Information & Ethics Committee on July 22nd, 2020

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

No. I appreciate the point you're making. The way I phrased it gave rise to your concern. I don't want that concern to be sustained.

Let me be clear: I, too, will be supporting the amendment. I have my concerns about how it times out and plays out, based on the parallel investigation going on, but I also appreciate that members of the opposition wish to use the committee this way. That's the prerogative of the committee, and the motion that's in front of us is the one I have to vote on. I can't split it, parse it and divide it.

The point I was raising, and I think it's an important point, is that how we do it matters. I'm not evading. I'm not suggesting that this shouldn't be, that this line of questioning doesn't have standing at the committee. It's how it plays out that raises concerns for me. It raises concerns because of the points I made earlier.

It's clear that the amendment as proposed is the right way to go, based on the consensus of the committee. I'm not trying to turn that upside down. I apologize for raising that alarm. That wasn't the intent.

I hope the point that was raised and was made was that we have to make sure that the Ethics Commissioner does his work, and does his work with the confidence of this committee and is not undermined by it looking as though there's a parallel investigation going on. That was the point I was making. If I didn't make it clearly enough, I apologize to my colleagues and I apologize to the committee.

In particular, I want to assure Mr. Green that I will be supporting the Angus motion. I hope that clears it up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Vaughan.

Mr. Green, you are last on the speakers list.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

For the purpose of clarity, I'm going to be very clear: What I need to hear from the members opposite is that they believe the Prime Minister should testify in front of this committee, not that they support the motion. I've been around doing this long enough. You know, if you make it in Hamilton, you can make it anywhere.

What I want to hear is that they believe it's the mandate of this committee to have the Prime Minister testify before us, not just invite him. I'm not interested in invitations. I can invite the man to my wedding; it doesn't mean he's going to show up. I want him here.

Unless I hear from the members opposite—members, plural—that they believe the Prime Minister should be here to testify under the mandate of this committee, I'll be supporting the subamendment. That won't get any clearer.

It doesn't mean you support the motion. That's not enough. I want to hear you say that you believe the Prime Minister should be sitting in that chair, being held accountable by this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Madam Shanahan, you're last on the speakers list.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I, too, need to apologize. In my enthusiasm earlier, I thought I had heard a question being put by the member opposite and I wanted to answer that question—that I will be supporting the amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

At this time, we will move to a vote on the subamendment.

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

Madam Chair, can I have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Yes, you may.

I will first have the clerk read out the subamendment, and then we will proceed to a vote.

[The Clerk]

The subamendment of Mr. Kurek reads, “that the clerk provide these records to the members of the committee and the ethics committee for study”.

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

Sorry, on a point of order, it should be “and the Ethics Commissioner”. It was “members of the committee and the Ethics Commissioner”.

[The Clerk]

Yes, my apologies. It should read, “and the Ethics Commissioner for study”.

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

Madam Clerk, can you read it in French as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Sorry?

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

The interpreters are doing a great job, but can you read it in French as well, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

I don't have it in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Because the clerk doesn't have it in front of her in French, it would be rather difficult to do. It's why we trust our interpreters to do that work for us. Thank you.

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

Can you read it again, very slowly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Sure. I'll ask the clerk to read it one more time.

[The Clerk]

It reads, “that the clerk provide these records to the members of the committee and the Ethics Commissioner for study”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

We'll move on to the vote.

We have a tie.

I'm going to suspend the meeting just for a moment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I will call the committee back to order.

I find myself in an interesting situation where I'm expected to break the tie. As the chair of this committee, I have reviewed the documents in front of me, including our procedure book and the expectations that are outlined there. I've also conferred with the clerk, and I have come to a decision.

As the chair of the committee, it is expected of me to break the tie one way or the other; of course, it cannot be sustained as a tie. I am not expected by the green book to give a reason for my decision; however, I will provide you with a reason here today.

In the mandate set out for this committee, towards the end of the mandate, it says this:

In cooperation with other standing committees, the Committee also reviews any bill, federal regulation or Standing Order which impacts upon its main areas of responsibility: access to information, privacy and the ethical standards of public office holders. It may also propose initiatives in these areas and promote, monitor and assess such initiatives.

There's an important distinction here in terms of the mandate of this committee. Yes, it will review bills and reports that are brought forward by the four officers of Parliament; however, it may also “propose”, which is to say create a new study or initiative in these areas, and “promote, monitor and assess such initiatives”, which would tell me that this committee does, in fact, serve as a body to promote, monitor and assess the activities that take place by office-holders within this place called Parliament.

That said, it is for sure within the purview of this committee to monitor and assess the actions of those on Parliament Hill. The Prime Minister of this country, Mr. Justin Trudeau, is one such office-holder. It is definitely within the purview of this committee to have him come here and testify.

The amendment that has been put forward requests that. The amendment that has been put forward requests that a list of speakers be made available to the clerk, then to this committee and to the Ethics Commissioner.

My question, as the chair of this committee, is whether it is in the public's best interest that this take place. Ultimately, this committee is responsible to assess the actions and take on other studies having to do with public office holders and their conduct. We do that not for our own sake, but for the sake of the Canadian public.

In this case, we are looking at over $900 million that was committed to by the Prime Minister of this country and his cabinet, and that money was to be given to an organization to run a youth volunteer program. That $900 million is public funds; that is taxpayer money from the Canadian people. Therefore, I would surmise that the Canadian public does, in fact, have an interest in how that money was utilized.

It has been suggested by some members of this committee that some of that money—not money that was incorporated in that $900 million, but in previous interactions with WE Charity—was also public money that may have been used to fund the members who are on the speakers list that has been requested. Again, because that is public money, it is, in fact, in the interest of the Canadian public to understand how that money was used.

That said, I will make my decision in the interest of Canadians from coast to coast, and I believe that what is in their best interest is full transparency. I vote yea.

[Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6, nays 5 (See Minutes of Proceedings)]

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

At this point, we move to a discussion on the amendment to the original motion.

I will have the clerk read out the amendment, which has now been amended. Then I will continue with the discussion in just a moment.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Madam Chair, I regret to do this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Are you raising a point of order?

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

I am going to raise a point of order.