Information & Ethics Committee on July 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

We will move to Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. I do appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on this. We've heard, from the government side, rationale referencing my colleague, and I would suggest that the references that were provided, just for the purpose of people watching, were in the context of whether or not we go in camera. I believe we held that up yesterday when we supported going in camera, so I don't believe that would be my rationale for supporting this motion.

I recall how, when I was visiting this committee with my colleague Mr. Angus, he argued for the need to have discretion and privacy around the sensitive nature of the information that would come to this committee. I'll suggest to you, Madam Chair and members of this committee, that I would have hoped we could land in a better situation from the get-go in terms of having more support from the governing side with regard to the Prime Minister being before us. We didn't get that. However, what we did get clear about was that we wanted that kind of privacy. I think what this motion does, in fairness to my colleague from the Bloc, is beg the question of what constitutes an in camera meeting. When is an in camera meeting not an in camera meeting?

Having said that, and just drawing on my own experience, I would never want to be accused, in a situation as sensitive as this, of leaking information, nor do I think it would ever be the intention of my colleague to leak information from an in camera meeting. I think that would be a grave violation of the trust that we have among our members. I'm also not so naive as to not know that this does happen from time to time, and particularly around these sensitive issues. For that reason, I'll be supporting the motion to have these “extra suspenders” on the in camera meeting, for lack of a better term, the extra protections, so that we can never be accused of leaking this sensitive information.

What we ultimately want to get to, I believe, is the truth. I believe we will get there. I believe we will be able to communicate to our constituents and Canadians what that truth is, notwithstanding the salacious details that may come forward in this in camera meeting. I'll also go on the record to note—because I don't know if I'll be here next week—that the extent to which the government is going to provide these extra cautions around the information also, to me, suggests just how sensitive the information may turn out to be, so that will certainly unfold.

I want to give this full rationale so my friends to the much-farther right of me, physically in this room as well as ideologically, understand why I've come to this decision to support the government in this motion and also to let the government know that I believe my colleague's original intention was to provide a protection to Margaret Trudeau and the private family members of the Trudeau family.

My hope, to go on the record for the last time, is that in future consideration—because I would agree that this is only the beginning of an ongoing process—parties will treat people's family members with the same kind of consideration and privacy that is being afforded to the Prime Minister's family, because, quite frankly, what I don't want the public to think is that the Prime Minister's family is getting a special kind of privacy consideration. That is not the case. That is not what is happening here. Should any member of any person's family be brought forward, we would also fight to have these types of protections in place so that these types of details aren't exposed for the media and whatever ensuing circus comes our way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Gerretsen, the floor is yours.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I don't have anything to say. I'm looking forward to the vote, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Excellent.

All right, then, we will move on to the vote.

Mr. Barrett.

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

Could we have a recorded vote, please, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Barrett, I'm so glad you asked.

Perhaps I'll take this opportunity to clarify for the committee, as I just confirmed with the clerk, that should the motion as it reads here, which we are going to vote on, be successful, should it pass, it will be for this study. It does not set a precedent or a way of being for this committee for every single study. It is just for this study, according to the motion passed yesterday. That's just to clarify.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I will return to the main speakers list.

Mr. Fergus, I will add you to it.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

You're very welcome.

From the main speakers list, I will move to Mr. Kurek at this time.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It has been a very productive meeting. In the spirit of that productivity, there are two things I would mention. I will be moving a motion that is similar in spirit to what I moved yesterday. However, after consulting with colleagues and hearing from the clerk, and in light of much of the testimony that has taken place over the last number of days, I want to make sure that the motion is perfectly in line with what the mandate of this committee is in relation to the Standing Orders and all aspects of what we are attempting to accomplish here to rebuild—I keep using this word—that trust that seems to have been shaken, in regard to this government.

I will keep my comments very, very brief. Members or anyone watching can look at my comments from yesterday. This is substantially or very much the same, with just a few small adjustments to honour what has been discussed and following further collaboration, as I mentioned, with the clerk and my colleagues.

Madam Chair, I would move this motion. I do have copies to be distributed in both official languages.

I move the following motion: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi) and to the committee's current study to review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in federal government procurement contracting, grant contribution and other expenditures, the chair be instructed to write a letter to each member of cabinet requiring they disclose whether they had knowledge of the personal relationships between those listed and WE, ME to WE Corporation, WE Charity, WE Education for Children Limited, WE Villages, WE Schools, the ME to WE Foundation, the WE Charity Foundation, ME to WE Asset Holdings Inc., ME to WE Property Management Inc., ME to WE Style Inc. or any other entity created by Marc Kielburger, Craig Kielburger, or both of them, prior to the cabinet's decision to award the administration of the Canada Student Service Grant to the WE Charity Foundation: a) Justin Trudeau and his family, Bill Morneau and his family, Katie Telford or Seamus O'Regan.

“Additionally, that the letter should require that all members of cabinet disclose whether they, their families or their relatives have connections to WE, ME to We Corporation, WE Charity, WE Education for Children Limited, WE Villages, WE Schools, the ME to WE Foundation, the WE Charity Foundation, ME to WE Asset Holdings Inc., ME to WE Property Management Inc., ME to WE Style Inc., or any other entity created by Marc Kielburger, Craig Kielburger or both of them.

“That a response be ordered within a week of the receipt of this letter but no later than two weeks after the adoption of this motion.”

I believe, Madam Chair, that in light of my comments yesterday and in the spirit of shining light on the ever-developing situation the government finds itself in, especially with the cabinet, about which we keep learning, seemingly by the minute, more and more, this would be extremely relevant in getting Canadians the answers they deserve from their government on this very, very important issue.

With that, I thank you and members of the committee for entertaining this motion and look forward to the following debate and what I hope is an expeditious passing of this accountability measure.

Thank you.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Excuse me, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Is it on a point of order?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Yes, it is on a point of order.

I would just like to point out that there is an error in the French translation. “ME to WE Style Inc.” is missing in the listing in the first paragraph. I know it's just a typo, but it should be corrected.

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

I'd be happy to have that adjusted accordingly. I apologize to my French colleague.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

No problem.

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

My French is less than adequate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

The motion now has been moved by Mr. Kurek to be considered by the committee.

Mr. Barrett is first on the speakers list.

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

I will just make some very brief remarks and let the chair move on with the speakers list.

With respect to Mr. Kurek's motion, I believe that in light of the work the committee has decided to undertake with the motions that have been passed over our last two meetings, having responses from members of cabinet will ease the work of the committee and will also ease the work of cabinet. I won't presuppose the work of the subcommittee with regard to who this committee will decide to call as witnesses. However, this motion will likely shorten the list of ministers that the official opposition will seek, and having those responses duly received by the clerk and provided to the committee will allow us to focus on the witnesses decided on by the subcommittee, but I do think that it will then be a shorter list.

For that reason, I will be supporting Mr. Kurek's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

It was just a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Okay.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Do you understand?

I said there was a typo in the French translation. I know that Mr. Kurek told us that he was going to correct it, but I just want to make sure that the French version matches the English version.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Absolutely.

Thank you. We will make note of that. The clerk will make sure that's changed.

We have Mr. Gerretsen, and then Mr. Fergus.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

If I understand this correctly—and I realize that it's similar to the one that was moved before—what you're requesting is that within one week, every cabinet minister disclose whether they, their families or their relatives have connections. What kind of connection do you mean? Is it whether they know somebody or they volunteered once? My mother's family has seven brothers and sisters. The number of cousins I have and the number of their children is endless.

By the way, usually when you word something like this with a genuine intent, you say, “to the best of their knowledge”, but you haven't even done that. You've said “to disclose”, full stop. You're not even saying to the best of their knowledge. You're saying it will be disclosed.

You didn't even say a financial connection or financial relationship, so you're doing one of two things, in my humble opinion—although many will argue it's not humble. You're either trying to set up a scenario in which people are not going to be able to deliver this information, in which case you will then attempt to find vulnerabilities and weak spots in what they've delivered to you, or you're creating a scenario in which you know cabinet will reject this so that you can then say they refused to give you the information. In either scenario what you're doing is not being genuine. Again, that's in my opinion.

I would have thought you would have some relatively decent language in this to define what a connection is, what a relationship is. I would have thought you would use language to the effect of “to the best of my knowledge”, and I would have thought you would give more time to compile this information. It's extremely cumbersome for somebody who, perhaps, has a large family to deal with that.

I'm not a permanent member of this committee, Madam Chair. I am here substituting for somebody. I've had a great time.