Thanks, Madam Chair, and I'll thank the Bloc member for his amendment. I think it's very reasonable.
We heard half an hour of interventions by government members, and no amendments were proposed. We got a view of some family trees; we're all richer for having heard about those.
The spirit of Mr. Kurek's motion makes a lot of sense. It's apparent that there's a lack of judgment and adult supervision in Justin Trudeau's office. This is the sad reality that we have to face. He's twice been found guilty of breaking the law—ethics laws twice—and the finance minister once. Now both Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau are under investigation again.
Media asked cabinet these questions: “Did you know?” We got crickets from them. Who's going to find out? To speak to Mr. Angus's point, we take them at their word.
Okay. Would the Liberal members on this committee vote for this motion if all Liberal ministers who've spoken to the media or on the public record about their knowledge were excluded from the motion? Would that satisfy the committee? It's not a fishing expedition.
“Did you have knowledge of the personal relationships?” is question one. With the amended motion, we're asking whether cabinet members, to the best of their knowledge, knew about their immediate relatives' connections. We're not asking what they are; I'm not asking who your nephew is, where he works, or what his connection is.
They'd respond to the chair and say, “Yes, I do have family connections.” Then it would be for the committee to decide what to do with that information. Do we call that member before the committee, or do we refer that matter to the Ethics Commissioner? We could do that.
The most important part of what we're finding out here, however, is who knew. We're looking at what safeguards are in place. Cabinet obviously isn't a sufficient safeguard.
I knew that Margaret Trudeau was speaking for WE; I knew that Sacha Trudeau was speaking for WE. How did that escape the attention of the federal cabinet and the PCO? How did it happen?
These arguments are a red herring. Mr. Gerretsen sat there last week when the conversation came up and said, “Okay, let's go home.”
If that was genuine, and if there were questions.... There were no questions to Mr.—
I'll look for an off-camera response from Mr. Kurek. Were there any questions to your personal email account from government members looking for clarification or collaboration on the motion?
He has indicated that there were not any.
This isn't collaborative. There's no co-operation here; we're ragging the puck again. We've been through one of your filibusters on this committee already.
It's a cover-up, guys. That's what this is. You're complicit in a cover-up. There's no question that there's a prima facie case on our hands of ethics violations. There's no question that it's under investigation. I wrote to the Ethics Commissioner; he confirmed that he would investigate, based on the facts that were presented. Mr. Angus wrote the Ethics Commissioner. We both raised some of the same points and some different points, and guess what? Investigations are under way.
If a lesson had been learned the first time that Justin Trudeau broke ethics laws, I would believe that he was sorry. If Bill Morneau were really ready to take accountability for breaking ethics laws and if he were sorry, he would have read the Act. He didn't. We heard him say at the last committee, the finance committee, that he thinks they gave it to him when he was first elected.
Yikes! You have to be kidding me. You broke the law and you didn't even take the time to read it? I have to tell you, if I were sitting in the defendant's chair, in the prisoner's box in court, I'd probably take a look at the Criminal Code section under which I was being tried. I would expect the same is true for conflict of interest violations.
They act as if it's innocent mistakes—“Who would know? and “How would I know?” I take proactive steps to ensure that I'm in compliance with the rules that govern us as parliamentarians.
I hope there is an opportunity at some point, if anyone doubts that.... Perhaps I can ask my adviser in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's office if she could provide an indication, with my consent, of how often I contact her to confirm compliance with regard to correspondence, meetings and people offering me invitations to events. All are legitimate functions in my role as an MP.
Am I being overcautious? Maybe. I'm also not under investigation. I've also not been found to have broken the Act. I would expect the same of any of the 337 other members who occupy seats in the chamber. Is it too much to ask the same of the federal cabinet?
None of you is in cabinet. You aspire to be, as I do. I hope that in the next election we form a Conservative government.
I see that Mr. Drouin doesn't think that's going to come to pass. I don't know, but we're going to—