Evidence of meeting #105 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Well, you had the floor. I'm willing to entertain it if we're not going to spend too much—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
The motion would be to have an additional meeting, one part of which would be the Ethics Commissioner and SDTC ethics adviser, who we've had lots of testimony about. The other part would be to recall Mr. Noseworthy and Deputy Minister Simon Kennedy.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
You mentioned, I understand, that you want it to be on December 24? Is that correct?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I'm just kidding.
We have the proposition by Mr. Perkins for an additional meeting. I think we understand the gist of the motion, so it's up for debate and hopefully for a vote shortly.
I will recognize Madame Lapointe.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
Thank you.
From my perspective, it's a question of balance. We've heard some very good and important testimony here. We know that the ethics committee has also heard testimony on this matter. The balance for me comes on the important work that we need to do around Bill C-27.
I think that we need to focus on that important work on Bill C-27 at this committee. For me, the best use of time for us here at the industry committee is to wait until the AG report is completed. At that point, perhaps we can then revisit and see what it is we need.
My position is that we and ethics have done good work around this, and it's time for us to move forward on Bill C-27.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The request for information is laudable, but I don't think we need to add a committee meeting to question this potential witness. We could ask that a written statement be sent to you for the committee's consideration. That way, we could achieve the motion's objective without having to add another meeting.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Maybe we can get a report back from our advisers before we consider more time.
I think Mr. Perkins has a point. I'd like to see that as we start to draw up a report or get to that before we go to something else.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Based on what I've heard, and I see Mr. Perkins wants to intervene, but maybe, Mr. Perkins, if you're at peace with the suggestion from Mr. Lemire and Mr. Masse, we could ask for the information and maybe, when the steering committee meets in January, decide on the next step, whether we want to have another meeting or not. In the meantime, we could get the information in writing, as Mr. Lemire has suggested.
I see Mr. Perkins.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
The question I have with respect to the ethics committee is that they're not doing.... They had two meetings, and they're done, so this all rests in our.... They're done, because the Liberals voted against doing any more meetings on this in the ethics committee.
Going forward, the only way we're going to get to the bottom of some of this contradictory testimony is to have another meeting. We are the keepers of our own destiny, and we have the ability, as we have done here, either to add these on to Bill C-27 or to do separate meetings without doing any harm to our study on Bill C-27.
From our side, we're more than willing to put in the time, effort and work to get to the truth on this. If it requires more meetings outside of our normal schedule.... I understand MP Lemire's desire to find an accommodation, but the interaction and questioning is where it happens. Pre-set questions or some sort of report from a request from us doesn't allow us to have that interaction, either with the Ethics Commissioner or with the individual we haven't heard from, who's provided all this ethical advice to the SDTC board, which, in our view, is clearly totally against the Conflict of Interest Act and the SDTC act.
We haven't had a chance to question them, and we have, clearly, testimony from officials that was a lie about their participation—in particular Mr. Noseworthy. There is absolutely no way he has sat on that board since 2017 and couldn't remember any of the meetings. There is no way he sat on that board and had conversations at board meetings about the government's priorities without having any recollection of that. There's no way he had conversations with the chair of the board outside of those board meetings and couldn't remember. That's why, for some of us of a certain age, there's Sergeant Schultz's line, “I know nothing.” That was his claim, and that's a lie.
He needs to be accountable to this committee for misleading the committee on his participation, and the fact that our committee members here don't think it's a serious offence for a government official to mislead this committee is very disappointing.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
If there are no more speakers, I'll just let it go to a vote, because I sense that there is no agreement on what you've proposed, Mr. Perkins.
So, Madam Clerk, I—
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Before we vote, Mr. Chair, I'd like to know whether we're voting on the motion to add a meeting. Do I need to make an amendment to request that a written statement be submitted instead?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
If you move an amendment now, we can vote on it or debate it. It's up to you.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I'm moving this amendment because it could be a useful addition.
However, I don't need an additional meeting on this particular issue.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Mr. Lemire moves an amendment that we just ask for the documentation to be sent to the committee via the clerk and that the discussion for another potential meeting be left to another—
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
We're asking the Ethics Commissioner to provide us with a written statement on any breaches that he may have observed. We're asking that he send us that information in a letter.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
It's that the information that is sought by Mr. Perkins is asked for, in writing, from the Ethics Commissioner.
Now we have Mr. Masse on the amendment proposed by Mr. Lemire.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you. I support that.
I have another amendment—just to make sure I get my point across in terms of having our analysts get to.... If there is contradictory testimony—and I believe there is, too—I'd rather have that come from the analysts pointing that out before I try to have people come here and pull the wool over our eyes, so to speak, again, if that's the case. I'd rather have that factually presented in front of me through the minutes.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I'm not sure that requires an amendment to the motion.
We can just ask the analysts for that work, Brian.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We've heard what Mr. Lemire is proposing: that the discussion for another meeting, I guess, be left to the steering committee when we get those answers and see if there's a need, and that we seek the clarifications in writing in the meantime.
Is that correct, Mr. Lemire?
You're nodding your head.
Mr. Perkins wants to speak to the amendment.
Mr. Perkins.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative