Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think we can put a few things in perspective based on yesterday.
I think one of the difficulties the government has found itself in is the decision by WE and the Kielburgers not to put their name under the lobbying registry. As a result, we don't know how they engage with government, and I think that's very problematic.
Small charities, all manner of charities, are on the lobbying registry for reasons of transparency. The fact that the Kielburgers felt they didn't need to register with the lobbying commissioner, I think, has caused them a great deal of difficulty, and it has certainly hurt the government.
There is a question in terms of relations that's important. In terms of family, I'd like to put a few things on the table. One is that we were initially led to believe that the Prime Minister's family were paid because Margaret Trudeau is an amazing public figure. I could certainly see why she has a strong career, but what we found out yesterday, which was really shocking, was that the board at WE were told that nobody was paid, and yet the Trudeaus were paid. When the Kielburger brothers were pressed on that, they said that they weren't paid speaking fees, but paid after events, so it was the corporate involvement that becomes very problematic for the Prime Minister.
I think that's something the Ethics Commissioner will follow up, and it is nothing whether the Prime Minister was aware of it or not. It creates the image of trying to use the Prime Minister's family and name to give access to corporate interests. I think it's highly problematic, so it raises issues of judgment, certainly on the part of the WE organization.
I appreciate my Liberal colleagues' mentioning all their families, the Irish Catholics. God Almighty, I hope your family doesn't party with my family; it would go on for weeks, I bet. I understand people saying that they don't want to use families, and yet yesterday the Liberal's research shop came up with my daughter having been involved with the Kielburger brothers, and they mentioned it in the national hearing.
I think I should put on the record how this played out. The fact that my daughter, when she as in grade 7, raised money for Nicaragua, before I was a member of Parliament, does not in any way mean I am going to support this $900 million deal or oppose it. It's completely irrelevant, but the Liberals did mention it.
That's not the first time my children were named. I'm just putting it on the record that my daughter, who was in grade 5, gave a speech about the children in Attawapiskat to a little St. Patrick grade school in Cobalt, Ontario. I found that mentioned in a briefing note to Minister Chuck Strahl by the Department of Indian Affairs, that my daughter, who was in grade 5, was giving a speech on the conditions of children in Attawapiskat, and her name was listed. I'm only mentioning her as well because it's her birthday today, and I would really like to see her. Family do get drawn in, whether it's right or wrong, so I put that on the table.
I have a problem with this motion for a couple of reasons. One is that what we do here is create a precedent; this is like law. I have been on both sides. I've been in opposition all my time, but I've been under Liberals and Conservatives, and we have to decide, when we make a precedent here, how it could be used in the future, so we have to be careful. Fishing expeditions, I believe, are beyond the purview of a committee.
We have to have a specific reason to ask for specific things, because we have enormous powers here. We're not a court. If we vote on this and decide to go ahead, we have powers that are unique to our committee, as parliamentarians, so there needs to be a judiciousness about them. To cast such a wide cast around cabinet that would draw in family certainly raises questions to me. I don't think that's in order.
We also have a tradition in Parliament, which I sometimes have questioned, of taking an honourable member at his word. That it is the Westminster tradition. We have to have a reason to investigate someone. We can't just say, “Prove to me that you're innocent, and then I'll believe that you're innocent.” We have to have a reason, because our parliamentary tradition is based on that principle.
As far as conflicts go, we have to provide those conflicts to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which is outside the purview of this committee.
I understand what my colleague is attempting to get here, but I do think that if we set this precedent, this will be used again for other purposes that may be even more nefarious. We have to be careful with the tools that we have, so I cannot support this at this time.