick look at it, I'll say that this is information that exists, so we're not looking for the creation of new information. This is not going to create more kinetic activity at PCO or slow them down in the other work they're doing. However, it does further the ends that Ms. Church is advancing with her amendment to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Let me come back to you on that. I am going to suspend because I do want it distributed in both official languages as well. I realize as you say that we're building an aircraft in the air here.

The subamendment is in order. I understand where Mr. Barrett is going with it, but I do want to make sure, out of respect for members of the committee, that they do have it in both official languages. It should be a simple translation and amendment to read.

I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

If somebody wants to propose unanimous consent to distribute the translation on the subamendment a little later on, I understand that we have unanimous consent.

Mr. Barrett, do you want to...?

It's UC to redistribute the French translation.

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

Absolutely, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Do we have UC on that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

I also understand that there is agreement among the parties to deal with this at a later date. Does somebody want to explain so that people are aware publicly of what's going on here?

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

We discussed the amendment and the subamendment, and we are looking to get to a good-faith resolution of this that provides that transparency. We seem to be moving in that direction collectively, and we don't want to impede that progress because right now we don't seem to have all of the answers we're looking for. The conversations have suggested that all parties agree to resume consideration of the motion on the subamendment at an agreed-upon time following our next regularly scheduled meeting, after this Thursday. That would be after the two-week constituency break.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's not the desire of the committee, then, for me to call a meeting at eight o'clock tomorrow morning until midnight tomorrow night. Is that safe to say?