Finance Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I guess all I'm saying—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Come on, Gerretsen; come to order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Just to finish up my point—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I guess all I'm saying, Mr. Chair, on my point of order, is that I am attributing what I believe to be the political objective here, not an individual person's motive. That is entirely fair, because it happens all the time in our parliamentary process and democracy generally speaking.

You can rule on that, but then I'd like to continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I don't think there's anything to rule on. I'm seeing both as a matter of debate in the context of the discussion here.

Go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

Just getting back to that, I'm concerned by the fact that—

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

On a point of order, just quickly—sorry—you're saying that he can talk about our motivation as part of his debate. Is that what you're saying?

That's relevant to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's relevant to the amendment, because it's relevant to the conclusion of the motion.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

It's his own conjecture, what our motivation is. I mean, we've been trying to get this sped up and he's giving us a different motivation.

Sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There's no need to be sorry. You're entitled to make your point.

I'm seeing it as part of the debate on the reason for the motion, the analysis around the motion and the different opinions on the motion. We're seeing these kinds of points raised by all sides in the debate thus far.

Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just jumping back to that, what I'm basically getting at here is what I perceive to be going on: The only objective is to try to bring forward something in such a quick fashion as to be able to grandstand with the information.

What we've been trying to do, and this is what I've been getting at, is to put forward some amendments to the motion to set out the parameters in which the information is delivered so that it can be done in a way that is very easy for people to digest, for members to digest and for the Canadian public to digest. That's the premise of the two motions I brought forward previously.

I bring forward another motion to you, Mr. Chair. Hopefully, the members would agree that this subamendment would be more in line with what they think is appropriate, because I think this one is equally as important.

It reads as follows: “That, further, the committee requests the complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons by relevant deputy ministers or signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as final packages of documents that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons approved for release; that both the document packages be provided to the committee no later than October 19, 2020; and that after the committee reviews the two different versions of the documents, the committee invite each of the relevant deputy ministers or signatories of the transmittal letters, as well as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, to give testimony regarding the redactions applied to the documents that were requested and granted in the motion adopted on July 7, 2020; and that until such time as the testimony is complete, debate on the motion and the amendment from Mr. Poilievre be suspended; and that the Chair be authorized to schedule these witnesses and convene a meeting to resume the debate on Mr. Poilievre's motion once these meetings have taken place.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Is the motion—

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Chair, is this admissible? This is not Mr. Kelly's amendment anymore. I'm not sure what's happening all of a sudden here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is where we are. We have the original motion by Mr. Poilievre. We have the amendment by Mr. Kelly. We now have another subamendment from Mr. Gerretsen. From what I heard, it does relate to the motion and the amendment on the table. It is substantially different from the previous subamendments that were debated and lost. The subamendment is in order.

What I was going to ask was this: Does the clerk have a copy of that and can it be sent out to members for their discussion?

We'll let you—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I already have it in English and French, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to send that to the clerk right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Send it to the clerk if you could. We'll let you speak on it for a further moment if you'd like, and then we'll establish a new list.

I'm still looking at the old list. I have Ms. Dzerowicz first. Are there any others who want to raise their hands? Mr. Fragiskatos. Anyone else?

Okay. If you'd send it over to the clerk, she can send it out to people. They can have a good look at it, and you can speak on it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you. I'm just confirming that my staff are sending that out, so everybody should have that shortly. It'll go via the clerk.

I'll get back to what I was saying previously. I'm trying to find a solution here as to how the information can be transmitted back to committee in a way that is going to have the proper—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mrs. Vecchio.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Just looking at the procedural stuff, since the subamendment is not in order—it includes suspending debate on the main motion—can we check on that? We have an amendment, a subamendment, but this is actually another amendment. He's saying it's a subamendment, but how many amendments should we be going into?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It is in order, I believe, unless somebody can give me a reason it's not. It's just to back up a little bit, Karen, or Mrs. Vecchio—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Karen's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The original motion came in from Mr. Poilievre, and I know you came in a little late—you're filling in for somebody else. Then there was an amendment by Mr. Kelly to basically pull the documents from the first session of the 43rd Parliament. Then there was the subamendment that was debated for quite a while, and that was defeated.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Yes.