Evidence of meeting #42 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 screen.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you.
Again, I'm getting the sense that it's okay with members of the committee to have both the Ethics Commissioner and the finance minister come to committee on June 11, notwithstanding that the motion said it should be the week of the 25th.
Do I have that right?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm just clarifying. The idea is to have the Ethics Commissioner—
Liberal
Fares Al Soud Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
He'd be here for one hour, and then we'd find something else to do for the other hour.
My understanding is that we have two draft reports. We have a variety of studies we could otherwise do. I propose that we make use of the time we have. This is important, valuable time, and we have work to do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
For clarity, if the decision of the committee is to include this on the 11th, we can have the lobbying study done on Thursday as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
The two hours on Thursday will be filled.
The original intent of the committee, from what I understand, was to have the Ethics Commissioner and the finance minister appear at the same time. That's what we're trying to accommodate. I think we can reasonably do that on June 11. At least, the commissioner indicated that he is available. The finance minister said he's available on June 11.
We will have a full agenda on Thursday. I promise you that.
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
That was the first time I heard clarification from the chair that the Ethics Commissioner has confirmed he is available on June 11.
I would just echo the thought that we should maximize the time of this committee. I am also a new member and have not seen a lot of action on this committee. I would just like to get some stuff done because I know it is a valuable committee.
I know there's a lot of experience on the committee. I think we should be productive. We should be effective regardless of what the structure of the House is. Committee members are masters of our own domain. Let's just get some work done. Let's serve our constituents, let's serve Canadians and let's be productive.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you for that, Ms. Chagger.
I just want to clarify again that the Ethics Commissioner has said he can make himself available June 11 if it is the will of the committee to have him come on the June 11. I'm sensing that that's the will of the committee. Is that correct?
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We agree with the June 11 proposal. Our concern is to make sure that both the commissioner and the minister appear at the same time. Otherwise, it creates problems from a scheduling perspective.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We can't make sure that the minister appears on June 11; we have no control over that. However, that's what he and his office told the committee.
That's what we're counting on.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I was told you had all the powers, Mr. Chair. I was counting on you.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
We should be clear on something. Members opposite said that we haven't gotten a lot of work done and they've been here for a month. There have been extensive Liberal filibusters in that period of time, closing in on 20 hours. Let's not be ahistorical in our comments. That's what happened, to the point that the consideration of draft reports did not happen because of filibusters. That's why we found ourselves in the position of not checking a bunch of things off the list in that period of time.
I think one of the other comments was that not everyone is coming to get work done. I guess it depends on what our definition of that is.
On committees being the masters of our own domain, that is true insofar as committees are respected by ministers. We can order people to appear, but we can't make a minister appear. That's why that was agreed to in good faith. We're proceeding with that, but we can't go without remarking on it that the powers of committee are being diminished when we're ignored.
The final thing I'll say, to the idea that in that month there was not a lot of work and there were a lot of clips, is that I would encourage you to review my social media often—@MikeBarrettON. You can take a look at the clips that I've generated since your time on this committee and how many include what's gone on here during that period of time. Follow, share and like for more, but you're not going to find anything in that period of time alleging that my interventions had been for that purpose.
We wanted the finance minister to come to talk about a matter of public interest. The minister agreed that he would come for this week, and he's now said that he's going to come a different week. We will accept that we cannot control that. The minister said he would be here this week. We expected he would. He's not. The minister says he'll be here on the date that's been prescribed, and we expect that he will.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm going to end the discussion on that note.
We have agreement from everyone that this will happen on June 11. Both the Ethics Commissioner and the finance minister will appear. We'll make sure of that.
The second item I have under committee business is how we left off.... I forget the date, but we were dealing with a motion moved by Mr. Barrett on Thursday, April 23, 2026. It was May 4, as the clerk just reminded me.
I'm not going to read the entirety of the motion, but we were dealing with the wording of the subamendment that was moved by Mr. Barrett. Once the clerk clarified the subamendment, there was to be a discussion among the parties. I think the point people on this were Ms. Church and Mr. Barrett. I think the Bloc was involved in that as well.
It is:
That the amendment be amended by replacing the words:
“2. By deleting, in point (a), the words ‘, pursuant to the assessment tool on the application of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, including assessments originating in the PCO or any department, from the previous month; these reports must include (i) a summary of each instance where an assessment was triggered; (ii) the record of the outcome of each analysis; (iii) any records of discussions or considerations that are in the possession of the PCO or any department related to each analysis, including notes and meeting minutes; and (iv) any correspondence related to each analysis, including emails, text messages, instant messages and other records of conversations; and the first report, which shall be provided to the committee by no later than June 15, 2026, shall include the complete set of information for each assessment since the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen came into effect’; and”
with the following:
“2. By deleting, in point (a), the words ‘(iii) any records of discussions or considerations that are in the possession of the PCO or any department related to each analysis, including notes and meeting minutes; and (iv) any correspondence related to each analysis, including emails, text messages, instant messages and other records of conversations; and the first report, which shall be provided to the committee by no later than June 15, 2026, shall include the complete set of information for each assessment since the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen came into effect’; and”.
That is where we are resuming debate today. We're on the subamendment moved by Mr. Barrett.
As I said earlier, the clerk did clarify the language. That language was to be discussed. I'm assuming that it was, so that's where we are today.
Is there anything on the subamendment? I don't hear any discussion, so I'll call for the vote.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
I'm just going to pause for a second. I have to ask the clerk something.
We are now on the amendment moved by Ms. Church. If anybody needs me to read it, I will, but it's been in everybody's possession for almost a month now.
Is there any discussion on the amendment by Ms. Church?
Mr. Al Soud, go ahead.
Liberal
Fares Al Soud Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to move a subamendment. I move that the amendment be amended by replacing the following:
an assessment was undertaken relating to the application of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, pursuant to the assessment tool on the application of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, including assessments originating in the PCO or any department, from the previous month; these reports must include (i) a summary of each instance where an assessment was triggered; (ii) the record of the outcome of each analysis; (iii) any records of discussions or considerations that are in the possession of the PCO or any department related to each analysis, including notes and meeting minutes; and (iv) any correspondence related to each analysis, including emails, text messages, instant messages and other records of conversations; and the first report, which shall be provided to the committee by no later than June 15, 2026, shall include the complete set of information
I retract my statement, Chair, and I move instead that we delete number 2.
