Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 9th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That being said, the chair's normal response to business at hand is to continue the status quo.

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

We'll now move to Mr. Dong.

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

On a point or order, Chair, may we have a 10-minute suspension for all members?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I think that would probably be appropriate, for nature and other such things. Let's suspend for 10 minutes, and we'll get back.

Mr. Dong, you'll be first on the speakers list.

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

Mr. Chair, will we return at 3:52?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That is correct. It's 3:42 now, so we'll reconvene at 3:52.

Thank you, Mr. Fergus, for that specificity.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll go back to the speakers list and Mr. Dong.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I listened to all the members during the first round. I really appreciate the opportunity to be on this committee and the in-depth talks. I listened carefully to Madame Gaudreau's very passionate remarks. I just hope that, however this debate ends, it won't lessen my respect for any of the members of this committee, and I hope that's mutual. We all have a job to do; we've been elected to do that.

I can't agree with some of the points I heard earlier, especially from Conservative members talking about the government's interest in grabbing power and whatnot. It was Conservative MPs who came out right after the throne speech was presented and indicated they would not vote for it, without taking the time to really study it and see how it would impact their constituents' lives, and on a grander scale, Canadian citizens' lives. You talk about grabbing power.

I accept the reality that, although we've formed a government, it's a minority government. I accept that reality. I hope my points are being addressed in this process, but I'm still looking for answers to my earlier concerns, such as the safety for individuals to produce these documents, now that we know they're not in the committee's possession.

I also want to highlight the fact that the Province of Ontario has targeted three cities to move to a modified stage 2 alert, which means many venues will be ordered closed or to operate in a very limited capacity. The message is very clear to everyone in Ontario to exclude any non-essential outings. At the same time that we're talking about protecting Canadians' lives and limiting their risk of getting COVID, committee members are considering ordering a gathering of documents and accessing documents in person. I just don't think that's a very responsible way to go forward.

Also, I heard MP Barrett mention how on this side we are using all the small techniques and that they have their arsenal to conquer that. For example, he mentioned having emergency meetings such as the one we're having today. I heard the chair weighing in on that; he has his own view. I understand he might not agree with Mr. Barrett, who implied that the fact that we're meeting today is a form of retaliation for not getting his motion voted on yesterday.

I want to get away from all these political games, and I'm still looking for an answer. Ultimately, we're talking about a fabricated narrative that the Prime Minister designed a program to fund an organization in exchange for his family members getting a job. That's just completely bizarre, especially in the context of COVID. We've seen how quickly the federal government and all levels of government react to COVID. The leaders of the three levels of government are appearing in front of the cameras and talking to Canadians every day to address various issues.

I remember having meetings in the late afternoon to provide the suggestions and feedback we heard on the ground, and the government reacted very quickly to fine-tune its policies, whether with respect to the CERB, the wage subsidy or the commercial rent assistance program. That is what people care about.

I heard Madame Gaudreau's point that her children are watching this. They are not alone. There are other Canadians watching this as well. Some, I'm sure, can't help but wonder what we MPs are talking about and how the conversation is going to benefit them, especially those who just lost their jobs or whose loved ones are infected with COVID-19. How is this conversation helping them?

I heard the notion that Canadians want the truth regarding the whole WE incident. We have a mechanism to investigate and find out the truth about what happened. I remember the former integrity commissioner said that we are among the best in the world when it comes to the parliamentary infrastructure we have for integrity. I have a lot of faith in that infrastructure, as I do in our commissioner, who will do a fine job of finding the truth.

Here we are talking about allowing MPs and their staff to look at the private information of another MP and his family without the proper limitations and boundaries or safeguarding of that privacy. I think that steps way over the line and that we are setting a very dangerous precedent. I can't stress this enough. Earlier there was a motion put on the floor, which I know was ruled out of order, but from this point on members are free in this committee to bring motions forward to talk about other members and the privacy of their families. That is not where we want to go, in my opinion.

We have a lot of priorities right now. In the past, I mentioned Seneca College in my riding, which is faced with a major challenge because the majority of its revenue depends on international revenue, and it is not looking good right now, especially with the border restrictions. I know the government is moving quickly, working with the provincial government to ease that up, but it still does not change the fact that it is saddled with fixed costs and does not know what the remainder of this year or what next year will look like.

As well, small business owners are seeing that the wage subsidy is coming to an end, and even with the help of the wage subsidy, they are still not getting enough support. I'm sure there are mom-and-pop shops in every member's riding that are facing closure or the pressure of taking on huge debt from which they will never recover and are thinking about bankruptcy.

These are the matters at hand right now. I really hope that all members of this committee will see through the politics and partisanship that have been talked about for two days now and really focus on how to help Canadians. We have a lot of work to do, so let's let the investigator, in this case the commissioner, do his job.

We heard the motion by Madame Gaudreau to create another special committee There are multiple venues to get to the truth, and we don't need to be here. I'm sure everyone cancelled a lot of meetings in their constituencies and may have to cancel a few more, as well as outings with the family this Thanksgiving weekend. I just don't think it's a very good use of our time.

I posed a whole bunch of concerns in my first round of speaking, and now I am speaking to a few more issues, given that the cities of Ottawa and Toronto are entering a modified stage two.

I haven't heard any answer to that. I have not been convinced that this is an absolute priority of our committee. We need to move on this.

I think it is a play of partisanship. The Prime Minister went to the finance committee and testified and answered questions. That was never done before by any sitting prime minister. There were a lot of questions asked and a lot of answers given. Based on those testimonies, the media had a chance to report on what happened with WE, which was quite unfortunate, in my mind, because thousands of young people who had a chance of getting a job and being helped during COVID, just because of the fabricated narrative—and that's what it was—lost an opportunity.

The not-for-profit sectors are chilled by how far this thing went. Now we're going into a model allowing members and staff to look at and access other members' privacy and their families' privacy. I just think that's way over the top. It doesn't give us any additional benefit, considering that there is an ongoing investigation. Also, a special committee is being considered.

Chair, I'm still waiting to be convinced whether these concerns, plus the public safety concerns, will be addressed, as well as the safety of our staff.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Dong.

Now we move on to Mr. Barrett.

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

Chair, excuse me; I have a point of order. Could you list the speaking order?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Presently, right now, I just have two speakers left, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Kurek.

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

My hand is up. I think the clerk is....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

He may be updating me right now.

Now I have Madam Shanahan and Mr. Fergus.

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

Could I hear the order again, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

As I just stated, we have Mr. Barrett, Mr. Kurek, Mr. Fergus, Madam Shanahan and Ms. Gaudreau.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

All right. Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I would just like to take this opportunity to cede my time, having heard from all members. As was stated, it's important that members have the opportunity to speak to the motion. All members have spoken to the motion. I'll cede my time and encourage all members to let this matter come to a vote at the end of the second day of meetings on the same motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Now we will go to—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I wasn't clear from Mr. Barrett if he's asking for the vote and calling for a vote now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. I'm sorry if I missed that detail.

Mr. Barrett, were you calling for a vote now?

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

Yes, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I apologize, Mr. Barrett. All I heard was that you were ceding your time.

Colleagues, are we ready for the vote?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't think the speaking list has been exhausted. Are there more speakers waiting on your list?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There are, but when any member, no matter what party they are from, asks me to check and see if there's a willingness of the committee for some aspect, then I always look for consensus. However, there's no consensus, Mr. Barrett.

We'll move on to Mr. Kurek.