Evidence of meeting #123 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
We'll go there as soon as we have exhausted the speaking list.
Mr. Desjarlais is next.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
My concern with the amendment to the motion as written is this: What if—I'm not saying this was you—the chair was the one who leaked this information? Now, if our chair, who is independent and neutral—much like the Speaker of the House of Commons—engaged in any activity that could benefit a party or used their discretion to benefit a political party, that would be a concern regarding this amendment. If the person investigating is the same person who has committed this....
For those reasons, I would like the committee to propose a solution to this obvious predicament.
May 21st, 2024 / 5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I have a speaking list, but let's wait one second.
I'm going to respond to this, because I can see your point.
I'm going to tell you up front, for what it's worth, that it was not me. You can take that to the bank. I have tried to conduct myself honourably in the committee and my word is all I have as we work together. The clerk tells me we are working together on this.
I will tell you my view as well. My view is that the documents are not confidential. My view—and I asked the clerk— is that once the story in The Globe and Mail appeared, any journalist who contacts the committee should be given the documents. The clerk in her wisdom counselled me not to do that, so I did not do that. However, my view of these documents is that written responses to an oral question are not confidential documents. Once they receive them, members are free to transmit them freely.
Not only do I think there is no infraction here, but I will also reassert that it was not me.
That said, the amendment to the motion is what it is. You are welcome to an amendment, but my starting point is that documents that come to this committee in response to public meetings.... The witnesses were not able to give us an answer on the spot, which would have been on the public record. They therefore agreed to provide a written response. This is, in fact, no different from a public answer that is on the record and publicly transmitted. Here we had a written response.
That is my view, and I believe this to be the case for every committee, not just public accounts. My view is that members are free to do what we all do as lawmakers, which is to study them if they think there's some information to work with. That's my view, just to give you my perspective and what I think.
I recognize that my job is to safeguard the committee and I understand that it is important for the information to be given to you in order for you to decide how to use that going forward. I have answered your concern, or at least addressed it—maybe I haven't answered it.
I will turn to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné and then to anyone else.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I have nothing to add. I would just like us to proceed with the vote as soon as possible.
Thank you.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I appreciate that.
Ms. Khalid, did you have...?
Okay. I'm going to call the vote on the amendment to the motion.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Stewart, I did call the vote on the amendment. To maintain discipline, the vote has been called on the amendment to the motion.
Clerk, please proceed.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)
I have Mr. Stewart. Then I will recognize Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.
Go ahead, Mr. Stewart.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Allow me to complete the investigation for you.
Said journalist reached out to members of Parliament who are not on the committee. He reached out to me. I sought advice to know if it was public information. I was told it was, and I forwarded the information to a journalist I've never met before. That's the truth.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
NDP
5:35 p.m.
NDP
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
—and now you have it.
The truth is—and this is important—I have no idea who the journalist is. I never met him. I never worked with him. He clearly wanted the information, and I did the due diligence to find out that it was public. Once I found out that it was public, I thought, “Well, there can't be anything wrong with it”, so I sent it to him. That was it—true story.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
I'm sorry that I didn't say it earlier. When I thought it was public, I didn't think we would be bothered, so I just.... That's the truth.
5:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Order.
We are back to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné's motion. Is there any more debate on that?
Let's call the vote on that, please.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It passes. Obviously there still is the matter of the amendment, and the clerk and I will investigate that and report back to the committee.
Ms. Shanahan, is this related to the motion? I'm recognizing Madame—
Is it related to this motion?
5:35 p.m.
An hon. member
The motion passed, Chair.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Okay. I'm going to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné and then I'll come to you, Mrs. Shanahan.
Go ahead, Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.
