Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
October 9th, 2020 / 1:15 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Miriam Burke
The list that's on the screen right now is what I sent you. Would you like me to read the names?
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
1:15 p.m.
The Clerk
The list is Mr. Angus, Ms. Shanahan, Mr. Dong, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Fergus, Mr. Warkentin, Mr. Kurek, Mr. Sorbara, Madame Gaudreau and Ms. Lattanzio.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
1:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, but then it got cleared at the start of the meeting.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I see, so it was before the gavel.
That's what we have to be careful of, folks. The gavel has to go before, because it will always clear out.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
On a point of order, Chair, I was waiting for the evidence to show, but I was looking at the list because I was ready to raise my hand. I saw that there was a clearance of names and that Mr. Fergus was the first one to speak. Right after the clearance of the name, Mr. Angus raised his hand before the virtual gavel was struck. Can we confirm that? I'm pretty sure that I saw it was first Mr. Angus and then Ms. Shanahan.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I think we just confirmed it. The chair just spoke to that.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Colleagues, we're going to have to be patient with this. I am going to be as fair as I possibly can working with this technology. Believe me, whenever we can, we'll make the corrections.
Right now Mr. Angus has the floor, and we'll go through and everybody will have an opportunity to speak. You might be out of place one or two places because of this glitch, but you will have the opportunity to speak fulsomely.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Okay. I was just telling everyone what I saw.
I'm sorry, Mr. Angus.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, colleagues.
We are in the second day of discussing a motion that should have moved very smoothly through our first meeting. This is a motion regarding a decision made by this committee last July regarding the obtaining of documents concerning the payments made to the Trudeau family through their work with WE.
Many of the sitting members of this committee were on that last committee and voted for this. We voted for a very clear set of rules around the matter to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. It was based on a duty that we have as parliamentarians to call for evidence when necessary, and it's also recognized that we need to have an agreement to make sure that evidence is protected and that the privacy of individuals is protected.
It was a fairly straightforward motion, yet we've seen nothing but obstruction from the Liberals—an obstruction that began when, on the day we were supposed to receive these documents, the Prime Minister shut Parliament down.
My understanding is that the documents are in the hands of the committee clerk. We have these documents, but we are not able to do our work because of this Liberal obstruction. I think this is very unfortunate.
Why do these documents matter?
The issue is a question of conflict of interest on the part of the Prime Minister, who is under investigation right now, in that the WE group—particularly the Kielburger brothers—had built a close relationship with the Trudeau family that included financial payments. This was highly problematic because, under section 5 of the Conflict of Interest Act, the Prime Minister has the obligation to keep his family business in order so that he does not find himself in a conflict. Everything about this scandal is about that conflict.
Why, then, do these documents matter?
When the Kielburgers were first asked whether Margaret Trudeau and Sacha Trudeau were being paid, they said nobody was paid. We know that many high-profile speakers, such as Jully Black and Theo Fleury, gave their time to WE and were not paid.
It was then shown that what the Kielburgers and the WE group were saying was false. Margaret Trudeau had been paid well over $300,000 and the payments with Justin Trudeau's brother amounted to over half a million dollars. That discrepancy needs to be accounted for.
When we sat at the finance committee we asked the former chair of WE, Michelle Douglas, who had been fired by the Kielburgers, about why the Trudeau family were being paid this amount of money when nobody else was paid. What Michelle Douglas said was extraordinary. She said that the board of directors specifically asked the Kielburger brothers if these payments were being made to the Trudeaus and they were told that no money was being paid.
That was false.
When the Kielburger brothers were asked to explain this discrepancy, they claimed at the finance hearings that Margaret Trudeau and Sacha Trudeau were not paid for public speaking but were paid for the ancillary events afterwards. Those are the corporate sponsorship events.
The question of hiring the Prime Minister's family to work corporate sponsorship events put the Prime Minister in a pretty clear issue of conflict of interest.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Angus, I am sorry to interrupt you. I have some information which may impact your presentation that I don't think was clear to the members before.
We are not actually in possession of these documents. They were requested to be sent on August 19. On August 18, the House was prorogued. We actually have to demand those documents once more.
I just wanted to be clear on that.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you for that clarification. My understanding was that we were in possession of the documents.
However, our committee had given instructions to obtain those documents. The effort to get those documents was interfered with by the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue. I think the issue remains a serious question of interference in the work of our committee.
The other issue that came out from the documents that were received—the 5,000 pages of documents relating to the decision to award upwards of $900 million of public money to the WE group—was that in the documents we saw, in the pitch to senior ministers and senior government officials, the Kielburger brothers included photographs of the Prime Minister's family [Technical difficulties—Editor].
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm sorry, but I'm not hearing Mr. Angus.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
We'll wait to see whether he gets a better connection and then have him just repeat those last couple of sentences.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
[Technical difficulty—Editor] serious questions and a conflict of interest that the Prime Minister has been put in, because not only were the family members being paid by the Kielburger [Technical difficulty—Editor].
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, please, can Mr. Angus repeat basically the last three minutes?
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Angus, I don't know whether you're in the position where somebody else is using your Wi-Fi or what, but we just lost you for about four or five sentences. I want to make sure that your testimony is on the record. It was totally garbled by the glitch in the Internet.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I can hear your audio very well, and that's the prime thing. If you want to go back a few sentences and begin over, that would be great.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm moving toward my conclusion here.
In the 5,000 pages of documents we received, it was really striking that in the pitch to senior officials the Kielburger brothers included photographs of the Prime Minister's family, which I think is very shocking.
What I think is more shocking is that in those 5,000 pages of documents, nobody said that this was problematic. We know that some civil servants noted the fact that the Prime Minister's family—the people who had been paid—were being included in the pitch to get this contract, but at no point did anyone say that this was a serious conflict of interest and that this breached very obvious rules and limitations.
To my Liberal colleagues who are obstructing access to these documents, I put it in a very simple manner. If the statements the Kielburgers made are true in regard to the payments made, those documents will verify them. If the documents verify them, we have nothing else to say and will move on to other issues.
Given that we have felt, however, through our investigation of WE, that we have not received clear answers, we need to be able to verify whether or not these payments were in the manner that they described. Were there other payments? Were these payments involving other matters? We need to know.
We have protections within this committee to make sure that these documents will not just be thrown out to the public, but if there are serious contradictions in testimony, it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to find out and get these answers.
The fact that we've already voted to obtain these documents and have already voted to put clear provisions in place to protect the private lives of individuals who may not feel they have done anything wrong but who are very much part of this larger scandal because of their financial connections to the Kielburgers. We need to verify and get these answers.
I know this debate may go on as long as the Liberals want to filibuster and shut us down, but Parliament must be able to return to the Canadian people and say that we did our due diligence, and that we looked into how this massive amount of public money in the middle of the worst economic and financial crisis in memory was going to be hived off and given to a group that has very close personal and financial relations with the Prime Minister's family.
All of us, from all parties, have the obligation to know whether or not the evidence and the claims that have been made at committee are accurate, so that we can in the end provide an accurate report to Parliament.
I'm asking my Liberal colleagues to do the right thing and stop the obstruction they are now carrying on into their second day.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair.
First of all, before I speak to the comments just made by my colleague and others, I have to strenuously object again to the manner in which this meeting was called. I would hope that we would look seriously at a more collaborative way to call meetings, especially on issues as important as this.
In that regard, I would be happy to present a motion when that is possible. It was my understanding this was a fresh start here today, yet the motion was read out, and this is what we are dealing with today when we're in a pandemic.
There are so many things that committees need to be doing with proper collaboration. Committees must have the ability to work together as we have seen during this pandemic. Let me just shout-out to all MPs right from the beginning of the lockdown in March, how important it was that all MPs worked together with members of the government in rolling out the very important emergency measures that were required for Canadians. That was proof positive that everybody understands that it's all about COVID.
It is all about fighting COVID right now. We are in the second wave, the wave that everyone was apprehensive about. We are in it now. I don't have to tell you about the reports that are coming out on a daily basis. Just this morning the public health official was saying that not only is it officially here, but it's very concerning that the spread seems to be happening among young people between the ages of 20 and 40, and that different types of measures will have to be instituted, introduced and communicated, if we're going to get a handle on this COVID.
Canadian public health officials are warning residents to stay home as much as possible, saying the next few weeks will be critical to the country's efforts to contain COVID-19. Last week, in an article dated October 8, the Prime Minister declared that the second wave of the coronavirus was already under way in most of the country. I was concerned, of course, to hear that it was affecting my home province of Quebec. Here in Ontario, it's affecting specific regions.
We need to come together again to address those critical issues. The work of the different committees we have here in Ottawa is important as we are able to meet in a hybrid manner. I commend the House of Commons staff for their ingenuity in pulling this together, so that we can meet. Indeed, when I think of the different committees we have on the Hill, be it health, finance, official languages or PROC, they will have to deal with those issues that are important now.
I think of PROC and the possibility of a federal election. What would that look like? What measures would be necessary? Finance has pre-budget consultations on those support measures that are desperately needed by Canadians. It is all about COVID right now. This is what it's about. This is what is critical for Canadians. To address the comments of my colleague about the documents and what was done, who did what and so on, it's in the hands of the commissioner.
This has all been placed in the hands of the commissioner of ethics: the independent, non-partisan commissioner of ethics, Mario Dion, whom we have entrusted as parliamentarians. The way that this came about, I think, was to avoid the—how shall I say—inappropriateness, at the very least, of members of Parliament investigating other members of Parliament, and furthermore investigating members of their families. This is why we were very much against this motion this summer, because the matter had been placed in the hands of the commissioner of ethics. We are awaiting, of course, his investigation. He is the one who has been entrusted with this work. It is certainly important for Canadians to know what happened and how it happened, and whether a breach of the code of ethics occurred. I have full confidence that the commissioner of ethics will be able to do his work.
However, the work of this committee needs to circle back. We're talking about the resolutions that we had been looking at earlier, such as on how facial recognition is now an issue, given the awareness of discrimination and profiling done by agents of authority, wherever they may be and in whatever form. I know this is an issue that is close to the heart of my colleague in the NDP. This is something that we can get back to.
I most certainly object to taking up the time of this committee to do work that can be done elsewhere. I most certainly object to the fact that this work can be done.... There are other ideas circulating about how this work can be done, if indeed it's the wish of Parliament that a parliamentary committee be engaged in that. What we need is for his House leader to sit with our House leader. The door is always open. Everyone knows that Mr. Rodriguez is always available. Let's sort this out, and then we can put the work of Parliament where it needs to be. Otherwise, Canadians are counting on us. They are counting on us, colleagues, to get it right about COVID, to do what it takes to support Canadians until we find a treatment or a vaccine and, in the meantime, to support people so that the economy is still operating.
Things change. They change every other day, so I think we need to have our priorities in the right order. This is not to take away from the work that was done this summer, but I think we saw it was being addressed in other committees. To have all of that work now come together in an alternate form is something that I think would serve Canadians well, by allowing Parliament to get back to what it needs to be getting back to.
I must confess that I was against this motion at the beginning. It really touched me, and I could think of any one of us who has family members who are going about their business. Some of you heard me say that I have eight brothers and sisters, and between them there are another 20 to 25 adult children. People are going about their business. They are carrying on their professions. They are doing what they need to do.
I would not necessarily know what that is. I don't think it's the expectation of the Canadian public that members of Parliament are curtailing or auditing the activities of their family members. Chair, I found it very inappropriate right from the beginning to be going after the mother or brother of a member of Parliament. We have an Ethics Commissioner, so if there is a question of a breach of the code of conduct, it would be addressed through his office. We have seen the work that this office has produced. We have confidence in it and we should allow that to continue.
Chair, I believe that the motion before us can be better handled elsewhere. I think that all the members here are experienced, and they know that this is an issue that can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction without taking up the work and the time of multiple committees, including this one.
I would like to understand from the other members why they don't like the alternatives. Why do they think that it would not be better for our committee to be working on other issues more important to Canadians? I'm looking forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues, but I am very perplexed as to why we are back here when there are perfectly open and acceptable ways of handling this topic.
One of the witnesses we heard was the Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart, who I think we all highly respect. He was a deputy minister in the Harper government. He has certainly provided us with information that clearly shows, to the matter at hand, that there was no impropriety and that the WE Charity contribution agreement was suggested by the public servants. It seems to me this is all for show. I don't understand why we're taking up the time of this committee.
Chair, I do appreciate your patience and your indulgence. I was happy to see that you wanted to discuss other motions that this committee could deal with, and that we could do that in the very near future with meetings that are scheduled with a bit more notice, if you understand what we're all dealing with. I'm sure you do.
I will leave it at that, Chair. Thank you very much.
1:40 p.m.
Conservative