I'd like to move an amendment, if I could.
This is not unlike Mr. Holland's motion from last week. We know why it's coming up and so on, obviously. We know that Minister Fortier will be a candidate against Ms. Faille in the next campaign in her district, so this is the obvious angle here--not that there weren't legitimate questions that were raised for one day in one new cycle that were dropped the next day because the press gallery recognized there was actually no issue here.
I'm going to put forward an amendment to her motion--I have it prepared here in both official languages and have forwarded it to the clerk--and that is that this issue has been referenced to the Ethics Commissioner for examination. It's in fact very rare in our parliamentary system here in precedent that committees study things ahead of either the Ethics Commissioner or the Information Commissioner or the Privacy Commissioner. So what I'm recommending here is an amendment to Madame Faille's motion.
In French, it reads as follows: "Et que ce comité n'étudie pas cette question avant que le commissaire à l'éthique n'ait eu la possibilité de l'examiner et de faire rapport à la Chambre".
“And that this committee does not study this issue until after the Ethics Commissioner has had an opportunity to examine and report back to the House.”
That's been the practice and tradition of these types of motions, so I would move that amendment.
A committee can study what it likes, but it is our tradition that we wait for independent officers of Parliament to render judgment on that, and that becomes part of the examination.