Evidence of meeting #4 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay, thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk. I have you on the list now as the final speaker, after Ms. Lattanzio. That list may grow. These things do happen.
Mr. Dong, you're next.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I lowered my hand. I will speak at a later opportunity.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am thinking of Mr. Sorbara, who is an excellent member of Parliament, and I have a lot of respect for him and his family—
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I would like to see my colleague Mr. Angus when he speaks to us. Unfortunately, we don't have the video right now.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Angus is here live, so I don't know if we can get a video feed for him. Let me work on that. I'm certain that's what your concern was.
My French is not good, Madam.
but I think that's what I got.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
We're going to see if we can get Mr. Angus on the screen.
Mr. Angus, you have the floor.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I've lost count of how many hours we've been on this filibuster, and I'm very frustrated because we have work to do on this committee, and it's work that is specific to ethics. I am very concerned when I get a letter from the Liberal House leader's office telling our committee what we will and won't do. I think this is very unfortunate.
My focus in being here and pushing for this investigation was to find out about political interference and political connections that made the decision to award that enormous amount of money to the WE group, money that the Prime Minister had said would be close to a billion dollars for university students, but not a dime of that money ever went out the door. The university students never got the funds that they needed, so we have an obligation here to find out how those decisions were made.
I find it deeply offensive that the Liberals continue to throw the Public Service of Canada under the bus, blaming them for the redacted documents, saying it was their idea to go forward with this, when the evidence that we've gathered in a very short period of time shows differently. We have only had, I think, two full committee meetings at the ethics committee on the WE scandal, and we need to get to these issues. We need to get to the questions about whether or not the lobbying that was done through WE with their hired government outreach people was legal or illegal lobbying, and whether or not they were using connections because of their close contacts with senior ministers to get meetings that did not meet the test and standards of transparency of the Lobbying Act. That's what we need to be looking at. I am insisting that we will get there.
I appreciate Madam Shanahan talking about the redacted documents, but the redacted documents that were given to finance that we had a chance to look at deeply contradict the position taken by Madam Chagger, who made a claim that this was brought to her by the public service, that the public service thought up the idea, that she had never had any conversations about this proposal. We know now that the April 17 meeting with Ms. Chagger and Craig Kielburger was a key moment. We need to get clear answers on that, so this work has to get done.
There have been suggestions that the Liberals will work with us on a committee, and I'm hoping they will, but if we have a special pandemic committee that is run my Liberals and they try to shut down our work or try to swamp us, I still reserve the right, as a member of this ethics committee, to continue this investigation that we started, because we have obligations to the Canadian people. If I could be assured that the Liberals will work with us on a credible committee that will actually get answers, I'd be more than willing to transfer some of this work from ethics over to them, but if they're not willing to do that, then I will retain my right as a parliamentarian to continue the work that we've done here.
As for the standoff that we've come to, I think one of the unfortunate things is that there's a lot of machismo in politics. I think the more women we get in politics, the better it will be, but I do find that even with more women in politics, we still end up with a lot of machismo and showdowns that we need to find a solution to. I'm trying to find a solution here.
This morning documents were released, I think because of the pressure from our committee. We know that the WE group has released a number of documents regarding speaker fees and other issues, and we need to look at those documents. At the last minute, the Prime Minister's Office has released documents regarding his speaking fees and Sophie Grégoire's speaking fees, so there is movement on these documents.
The sticking point is that the Liberals say they don't want family members to be involved, and that's the mother and brother. I understand that. I think that whenever we ask for these things, we are crossing a Rubicon in terms of precedent, and it can be very damaging if we establish that precedent. I think these documents are worth looking at because the family was paid by the WE group, but I don't think this is the hill to die on. Whether or not Margaret Trudeau is paid for 27 or 28 appearances does not change the fact, and the fact is that we now know the WE group paid Margaret Trudeau and Sacha Trudeau to participate in events, after the public was told they weren't paid.
What we do know is that whether this was for 27 or 28 events, those are facts. They aren't as relevant to our committee work as getting to the issues of lobbying, of getting access to ministers. That's what I think we need to focus on.
The government has stepped forward and the WE group has stepped forward with some of the documents. We should be able to verify the documents on Madam Grégoire and Mr. Trudeau. To that end, in trying to bring forward a solution here, I would offer a friendly amendment to the Conservative motion. It is that we set aside for the moment the issue of payments to Margaret and Sacha Trudeau.
We can say that we will accept that and we will put that to the side. We will ask for the verification of the speakers documents regarding payments to Mr. Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau. If we get agreement on that, then we can move forward with the witness list that we have for this WE study and with what I think is the key issue, particularly for me: the issue of the lobbying that went on in the awarding of this contract.
I would like to bring forward a friendly amendment to my friendly colleagues of all stripes. It is as follows: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), an order of committee do issue to Speakers' Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, and that they be provided to the Standing Committee on Access to Information.”
If the Liberals want to verify that the Prime Minister's payments are correct, they should be going along with this amendment.
I appeal to my Conservative colleagues. We do need to get this committee rolling and we have some serious issues about this investigation. I am less concerned about Margaret Trudeau being paid 27 or 28 times. This is an attempt to break the logjam, and I'm looking to my colleagues to move forward on this.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Angus has moved an amendment to the motion.
Mr. Angus, do you have that in writing?
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
It's written as well as I have ever written. The nuns always said my penmanship was a disgrace, so I will leave it to our very intelligent clerk to see if she can make sense of it.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Just for clarification for the members on the committee, is it substantially the same, other than removing the family members that are—
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay.
Colleagues, now we are moving to a debate on the amendment to the motion.
Just give me a moment, colleagues, as we sort out the wording of the amendment.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Chair, can I ask for it to be read in full once we get the wording finalized?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Yes. That's what I'm trying to do to make sure that we have complete clarity.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I think to keep it simple I would just drop the names of Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau and leave the rest of it intact.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay.
Basically, colleagues, the amendment to the motion simply removes Margaret Trudeau and Sacha Trudeau. The rest of it remains the same. We're going to be debating that amendment now.
Mr. Angus, have you completed your time?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Now we'll go on to Madame Gaudreau.
Madame Gaudreau, it's your opportunity to debate. We're on the debate of the amendment to the motion.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I will still take the time to make my statement, since there were elements on which I totally agree with my colleagues. This means...
Is there a problem, Mr. Chair?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
We're working on some translation here, Madam Gaudreau.
You can continue.