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.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Everybody on the screen has the interpretation. We're just trying to get it here in the room.
You may begin, Ms. Gaudreau.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The previous comments referred to the continuum of work that we must do as parliamentarians. I've been thinking about that. There were some very conscientious interventions, and there was talk about the need to move away from partisanship. Beyond all that, I realize that during the summer, a committee looked at the allocation of nearly $1 billion to shed some light on this. It is not $202. Having been on the Standing Committee on Finance as well as the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I can tell you that we have moved forward and we have taken a big step.
The reason I am talking to you about this is that our work has been interrupted for several hours to discuss a request. Perhaps you had fun combing through all this, but I didn't expect us to stop so abruptly at the first experience. However, in my opinion, we cannot deconstruct what was actually a very good start. We were going to find the missing elements. So I don't understand why we are putting so much energy into this. The door is even open for a subamendment. I heard my government colleagues ask how far the definition of family and extended family goes. Whether or not we agree to include our loved ones, there are some things that need to be clarified.
At the moment, we have a motion before us. In any event, whether Mr. Barrett's motion passes or not, I have heard you all agree with the idea of a special committee that would allow us to do our work on all issues, whether it be lobbying, conflict of interest or privacy. I don't have to list them all, you know them all. However, we do have a duty to complete what we were doing up until August 13.
I therefore invite you, no matter how it happens, to stop stretching out the debate and to do your work with dignity, conscientiously. One way or another, I believe we all want to finish what we have just started. In fact, the Standing Committee on Finance has the same problems.
A lot of things were raised, and although there were a lot of very relevant stories and comments, this leads me to believe that if we could pass this amendment, we could continue our work and get to the bottom of what happened. In any case, I repeat, I think we all agree that we should continue to work on our files and finalize everything, while respecting everyone's personal opinion.
With respect to the amendment, I believe Ms. Shanahan asked a question about its scope. When I began my role as a member of Parliament, I understood that my spouse would also come under scrutiny in the event of a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
I think we could talk for hours. We are likely to reach a consensus, because we have rules to follow, especially when we are at a high level. For my part, I lack elements to make a judgment. We can discuss the details later, and I think that should be done in a special committee.
Dear colleagues, I really want to talk to you, but I am a person who works conscientiously and who thinks about her fellow citizens every day. Since this summer, there has been a lot of pressure. I am asked if we can do everything at the same time. The answer is yes, but we spend hours going around in circles.
So I'm calling on you. I am in favour of the amendment, and I would like the next speakers to speak specifically on the amendment so that we can proceed to the vote, because I am sure that you, like me, have another beautiful and great day's work to do.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Just to be clear, Madame Gaudreau, we are now on the amendment. It's not obvious to me as the chair if you are speaking for the amendment. Are you in support of the amendment? Yes.
Thank you.
I want to review the speakers list once more. It's okay, Madam Shanahan; I'm on it.
Mr. Kusmierczyk, you were after Madam Lattanzio and your name dropped off again. Did you move down the list purposely, or did you want to remain on the list where you were? Did you somehow get cut off by your electronic connection?
Noon
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I thought we were going to be renewing the list after the amendment was put forward. I just wanted to lower my hand and then re-raise it again. I'm fine with wherever you place me on that list.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
All right. I will put you back right after Madame Lattanzio, because that's where you were. There's no need to renew it. We just move into different debate in that regard.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
It will be Mr. Fergus, Madam Lattanzio, Mr. Kusmierczyk, Madam Shanahan, Monsieur Gourde and then Mr. Dong.
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
October 19th, 2020 / 12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I really do appreciate your once again ably chairing our meetings.
I would also like to speak in favour of this amendment. Mr. Angus' proposal has a lot of merit for several reasons. While I still don't like the idea of MPs investigating other MPs, at least Mr. Angus' amendment limits it to those who are subject to the Conflict of Interest Act. I congratulate him because he has found an elegant way to calm things down and let our committee move on to much more important matters.
If anything unites Mr. Angus, Ms. Gaudreau and myself, and other members of the committee, I am sure it is the desire to address the committee's priority, which was established long before this situation. It is to conduct a study on facial recognition to ensure that Canada will have legislation or regulations to address this issue. This is a high priority for me. We don't have a lot of time left to find that framework, and it's important that we think about it. Mr. Angus may be acting a little against his will, but I still think it's the right thing to do. I congratulate him for finding this solution.
I think the Prime Minister and Ms. Grégoire Trudeau, through Mr. Rodriguez, have shown that they had nothing to hide. They revealed all their commitments as speakers long before Mr. Trudeau became prime minister or party leader. I think this shows his good faith.
Add to that the fact that the Prime Minister testified for several hours before the Standing Committee on Finance and his chief of staff did the same. In addition, although it is natural, all of the relevant officials from our non-partisan public service testified before the Standing Committee on Finance.
If I may, I'd like to share something important with Canadians. In my view, Mr. Warkentin has made unfair accusations against the Prime Minister. Mr. Warkentin has presented himself as someone who always does the right thing and always takes the necessary steps to ensure transparency. However, in the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to review the minutes of this committee.
When Mr. Warkentin was a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in May 2013, opposition MPs raised an issue concerning former prime minister Harper. Mr. Warkentin said something several times, and I can quote him:
He said, “You do know, Mr. Chair, that the Ethics Commissioner is currently reviewing the circumstances and the submission that has been brought forward. (...) We also know that the Prime Minister has answered questions with regard to this and said that he knew nothing of it.”
Later he went on to say, “We know that there is clarity that needs to be brought forward. We would look to the Liberals...it's an interesting and very partisan motion that he's brought forward.”
Mr. Warkentin therefore seems to use certain rhetorical tools whenever he feels like it, but when MPs from other political parties use the same reasoning, it is a little less legitimate in his eyes.
Having said that, we are here to talk about Mr. Angus' amendment. Again, I congratulate him for finding this very elegant way to make these changes so that we can move on. I hope people will do that.
We can make sure that these spurious allegations will be put to rest and we can finally put our efforts towards issues that are most important for Canadians, such as the facial recognition policies and other measures we identified at the beginning of this Parliament for the ethics committee.
There is just one element on which I wouldn't mind seeking clarification from Mr. Angus, my honourable colleague. I don't know what the proper procedure is to do this. I don't know if I should ask this question through you. I know it's not usually our habit to have a back-and-forth, but I was wondering if perhaps we or the chair can ask if the clerk could just read back exactly the full amendment. I think there's one part of it on which I would love to get clarification, but maybe it's just better that I ask the clerk to read the motion in full so that I could have a clear understanding.
Also, Mr. Chair, with your agreement, I would like to make a comment at the very end, after she reads the motion. Would that be all right?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
That is fine, Mr. Fergus. We will read the amendment now. The clerk is prepared to send it out electronically very shortly as well.
Madam Clerk, please go ahead.
12:10 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Miriam Burke
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Charlie Angus moved that the motion be amended by removing “Margaret Trudeau” and “Alexandre Trudeau”.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, would this be possible? When Mr. Angus first started reading it, he read out a full motion. Now we have the removal of two different names, which is great. I'm wondering if the clerk can read what the motion would look like if it were passed.
12:15 p.m.
The Clerk
The motion, should the amendment pass, would read as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1)(a), an order of the Committee do issue to Speaker's Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, including, in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it—which had been originally ordered to be produced on July 22, 2020, by the Standing Committee on Access to Information—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but Madam Clerk's microphone stopped after “July 22”, and you are on mute, sir.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I can certainly hear myself in my earpiece, Mr. Fergus, so there might be a problem with your reception.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm not hearing you at all.
Oh, here we go.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Do you have it okay?
All right, then, the clerk will begin once more.
12:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Would you like the full thing again, or just from July 22, 2020?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Okay.
...which had been originally ordered to be produced on July 22, 2020, by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, provided that these documents shall be provided to the Clerk of the Committee within 24 hours of the adoption of this motion; and that the documents be reviewed in camera.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
That is actually the key part that I would like to address, and that's why I was interested in Mr. Angus's original motion, but since it became a removal of issues, the only issue I would have, Mr. Chair, is a practical one. Given the state of WE Charity and its current operations in Canada, I'm wondering if we could extend that to “no longer than one week”, which would give them the opportunity to get that information.
I don't know what their state of play is, and I would hate for Canadians to feel that any skulduggery was going on. I just want to give them enough time, for practical reasons, to get that information to us.