Information & Ethics Committee on March 9th, 2020

[The Chair (Ms. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC)), Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I will call this meeting to order.

As you will recall from our last meeting, Mr. Barrett has the floor.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

To pick up where we left off, I was speaking about the necessity of this committee's undertaking a study of the “Trudeau II Report”. To advance this and to have everyone on the same page, I'd like to describe the sequence of events, the timeline, that has led us to this point.

This comes out of statements by the Prime Minister in 2015 that with a Liberal government, we would have a government that was open and transparent by default. Instead, on the very day this story first broke in February 2019, the immediate response was that it was false. In subsequent months, we heard time and again that the Prime Minister did not pressure former attorney general Ms. Wilson-Raybould. We know that to be not true; we know that was not an honest statement.

The story, which you can say evolved, changed. It changed throughout the months that followed the revelations in February of last year. As it evolved, it went from being false to being....The cabinet shuffle was the result of Scott Brison's resigning. Then we heard it was Stephen Harper's fault, and then we heard it was about jobs.

The jobs refrain got locked-in, and we heard it over and over again. The only reason the Prime Minister undertook the sustained campaign of political pressure on Ms. Wilson-Raybould was in the name of re-election. It was because of the general election that was planned for October 2019.

Even after the Ethics Commissioner released his report finding the Prime Minister guilty of breaking ethics laws for the second time, the Liberals continued to block the investigation of the scandal at every turn.

With this new motion, I want all members of the committee, including Liberal members who share benches with their cabinet colleagues and all opposition members—my colleagues in the Conservative caucus, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP—to have an opportunity to give Canadians closure on this issue.

We saw the report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and he has not reported back to this committee. That's essential. We also heard that the government had confidence and trust in officers of Parliament. Regrettably though, we know that full transparency wasn't granted during the investigation and that obstruction continued in that process.

I expect that my colleagues on both sides of the House would agree that we want to have a Parliament for Canadians where they know that the truth will come out. That should be a strong deterrent to bad judgment or bad behaviour.

One can appreciate the use of certain rules to protect strategy or issues of national security and public safety because these necessitate secrecy in government. For political reasons—and they can be partisan reasons—Canadians expect that when an investigation is undertaken by an independent officer of Parliament, the latter will be given unfettered access. If there's a reason to invoke secrecy requirements, they expect there to be an off ramp for that officer of Parliament to review the information, determine its relevance, and that its reportability to committee and to Canadians then be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Last year, on February 12, there was a letter sent from Andrew Scheer, Leader of the Opposition, to Prime Minister Trudeau, which said:

I call on you to immediately waive solicitor-client privilege in respect of any advice given to you or your staff in relation to the prosecution of SNC Lavalin. Additionally, I call on you to also waive any and all rights to confidentiality in respect of communications to or from yourself or any member of your staff, previous or current, in relation to the prosecution of SNC Lavalin.

It went on to say:

If you do not meet this obligation, Canadians can only conclude that there is something that you wish to keep hidden.

This letter is from the outset last February. While the position of the government has evolved, we have maintained the same position. We want transparency. We want openness. We want accountability from the government, and that's what Canadians expect.

This continued in the justice committee in 2019 when, in an emergency meeting of the committee—and at the time I was a member of the standing committee—opposition members were blocked by the Liberal members of the committee in their first attempts to shed light on this scandal. So from the outset on that committee, we saw government members quickly fall into line with the government. We, of course, persisted, because that's what we heard from Canadians loudly and clearly. From coast to coast to coast, we heard phone calls and saw letters pour into our offices—certainly they did into mine—from people who demanded more from this justice committee.

On February 20 of last year, there was an opposition day motion put forward by the third-place party, the NDP, seeking an inquiry. This motion calling for an inquiry—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order. I'm listening very closely and I want to clarify something. He said it was from the NDP. Does he know the member who brought forward that motion for an inquiry?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Chair, I believe the member was Mr. Angus, Timmins—James Bay. Is that correct?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, it's Timmins—James Bay. Thank you. I just wanted to have that on the record, for clarification.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

The member for Timmins—James Bay wisely was the sponsor of an opposition day motion that called for an inquiry into this issue. Conservative MPs supported it. NDP members supported it. Even two Liberal MPs supported the motion. Until then, Canadians were told that the justice department's decision to not award SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement came weeks after Prime Minister Trudeau met with the former attorney general.

Well, then we learned that this meeting occurred two weeks after the decision was made. We know that in that meeting the Prime Minister reminded Ms. Wilson-Raybould that the final decision on SNC-Lavalin's deferred prosecution agreement was hers to make. The decision had already been made, Madam Chair. The Prime Minister's reminder to Ms. Wilson-Raybould was direct pressure to intervene in the prosecution.

We saw, on February 25 of last year, a Conservative opposition day motion to call on the Prime Minister to testify at committee. That motion read:

That, given the Prime Minister's comments of Wednesday, February 20, 2019, that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is the appropriate place for Canadians to get answers on the SNC-Lavalin affair, and given his alleged direct involvement in a sustained effort to influence SNC-Lavalin's criminal prosecution, the House order the Prime Minister to appear, testify and answer questions at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, under oath, for a televised two-hour meeting, before Friday, March 15, 2019.

The Liberals defeated the motion, reaffirming their commitment to a cover-up.

Let's fast-forward to March, Madam Chair, and having Ms. Wilson-Raybould return to committee. She had said in her testimony that she had more to say, but we know that the waiver that was granted to her was not sufficient for her to give the totality of information that the committee was looking for. She said that she couldn't answer direct questions regarding meetings and interactions after she was fired. She acknowledged that they were relevant. Canadians heard the testimony and saw Ms. Wilson-Raybould testify. It was compelling, to say the least, but again, we were thwarted in our attempt to get the full information.

As I move through this timeline, I want to go back to that February letter from Mr. Scheer that just called, at the outset, for a transparent approach in responding to this. Almost certainly that would have limited political damage, which was what gripped the PMO for much of last year. It also would have given Canadians the confidence that they deserve in public institutions. That is what's so important.

On March 19, 2019, the justice committee held an in camera meeting. Following that meeting, we know that an attempt was made to shut the committee down on all further efforts to probe the scandal. The Liberal members of the committee stated that no witness was prevented from providing evidence on any relevant information during the period covered by the waiver, but again, we know that that was not the case. Not letting Ms. Wilson-Raybould give her full testimony was the largest impediment at the time.

Further directing members of a committee to close down the investigation was, I guess you could say, adding insult to injury. On March 26, Liberal members of the committee blocked a push by opposition members to open a new probe, to invite the former attorney general to testify. MP Peter Kent presented a motion to the committee, calling for it to study the allegations, asking the Prime Minister to waive further privilege and allow Ms. Wilson-Raybould and others to speak openly on the matter. The motion also asked that the former attorney general and her colleague, the former Treasury Board president, Ms. Philpott, appear before the committee and that the committee then present its findings to the House.

Now, fast forward to August 21. The Liberal members rejected a motion to have the Ethics Commissioner appear at the ethics committee. The motion by the opposition to have Commissioner Dion testify was defeated 5 to 4, with only one member breaking from the majority, and that was one of the members who voted with that first opposition day motion, MP Erskine-Smith.

An additional motion by the NDP to have the Prime Minister himself testify, along with the Minister of Finance and his former chief of staff, Ben Chin, was also defeated.

We saw in September, Madam Chair, that attempts at an RCMP inquiry into potential obstruction of justice were hindered by the government. A waiver of confidentiality was not provided by the Clerk of the Privy Council, nor did the Prime Minister override the clerk, which would have allowed the RCMP access—necessary access when conducting an investigation—to both staff and materials. So close to the beginning of an election—so close—it was disappointing, though not surprising, to see the continuation of what at that point was a full-blown cover-up.

We had an election. In the election, the issue was raised more than one time, including by me. This issue appeared in the party platforms. It gave rise to material in the party platforms from members sitting at this table. We have many opposition members—121 in the official opposition alone—who ran on a commitment to look at this issue. The same is true for the NDP.

Canadians didn't approve of the conduct that took place. I don't believe that voters who elected Liberal members would simply discard the potential good work of their members and throw them out of office because of this issue, but there was an expectation. They did hold an expectation that with a minority government, with parties collaborating and working together with the official opposition—a strong official opposition receiving a record number of votes and committing to examine this issue—it would be examined.

Of course, it also stands to reason that the independent officer of Parliament who undertook the investigation and duly made his findings would have the opportunity to present those at committee. To come to committee with the motion that I have presented gives all members an opportunity to deal with what for some may be an uncomfortable situation but is necessary for us to deal with.

In presenting this new motion, there's a critical element to it, and that is that it's time bound, so this isn't going to be what we preoccupy.... I don't aspire to talk about this issue for four years, if that's the duration of this Parliament. I don't. I would like to deal with it and to move on.

Following the last meeting, I read comments made by my colleague Mr. Fergus that Canadians don't want us looking in the rear-view mirror, if that's a fair characterization of his comments. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. To a point, I'm inclined to agree. However, we're not looking in the rear-view mirror. This issue is still present and it's front of mind for many Canadians. They genuinely want to have confidence in what we do here. We don't want the representatives of the 338 ridings that make up Canada to be referred to in a pejorative way. We don't want the term “parliamentarian” to be a pejorative term in Canada. We want Canadians to know that our conduct here is beyond reproach.

When we have an investigation that reveals and validates so much of what we heard during testimony at committee last spring but isn't able to drill all the way down and get all of the information, Canadians are left wondering. They're left wondering if the cries of cover-up were just partisan tomfoolery or, in fact, was there a sustained attempt, a coordinated effort, to cover up the obstruction of the rule of law in Canada? That should give Canadians great pause, and it has. I would be surprised to hear from colleagues that it's something that was raised with them in the last year. As I mentioned before, I certainly heard about it many times.

I think what we didn't hear following the commissioner's report is also worthy of mention. There was a recognition that the investigation had occurred and that there was a finding of guilt against the Prime Minister, but there was no apology. The refrain by the Prime Minister that he'd never apologize for standing up for jobs, I do know from my interactions with people in my constituency and many Canadians, is insufficient.

It's an aggravating factor and why I believe there is public desire and that it's in the public interest that we finally set a date to finish this thing. We need to hear from the commissioner on this thing, take a look at it and report on the subject. There would be a majority report, there would be a minority report, but then Canadians would know. Would that then inform this committee on good future work we can do that would serve us well under a government of any political stripe? The relevance and the importance of officers of Parliament is tied directly to their ability to do their job.

If we have a structure set up where they're unable to do their work because it might embarrass the government of the day, it's going to leave a majority of Canadians dissatisfied with the institutions they're paying for. We have the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and we have the code that governs members. It's critically important that we have a robust code that acts to guide members and that we have the act.

When the act is strong and when we have a commissioner who has all of the tools in his or her tool box to ensure that it is being followed and to investigate complaints or allegations that it has not been followed, and there are also real consequences available when it is not followed, that is the expectation that we have. That's what I know my constituents expect if there is a Liberal government, a Conservative government, an NDP government or another. They expect they can have confidence, because it doesn't matter who has the keys to the PMO, because we will have someone who is going to be a check on the balance of power other than another political party, other than the official opposition or opposition parties. It's going to be the independent officers of Parliament.

Just as we would find it a very cynical move by a government to cut funding from the commissioner's budget because the government doesn't want a commissioner investigating it, the same can be said to be true when we uncover the fact that the rules in place provide neither adequate guidance nor adequate deterrence when they aren't followed. That's what we can gain from hearing from the commissioner on this specific issue.

This committee is not going to issue a finding of guilt. That was done already. What this does give us is an opportunity to hear from the commissioner. By the time I finish, will I have a need or opportunity to stretch out that hearing? No, in questioning the commissioner, I will get the amount of time allocated in the rules of this committee. We could then undertake the good work that only members can do to improve the tools available to the commissioner, tools that Canadians expect to be in place to keep us honest.

It's a unique opportunity that we have in front of us here today. We have the opportunity to dispel the cloud that hangs over us sometimes, that we can't break free from partisanship or the party whip. We have the opportunity to move forward with an agenda that satisfies the public interest, that satisfies a real need that's been created. I can't underscore enough the number of times we've heard from Canadians on this matter. In recent days, before the break, there was coverage of our proceedings, and I got a lot of feedback about that. I think that speaks volumes about the opportunity we have to cauterize this and restore Canadians' confidence in our public institutions. It's a rare opportunity that we have. I know that many facets of our parliamentary system are special and serve our country well. Truly, they are the envy of the world. Many countries don't have the type of democracy that we have. They don't have the checks and balances that we have. This committee is one of those checks and balances, with the commissioner. This gives us that opportunity.

When members consider how they're going to vote on the motion, I implore them to give due consideration to the opportunity that's presented. It's different from the first in that it's time-bound. That's an olive branch, if you will, that I'm suggesting to reassure members that we can address the issue and move on. But if we don't address it, and we don't have a proper review of the “Trudeau II Report”, that's where we leave that undone and where the lack of public confidence comes in. That's where people refer to “politician” as a pejorative term. We get lumped in with lawyer jokes or something like that. That shouldn't be the case. This is honourable work that members do in this place, and it's so important. There is a great tradition that comes with it.

Here we each have that opportunity today to deal with what Canadians have told us, and they told us that in ridings across this country, not only where they elected opposition members but also in ridings where Liberal members were elected as well. There were votes cast for the parties that put forward platform items specifically on this issue. It's so rare that that would happen, and I look forward to having many opportunities to find common ground to stomp on with my colleagues on all sides of the House. I think, on this issue, that it would show that spirit of collaboration that is referenced in committee documents. It would show that spirit of collaboration that, we heard from so many, would be taken to heart after the election.

I'm going to ask if there is a copy of the motion handy. While we dig that up, I'll remind everyone that we don't know how long we're going to be here for. I don't mean today. Today I imagine we'll be done at 5:30, but I don't know how long this Parliament is going to last.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On a point of order, are we getting into theology here? I plan on living a long time and I get very worried when someone says I have to move on a motion, because I might not....

Are we talking about Parliament, or are we talking about life?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

It's Parliament, sir.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay, good. I just wanted to clarify, because I plan on living for a little while longer.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Chair, I'd like to read my motion.

I believe that it's going to be circulated, and it was read into the record at the start of my remarks. I know there's a speakers list, and I'd like to give the chair the opportunity to recognize my colleagues who've asked to speak, and I am conscious of the fact that we do have the lobbying commissioner—she's expected in 25 minutes—and I want to be respectful of that.

I'll read my motion in English, and it's provided in both official languages:

That the Committee commence a study on the report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner entitled Trudeau II Report, published on August 14, 2019. That the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner be invited to appear for no less than two hours to brief the Committee on his report and that he be given 20 minutes for a prepared statement followed by questions from committee members. That the Committee invite other witnesses as required and that the Committee table a report in the House of Commons no later than May 29, 2020.

Madam Chair, I want to be mindful of the time that we have in this committee. I hope that I'm demonstrating that by bringing my remarks to a close in just a moment. I'd like to again underscore that May 29 date. I'm not talking May 29, 2023 or 2024. I mean this year, this spring. Let's put this issue to bed, because it has not been. We have a report from an officer of Parliament who has not reported back to the committee on this issue. We have an opportunity to deal with that today.

I look forward to hearing from all colleagues on this issue. When you do come to call a vote, Madam Chair, I will ask for a recorded vote at that time.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Based on my speaking list from the last day, I have Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank my colleague for bringing forward this officer of Parliament's report to this committee. That's our work, and we have to hear from them. I was very disturbed in the previous session that we did not hear from Mr. Dion on this. His report raises a number of troubling questions that require answering.

One thing that my colleague did not speak so much about is something that I'm really interested in, namely, Mr. Dion's saying that he was interfered with in doing his work. That's not acceptable. Nobody in the Prime Minister's Office can tell Mr. Dion that he can't investigate, because then we can't have credibility. If there's a political hot-button issue, we have to trust that the officers of Parliament have the tools to do their duty. If they're being denied that, it comes to us to address that. There are many outstanding issues on this file. This came at an enormous cost to the credibility of the Canadian government. We lost the head of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister's chief of staff and two of his most respected cabinet ministers. We were put on the watch-list internationally for international bribery and corruption. They felt that if we do not have standards for independent prosecution of corporate crime, what does it say about Canada?

I guess my concern is how many meetings we're talking about. My colleague has said that he's being very judicious in terms of the time, but it has taken about an hour or two to explain the basic principles. I'm not interested in an open-ended committee. I feel that there are a lot of unanswered questions, but some of them are just going to....

In the interests of what we do with our committee, I certainly see that Mathieu Bouchard from the Prime Minister's Office should come before us. Ben Chin should come before us. I don't know if it's fair to ask Ms. Wilson-Raybould in her position now, but those two witnesses should, and maybe Mr. Butts. I heard from Michael Wernick. He spoke the last time. I felt he didn't do...his position with much credibility, but definitely Mr. Chin and Mr. Bouchard, because they were key in setting up meetings that put the Prime Minister in a situation where the Prime Minister was found guilty of attempting to influence... in aid of the financial interests of another party. As public office holders—current public office holders—I think they are obliged to meet that high standard. Since they are still public office holders, I think they should come.

I would like to hear from my colleague on how many meetings. If we have Mr. Dion for one meeting and then we have these witnesses for the other, I think we could do it in two meetings. Then I think we would be able to present a report to Parliament that would close this chapter. We would be seen doing due diligence. I know it's hard for the government to have this issue dragged up again, but when a report of this magnitude comes before us, we have the obligation to hear the commissioner, to follow his recommendations, and to test him on how he undertook that investigation to make sure that he did due diligence. When I read it, I feel he has, but we should have the opportunity to look at this.

If my colleague has interest in a witness list, that would reassure me in terms of how many meetings he wants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Kurek, you are next on the list.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would be prepared to yield my time to Mr. Barrett, and then perhaps you could come back to me. There were some questions posed by my colleague from the NDP, and certainly I'd be happy for you to come back to me, if that's acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I'll go to Mr. Barrett and then I'll return to you.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Through you to Mr. Angus, I think his proposal is reasonable. In terms of the witnesses he mentioned, I think their testimony would be more than germane. It would be critical to this study.

Your point is well taken: I did speak at length in the preamble. However, I do think that two meetings, but not more than three, would suffice once all parties collaborated in camera, if that's the will of committee, on witness lists. The output from the those deliberations would be the number of witnesses.

I think that proposal is eminently reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's an honour to be able to talk about this subject in particular because I think it strikes at the very core of who we are as parliamentarians—the very core of who we are in our country and as representatives in the Parliament of Canada. I'll talk a bit more at length about that, but I would like to just thank the clerk for her work to organize a committee room with television cameras. I had mentioned that I would bring it up whenever necessary, so I do want to thank the clerk and the folks who do the hard work to make sure that MPs can do their job and who help make this happen.

The fact that we're on television speaks to accountability and to Canadians' accessibility to their democratic institutions. Certainly the motion we have before us is entirely appropriate. In fact, it's absolutely necessary to deal with what has been a true shaking of the trust in Canada's democratic institutions.

Having run for the first time in this past year, I heard the concerns about this issue regarding the actions of the Prime Minister. I actually found it quite stunning that there were things like deferred prosecution agreements—DPAs—and the public prosecution service and cabinet confidence. These are terms that are not generally in the common discourse of Canadians, but they were in the past election and in the approximate eight months since this story broke in the The Globe and Mail at the end of January. These terms were not something that most Canadians generally cared about—and I can say this because I spoke to thousands of Canadians over the course of the campaign. It was not something that concerned them in their day-to-day business.

However, when our democratic institutions are put at risk, when the rule of law is questioned, when you have a prime minister who says that he is standing up for jobs, yet—certainly in my home province of Alberta—it seems like the very opposite is true, it's a very troubling trend. The conversations, whether they be the recordings that were released or the testimony, are quite striking.

I often joke that the viewership of Parliament must spike after new MPs are elected. My family has commented that they've never watched CPAC as much as they have in these past number of months. I know for a fact that on the day the former attorney general went before the justice committee, eyes across this country were glued to the television because the very hallmark of the independence of the Canadian judiciary, the rule of law and our democratic institutions that protect us from governments overreaching and from the ability of corporations or individuals to buy influence.... These are all things for which this committee has a unique responsibility.

We're going to be hearing from the lobbying commissioner later today. The fact that we are able to have a system that, by and large, makes sure that we are protected from interests that would attempt to persuade unduly and disrupt the functioning of our institutions is absolutely fundamental to who we are as Canadians.

I would encourage all members.... I'm a big fan of parliamentary democracy in general and the history of it. One of the things that makes our democratic institutions—and specifically Canada's Parliament—so powerful and unique is that the House of Commons is made up, at this point in time, of 338 independent constituencies that elect members. The qualifications of those members vary from coast to coast to coast, but ultimately the person who gets the most votes is given the confidence and the trust to enter this chamber. As I'm sure every member sitting around this table who has been on the ballot can attest, when you first walk into that chamber with the confidence of the people of your constituency, it is an incredibly humbling thing.

The fact that in our institution 338 MPs get to join together.... How does a government get formed? Well, you must have the confidence of the House. That's easy in a majority; one party makes up the majority of those seats. In a minority, it gets a little bit more complicated, but the principle remains. There are whipped votes and all of these other things, but when it comes down to it, each and every one of our 338 MPs stands for his or her constituency.

The reason why I emphasize this here today is the fact that some of these questions regarding the Prime Minister's actions, and the actions of some of the most powerful political staff in the country, call into question the role of our institutions. It is absolutely fundamental that we are able to address this.

The fact that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner put together a report, did the work that's required on his end to attempt to answer these questions.... Then there is the mandate. Having read through the mandate and being appointed to this committee, we have to hold those officers responsible, to ensure that the tough questions are asked, whether we're in the opposition benches or in the government benches. As MPs, we all have the responsibility to ensure that the tough questions are asked.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner did his part. Now it's time for us, as members of Parliament, to do our part. It is clear.... The “Trudeau II Report”—and I have it here in front of me—reads almost a little bit too much like a novel. I know that my colleague used the word “cover-up”. Time and time again, there are just outstanding questions, whether they be related to cabinet confidence, the question around who benefited from the influence, or the fact that....

I'd like to read if I could from page 2—the second-to-last paragraph of the executive summary of the "Trudeau II Report". It states:

For these reasons, I found that Mr. Trudeau used his position of authority over Ms. Wilson-Raybould to seek to influence, both directly and indirectly, her decision on whether she should overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision not to invite SNC-Lavalin to enter into negotiations towards a remediation agreement.

Then, in the conclusion of the executive summary, he says:

Therefore, I find that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 9 of the Act.

I think that as you continue to read through this, and out of respect for the committee and the important business that we have.... I know that I have questions for the lobbying commissioner, who is going to appear in about 10 minutes. Out of respect for the good work that this committee is doing, I do want to ensure that we have the opportunity to....

I'll conclude. Those who—and I'm sure there's nobody in this room—were at any of my campaign events know that I talked a lot about the principles of good governance. The reason why I do that, Madam Chair, is that there are certain things that transcend politics. There are distinctions between Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Conservative members. There are distinctions that make us...and I'm sure we all have reasons why we belong to certain political parties.

However, there are certain things that transcend politics. This, I would submit to all my colleagues around this table, is one of those things that transcend politics. The accusations, the evidence presented, the fact—again, to use the word that my honourable colleague used—that there's even a conversation around a cover-up, speak to the exact reason why this issue is not closed.

I believe that, in order to preserve the very institutions we all have the honour and privilege of being able to serve and protect, Canadians deserve their parliamentarians—for me, the good people of Battle River-Crowfoot, and for each of us, our respective constituency—asking these questions asked and having them answered by those involved.

Madam Chair, with that, I would bring my comments to a close, but I do implore each member around this table to consider how this motion moving forward or not—because we all have a choice to make, and there are consequences to those choices—impacts the very job that each of us was sent here to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would simply like to know whether this motion is in order, given that it is very similar to the first motion that was presented and rejected by the committee two meetings ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus, if you're asking to have a ruling, you are welcome to raise a point of order, but if you're simply looking for a discussion, then I can respond in a moment.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Would you care to make a statement on that? Is this motion in order?

I'm asking this question on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

On the point of order, I will make a ruling that is not subject to discussion. My ruling on this is that it does fit. When I look back at the documents I was presented with, they are somewhat limited, I'll admit that. It is not easy for me. There is a grey area that I am given to work with.

As Chair, I am asked to rule whether or not it is of sufficient variance. That is the term used. I've had to wrestle with this term “sufficient”. It's not “substantive”; it's “sufficient”. If it were substantive, then I would look for a difference in substance, but it's sufficient, which gives me two words to work with. I have to look at the purpose of the motion, and I have to look at the means by which the purpose is fulfilled. When it comes to the purpose and the means of the motion, one of these can be the same and one of these can be different, and the motion is still declared sufficiently variant.

In this case, the purpose of the motion is the same, to bring forward the “Trudeau II Report”, but the means by which that is met are different. Whereas the first motion asks for the Law Clerk to come forward and for the cabinet confidences to be the point of discussion, the second motion does not include that as a means. Furthermore, in the first motion, there is no time limit given, which means that the means are unending. There's no limitation to it. Whereas in the second motion, it sets an immediacy to it, or gives a very tight time frame, asking for the study to be completed and for the report to be written and given back to the House by May 29.

Given the fact that the means are different, though the purpose is the same, according to the House of Commons debate that took place in 2006, I would rule this in order.

Madame Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I'll speak slowly so that anyone can understand what I'm saying, with the help of the interpreter, if necessary. A big thank-you to the interpreters, who are doing an extraordinary job.

I'm going to respect our guest's presentation, but I'd also like to talk about this topic for a very long time. I don't know if you listened carefully to my speech this morning. I spent 10 minutes discussing the motion that was tabled today. The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of this motion. We want to know what the situation really is, and we want to have the real facts. However, I wonder about our role as parliamentarians.

I'm talking to you now about how I feel. What I was talking about this morning was raising awareness. This committee has to look at ethics; it's about morals. What is morality? It's analyzing together what is right and what is wrong, communicating, dialoguing about it in order to move forward. These are terms that have been circulating for the last few weeks; I'm not making this up. Today, my conscience tells me that I was elected to spend money so that, all this time, we are trying to go begging for information. Basically, however, it is up to our committee, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, to make proposals to correct the Access to Information Act.

What's going on? We're stalling for time. I have a bad feeling in my stomach, which tells me that what we're doing is partisanship. I agreed to sit on this committee because we were going to talk about ethics, human realities and privacy. Please respond to the fact that 30 million Canadians out of 37 million have had their identities stolen. There is an urgency: where is your willingness to act as parliamentarians?

One of the mandates of our committee is ethics, and I want us all to show respect. I've been very respectful, and I've listened to you, but I think that respect should be collective, and first and foremost, we should have respect for our fellow citizens, who are also taxpayers. I'd like to remind everyone that there are 37 million Canadians in Canada.

You heard my heartfelt appeal today. I am a new parliamentarian, and I have a lot to learn. However, I can't wait three years to name things. In closing, I repeat, we are members of a standing committee with a mandate to study access to information. There are motions and legislation, including the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, that have a major impact on our lives—all of us—but also on ethics.

Thank you for listening. You now know how I will vote and what I consider important.