Information & Ethics Committee on March 22nd, 2021

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

I understand the amendment is to take away the part for Mr. Shugart to attend. For that I vote yes.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

That's excellent. Could we just read what we just voted on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Let's actually suspend. It has been circulated already. We'll allow members to look through that again. It is Mr. Barrett's amendment. So it's the motion as amended.

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

I'm ready to vote on the main issue; we don't need to hear the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Very good.

We have three people on the speaking list.

We go to Mr. Fergus to begin.

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

Not that I'm shy to take the microphone but it was actually Madam Shanahan who was before me, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

My list has you first.

Mrs. Shanahan, we'll turn to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This committee has been trying to get to a better place on this motion. I welcome the fact that we are not asking Mr. Shugart to appear. We respect the fact that he has made a commitment to this committee to provide a report, and we know he will certainly do so in a reasonable time.

It's the other part of this motion that is most concerning. As someone who doesn't tend to get involved in the day-to-day fracas of partisan debate, it has been quite something to watch the Conservatives operating over the past few months, especially how they've been trying to shift the conversation in the political arena. We have certainly seen that in the media, but even the media has gotten tired of this story with all its permutations and variations.

In fact, when I'm watching the news, and when I'm speaking to my constituents, the constituents who are calling my office, the news they want to talk about, the information they want to have, pertains to when they're going to get their vaccine. They want to know, when we are going to see a return to some kind of post-pandemic normal and what our next steps are in relaunching the economy.

Apparently, WE is still on the mind of Mr. Barrett, and we had Mr. Poilievre last week making his appearance here at this committee. That's what they want to talk about. That is what Conservatives want to talk about. They just want to bring up an old story, something that has been gone over many times.

There was a time when the Conservatives were addressing the vaccine issue. Indeed, that is the role of opposition, and we certainly respect that. These were the main topics that were being brought up in question period back in January and February. Then all of a sudden, it stopped. We saw Mr. Poilievre doing his little videos on Twitter. It's funny that the subject of concern would change so dramatically.

When WE Charity was all he wanted to talk about, that's all we saw. Yet, that disappeared in December, January and February, as if....Indeed, that's what many of us felt, that the WE Charity issue had been put to bed, and amply so. From the point of view of the finance committee and this committee, we still had some tail end testimony to take care of. We certainly thought that's where we were going, to deal with the issue before us regarding the pandemic spending, and if there were issues of lobbying and so on.

No, that disappeared. It looked like the Conservatives had moved on to something else. They thought that would be....The fact that there were job losses....There was a pandemic going on, there were definitely job losses. Those job losses were most keenly felt among women in the service sector. It's something that, certainly, our side takes very seriously. We want to be addressing those issues.

However, there was some torquing going on, and a fear campaign that somehow vaccines weren't coming, people were out of jobs, and we were all going to hell in a handbasket.

Lo and behold, vaccines arrived, Chair. They are arriving on a daily basis. Every day we're seeing more and more vaccines arriving and I know—

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

I have a point of order.

There's a question of relevance. We aren't the health committee. I don't know why we're descending into this sideshow on vaccines. If the Liberals are going to spend another 40 hours filibustering, perhaps they could just tell us in advance.

On issues of relevance, vaccines have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mrs. Shanahan, while I have given significant leeway today, I would ask that you move to the amended motion that we're currently debating. I will start to be a little bit more restrictive in terms of where and how far I will allow committee members to venture.

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

Chair, I'm sorry that members on this committee feel that vaccines are not an issue of importance because—

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

I have a point of order

I'm not sure that the need to be snide on an issue as serious as a pandemic is very becoming on someone on the government side. I never said vaccines weren't important.

If they are going to make these personal attacks, I think we're going to be looking at a long filibuster. I think they should stick to their point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I do appreciate that. That isn't a point of order, but I think, Mrs. Shanahan, we all will take note of the conversation that happened earlier between Mr. Fergus and Monsieur Fortin that sometimes language can be unhelpful.

Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Indeed, and I withdraw any remark I made that would have disparaged the good intentions of anyone on this committee, but indeed, it is what this study is about. This study is about the pandemic spending. It is about the different programs and measures that the government put together very quickly in a period of crisis to address the many sectors that were affected by the pandemic and certainly the measures that were taken to control the pandemic, which of course was the economic lockdown. That is indeed in the very title of the motion that is before us here. It's a meeting requested by four members of the committee to discuss their request for further documents and testimony in relation to the study concerning questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending. That's in the Standing Order 106(4) motion that we are discussing here today.

I would like to continue with the remarks that I want to make regarding the pandemic spending, the measures that were taken and the fact that it was all hands on deck for the staff, public servants and parliamentarians of all stripes. If you recall, it seems like eons ago, but we were all hands on deck consulting with each other and trying to put those measures in place. Who would have thought at that time that we would be here today where we actually are delivering vaccines and vaccines are getting into arms?

That's why I could understand that the Conservative Party would talk about the importance of jobs and vaccines. This was very important. They completely dropped the WE study. I'd like to reassure the Conservative members that the latest job numbers look great, that the vaccine deliveries are continuing, not only as scheduled but better than scheduled. The numbers recently released by Statistics Canada reveal that Canadians recovered more than 259,000 jobs in February alone. The national unemployment rate fell to 8.2%. This is the lowest level since March 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. These figures blew past expectations of a gain of 75,000 jobs and an unemployment rate of 9.2%.

This government's plan to help Canadians and Canadian businesses is working, and the numbers show it, despite what Mr. Poilievre and others in his party want to make us believe.

My colleagues don't need to take it from me. Let me share two quotes while we're on this subject.

The International Monetary Fund said last week about Canada's economy:

Public health policies and spending were instrumental in containing the initial spread of the virus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Shanahan, I did say that I was going to limit the latitude in terms of this debate. I've said that it needs to be attributed to the amended motion. I'd ask you to bring it back to the amended motion.

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

Well, Mr. Chair, the amended motion is calling for the appearance of an employee to speak to their involvement in putting together a measure, a government program, to address one of the economic side effects and some of the fallout from COVID, so I think it's germane to speak about how, already, that good work has been furthering the Canadian economy and we are seeing the results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Madame Shanahan, I am not looking to debate whether or not you were into territory that was no longer relevant. I had ruled that it was no longer relevant, so I'd like you to move to the debate with regard to the motion that has been amended, which is currently before the committee.

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

Chair, the time of this committee is very precious. Earlier today, we offered subamendments that would address the very issues that the opposition has put forward in this motion. They want to hear about Mr. Chin's involvement regarding the LinkedIn email that Mr. Kielburger mentioned. We certainly agree that it's appropriate to have some communication. That can be expedited by a simple letter from the chair.

I am concerned that the opposition is using committees for their fishing expedition. Luckily for us the Conservatives are not in government because, as we witnessed this weekend at the convention that was held, the denial of climate change.... There's a debate that any committee could be having.

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

I have a point of order.

I certainly agree that the issue of climate change is a debate, but it's not a debate for this committee. This is the privacy and ethics committee, so, again, we're seeing a filibuster. We need to get this, so that we can get on to other issues, like the Pornhub study. This is a question of relevance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I have warned Mrs. Shanahan several times.

Mrs. Shanahan, we're going to move on to the next speaker.

We'll turn to you, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is very simple. It's more of a request.

I have received several emails from the clerk today in terms of where we are in today's debate. I am requesting that we please be sent the version of the motion that we are dealing with at this moment in time. I have received a number of emails with lots of lines scratched out, wording changes and so forth. I would like to make sure, for my own safety in terms of understanding where we are at the point of the debate, where the motion is.

I am humbly requesting you, Chair, through to the clerk to have that motion sent now to everyone. I want to make sure I am debating and speaking to the right thing. There have been a lot of amendments and subamendments moved. I just want to make sure I'm on track.

I thank you for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

To make it easy, it's the second paragraph that has been removed and all else remains the same, but we will get that distributed.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Chair, I have a point of order.

Chair, I respectfully ask you to inform this committee where the rule is that you can move on and deny me my right to speak. I take it that you can ask me to continue on the motion. I was attempting to do so. I do not believe that you can just cut me off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes. Thanks, Mrs. Shanahan.

It is a requirement and a rule that the chair is to maintain order. I had asked you several times to move to relevance. It was causing disorder that you weren't; therefore, I cut you off.

Mr. Fergus.

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

I am sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm looking for the motion that Mr. Sorbara requested be sent to us.

You want my comments to be directly relevant to the motion before us, and I understand that very well. So it is important to have the latest version of the motion so that we are all on the same page.

I would not like to say anything that you believe is not relevant to the debate on the motion. I want to make sure I follow your instructions to the letter. I will attempt to read the last email I received in my personal inbox.