Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 9th, 2020

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Scott, you've been here a long time. I'm sure PMO—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, please, I've been patient and allowed points of order from both sides that really weren't points of order, and some cross-dialogue. I understand that we're going on four hours, and there will be a little bit of an edge on everything, but let's keep the decorum so that I can at least manage the meeting.

We do have, as Mr. Simms pointed out, quite a lengthy speakers list. For those who do have the floor, if you could, maybe keep in mind that we now have about nine people on the speakers list. Some are subbing in for others who have now taken a break, etc. That would be good to keep in mind.

Now, Mr. Fergus, are you speaking to a point of order?

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

Actually, Mr. Chair, it was my voice that had called out first, and then Mr. Warkentin slipped in to make his point of order, which really wasn't a point of order because—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

This doesn't feel like a point of order either.

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

—as he knows, there were two substitutions for the Conservatives as well, so far, for the night, so I don't see why that—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes, because you guys are filibustering to cover up the unethical actions of your Prime Minister—

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

I'm sorry, Chair, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues—

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

Could I raise my point of information, Mr. Chair?

I just wanted to ask Mrs. Shanahan if she might want to correct the record that she just read, because she indicated that Mr. Peter Wallace was from the “cabinet du trésor”.

He is at the Treasury Board Secretariat.

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

I stand corrected by my good friend and colleague. It is the Conseil du Trésor du Canada.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Shanahan, before you continue, I was also advised that Mr. Genuis had a point of order. Apparently his sound is.... I haven't been able to hear him, but I did hear him chime in, so it may be consistent that we now hear his point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

My comments were consistent with those made by Mr. Warkentin.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

Continue on, Madame Shanahan.

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

Thank you very much.

The last letter I have is from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and it is dated August 7, 2020. It is also addressed to David Gagnon, the clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Dear Mr. Gagnon:

On July 7, 2020, the Standing Committee on Finance adopted the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Committee order that any contracts concluded with WE Charity and ME to WE, all briefing notes, memos and emails [including the contribution agreement between the department and WE Charity] from senior officials prepared for or sent to any Minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada Student Service Grant, as well as any written correspondence and records of other correspondence with WE Charity and ME to WE from March 2020 be provided to the Committee no later than August 8, 2020; that matters of Cabinet confidence and national security be excluded from the request; and that any redactions necessary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent residents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has retrieved all records from within the Department that respond to the Committee's motion. You will find the results of that search enclosed for the Committee's consideration.

It should be noted, however, that in the preparation of this package, care was taken to obtain consent to disclose certain personal information from exempt staff referenced in the material and, in collaboration with other government departments, the staff from WE Charity in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act.

In addition, the Committee's motion stipulates that Cabinet confidences and national security information are to be excluded from the package. No information is being withheld on the grounds of national security, since the information does not so pertain. With respect to Cabinet confidences, you will note that information on the Canada Student Service Grant that was a Cabinet confidence is being provided to the Committee. This is in keeping with the public disclosures of information on this matter made by members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. A principled approach was adopted to this information to ensure a non-selective application of the protection afforded by Cabinet confidentiality. Information not related to the Canada Student Service Grant that constitutes a Cabinet confidence is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request.

This letter is signed by Simon Kennedy, from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

I took the time to read these letters, which were written with precision. This shows the care taken by these departments to produce the documents requested by the Standing Committee on Finance. Those details include not only the responses to the request, but also the protection of the confidentiality and privacy of the individuals involved in the project. I have seen no redactions for reasons of national security.

It is precisely because of this sort of care that we are placing our confidence in a special committee. I again appeal to my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. I know that you want to have a special committee, I agree with you. This is very important work and we can study all the elements that are related to WE Charity and the way programs are produced—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Kurek, go ahead.

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

Just to clarify, is Mrs. Shanahan suggesting there should be a national security study on the Trudeau family's relationship with WE Charity? Is that what she's suggesting by her comments?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Wow, a Freudian slip....

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

We don't hear you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Madame Shanahan. You have the floor.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I repeat the appeal I made at the beginning of my speech to my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.

If they want to set up a special committee—we know that there is a motion circulating in this regard—then let their House leaders, Mr. Therrien and Mr. Julian, sit down with Mr. Rodriguez. I am confident that together they can come to a decision. This can ensure that committees like ours will be able to work on other priorities, such as those related to COVID-19, the well-being of Canadians, and concerns about the resources of the House. As a result, Canadians could be confident that we are working on a number of issues.

I fail to see how Canadians can be well served by this obsession to focus the work of all committees on the same subject that has been amply covered this summer, when there is other work to be done.

I appeal to them to drop the motion before us and let the leaders work together as usual to come up with a solution that will be satisfactory to everyone.

With that said, I will conclude my speech. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Shanahan.

Now on to Madame Gaudreau.

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

Good afternoon, colleagues. You missed my speech earlier, but don't worry, I won't repeat it.

Considering all of the deliberations and the fact that we have been wondering about the motion to adjourn the meeting, I think there is one question that is important to answer.

Why deal with all four committees that were working on WE?

Actually, the reason is quite simple. The reason is that, just before prorogation, all of these committees were working on this file. It is therefore perfectly normal and legitimate that, from the very first meeting, for the sake of efficiency and to maintain the confidence of our constituents, we wondered whether we could continue the work in a specific place where we could reach agreement. Good proposals are already on the table. They are exactly in line with what we already know as parliamentarians. There are four committees dealing with the same subject. That is one of the reasons why, right from the first meeting, once the chairs of the committees are elected, this motion should be submitted to all the committees.

Given the broad scope of the discussion, the new members and the fact that the meeting has been going on for several hours, I am not sure, in good conscience, that we will come to an agreement tonight.

That is why I would like to reintroduce my motion at the next meeting. I therefore ask that we vote to adjourn this meeting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Gaudreau, was that a motion to adjourn the meeting?

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

That's right.