Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 9th, 2020

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find that unfortunate. Certainly I've appreciated some of the comments and listened with interest to all the other comments, and I won't take long. There is just one brief thing that I did want to put on the record, especially for our friends from the media and Canadians who might be watching.

One of my colleagues across the floor had mentioned that when the Clerk of the Privy Council came to give testimony before committee, I did ask the question as to whether the Prime Minister reads his briefing notes. The clerk responded that he understood that he did.

In previous comments, the Prime Minister indicated that he had only found out about this whole situation, on which there are so many questions around the WE scandal, as it has been referred to in the media, the day that it was briefed, the day of the cabinet meeting. I didn't have time during the meeting this summer to ask the clerk, but if the Prime Minister received his briefing notes that morning, that would be a perfectly valid answer. However, there are further questions that need to be asked there. It's something that has been on my mind over the summer, and I've talked to a few people about it, and certainly all those listening might be interested.

I stand by what I said earlier. I certainly will be supporting the motion at hand and I would go further to see if there is a willingness to go to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, Mr. Kurek. I'll check once more whether there's a willingness to move to a vote at this time.

No, I don't see any consensus. Thank you for checking.

Now we'll continue on to Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is my second time speaking to you. I want to begin by congratulating you for your patience. I'd like to acknowledge your impartiality in all this. I don't always agree with your decisions, but that's fine. I never completely agree with anyone. I appreciate the fact that you're bringing up key considerations.

I want to come back to the comments made by my colleague Ms. Gaudreau. Ms. Lattanzio asked some questions regarding Ms. Gaudreau's comments.

It's interesting. Ms. Gaudreau and her political party have presented virtually the same items and motions to every House of Commons committee. Ms. Lattanzio asked a relevant question. If this motion has been moved in every committee, why should we accept it here? What will we do if two, three or four of the twelve standing committees that decide to vote to create this type of committee come forward at the same time? How will we pick and choose?

This is a relevant question. As you said, Ms. Gaudreau will be speaking to us shortly. I hope that she'll be kind enough to explain her proposal.

I don't want to waste too much of the committee's time. I move

that the committee do now adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Fergus, are you still speaking? I'm not hearing anything.

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

Mr. Sweet, I said that I propose that the committee do now adjourn.

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

I request a recorded vote, please, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, we will record the vote.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, the vote is yeas 5, nays 5.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, colleagues. As previously, I will go with the status quo and vote to continue the debate.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I will move now to Madam Shanahan.

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

Mr. Chair, may I ask a point of information?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

I just don't know what the rules are in this hybrid Parliament. In the House of Commons hybrid, the camera has to be on for us to see the person who is voting. I'm sorry, but I did not see Mr. Blaikie's camera come on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

He's in the committee room. Mr. Blaikie is seated down the desk from the clerk. It's just that the camera did not pan out to see him.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, you know and I know that the members are prepared to take this to the limit here, but this is not the only venue. We know that NDP members and Bloc members have given notice for a special committee motion at multiple committees. This includes Mr. Angus, an experienced MP, as well as Mr. Blaikie.

I would like to hear from the NDP, from an experienced member, about how often special committees are created by a committee motion and what the reasoning is behind going that route and then going this route. This is what's taking up so much time.

My experience as an MP has been that these special committees are normally discussed and negotiated by House leaders and whips, and then presented in the House of Commons in a motion for unanimous consent for their creation. The government House leader has said his door is always open. Have the House leaders, Peter Julian and Alain Therrien, sat down with Pablo Rodriguez to discuss the special committee motion?

If you truly want this special committee, which will be empowered with everything that the members here are seeking to have done, then why are you pushing so hard on this motion? This motion would take up the valuable time of this committee, time that could be spent on other important motions that members have brought up in the short time we've been together. If you are truly serious about this special committee, why are you trying to adopt these production of document motions now, instead of at that special committee? It will happen. If everybody collaborates, it will be done.

Maybe you're not serious about the special committee. That seems surprising to me, since in my time as an MP, I've seen special committees do tremendous work. They did tremendous work in assisted dying, which we have now come back to again. How valued that work was when it was received, not only by members of Parliament for legislative purposes but also by the Canadian population, which was waiting so eagerly.... That's maybe not the word to use, but let us remember how important that work was to the day-to-day lives of so many Canadians.

Other special committees have also been in operation from time to time. I implore my colleagues of the NDP to please ask Mr. Julian. to pick up the phone and call Pablo, and the same goes for the Bloc.

We understand that there's a whole process and that we must do certain things to show that we're serious. There's no one here. I'm speaking for myself and my colleagues—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Excuse me, Madam Shanahan.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Chair, after listening at great length, I can't imagine that discussing at length a motion that we adjourned debate on is germane to the motion that's on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. That isn't a point of procedure, but thank you for your input.

Go ahead, Madam Shanahan.

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

Chair, it is indeed germane to the motion at hand, because one principle we have in parliamentary debate is to avoid redundancy of our work. We are very mindful of the importance of the resources and the cost of the resources that we have available to us here at the House.

Again, I am not speaking to my Conservative colleagues, with all due respect; I am speaking to my colleagues in the NDP and the Bloc, because we know that there is a genuine concern for this work to be done, this full investigation of the costs and of how all of this came together, how the different programs were developed. While I think we did quite a lot of work on this during the summer, when a number of different committees were seized with this investigation, I think the House leaders could easily come to an agreement on having this go to a special committee with a Zoom call. Quite frankly, not only would we not be here, but Canadians would get what they need, which is a special investigation to the satisfaction of everyone.

I want to remind everyone of what that investigation this summer resulted in. I think it was quite special to see how the resources of our government and the various ministries were deployed during a time when people were working from home, [Technical difficulty—Editor] in the office where quarantine and isolation can happen at a drop of a hat because somebody's kid went to school and the teacher was sick. Public servants produced over 5,000 documents at the request, notably, of the finance committee, and this was made public and was certainly readily available.

I'd like to put on the record here and now, Chair, what that response was from the government resources, because Canadians should not think for a moment about a cover-up, as I've heard some of my colleagues talking about. What cover-up?

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

This cover-up.

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

Canadians should not think for a moment that anything was taken back. With all due respect, the redaction is done for the sake of national security, for the sake of confidentiality, cabinet confidentiality, which, for the record, can affect any government, and if you start opening up that can of worms, well....

My gosh, I remember when I was sitting on the public accounts committee—

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

On a point of order, Chair, relevance—relevance, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I've got it, Mr. Barrett, but Madam Shanahan's just trying to demonstrate a point.

Please try to keep to the subject at hand and the motion. Go ahead, Madam Shanahan.