Information & Ethics Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We are debating Mr. Fortin's motion, but if Mr. Barrett would like to jump in, we'll allow Mr. Barrett to do that now.

Mr. Barrett.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I appreciate the comments by Mr. Fortin.

The due diligence that was done in the preparation of presenting this proposal to cabinet is really key, and certainly with the revelations we've heard in recent weeks and months here at this committee with respect to allegations of donor fraud and double matching and the like, what the Prime Minister and the finance minister and members of cabinet knew and when they knew, it is key to understanding if.... I think this would go a long way to answering the question and reassuring Canadians that proper processes were followed.

It's unusual that the ask was made for this report, and the response was that they would provide that, and then it wasn't provided. I think, when you look further at some of the questions we asked of Mr. Li, and the answers that would hopefully clarify some of the structure and how the WE organization is arranged, we're still left with a ton of questions. Those answers haven't been forthcoming to this point from the partner organization. Were they asked originally by PCO, by the government, by a minister or by the public service before they embarked on a half-billion dollar arrangement with this organization? Or were they prepared to ask an unknown to administer a half-billion dollars of taxpayers' money and hope that everything would be okay? Meanwhile, we had a host of other organizations from the charitable sector that weren't asked to participate in the CSSG, but that have since expressed that not only do they think they would have been able to do it, but that they were well-equipped or that Canadians would have been best served by their having administered it.

I think the question we have in front of us is absolutely germane, and the government has had many months to prepare this report, and we expect that it likely is. Mr. Fortin has mentioned that perhaps it already exists. If that's the case, it should be quite straightforward for the committee to be furnished with this information.

I think an invitation for those witnesses to appear.... We can have a panel of two witnesses and break them up that way. It doesn't need to be a large production. We're going to ask questions that, again, are germane to the study. We have this inconsistency with respect to the testimony that has been offered by senior members of the political offices, members and ministers and the Prime Minister who have testified, and the testimony from the Kielburgers.

We want to hear directly from these senior staff, get the answers and put this to bed. I think that's the biggest takeaway we had from the testimony from the Kielburgers last week, so let's hear that testimony as well. I think, should they make themselves available relatively soon, by the end of next week we would have the due diligence report, we would have this requested witness testimony, and then we could start.

Hopefully, we'll have the answers from Mr. Li that the committee is going to put to him through a letter from the chair. By the end of next week, we could be giving instructions to the analysts with respect to preparing our report. That's where we need to get to.

The committee has a number of other things pending, so let's get to wrapping this up, answering those unanswered questions, receiving the documents that were promised but have not been received, and getting the final set of questions from Mr. Li, which I appreciate speaks to the previous question raised by Mr. Angus.

I think once we have that information set—those three items—then we'll be in a good position to finally, many months after we first embarked on this journey, give instructions to the analysts and report this to the House.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Madam Shanahan, we'll turn to you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad that I'm able to speak at this point, because in the course of the discussion to date in this meeting, we can see the difference between substantive testimony—testimony that is helpful to this committee's work—and what amounts to a fishing expedition. On the substantive testimony, that is why I am certainly in agreement.

I know, in discussing this with my colleagues, that we take this work very seriously. We can have differences about what witnesses we want to hear from and when we want to hear from them and so on, but once this committee makes a decision, we are very supportive on this side in going after the testimony that is critical to producing what will ultimately be our report and our recommendations on this pandemic study.

It seems that with the motion before us the only issue in asking for Mr. Chin has to do with this one-line response through LinkedIn that was in response to an unsolicited invite to be a contact with Mr. Kielburger. I seem to remember this coming out last summer in the document dump—I don't like that word, because documents should be treated carefully. When that number was asked for—and I know they were gone through very carefully—that seems to be the only thing that came out from that production of documents. In fact, there was a press conference about this LinkedIn communication—I guess that's good for LinkedIn's business—but it really didn't seem to go anywhere. That's from last summer.

As far as the due diligence report goes, we all know that Mr. Shugart is undergoing cancer treatments right now.

First of all, let me just say something about the characterization in the motion of “the Liberal Government's Privy Council”. I take great exception to that smear on the good non-partisan work of public servants in the Privy Council, including that of Mr. Shugart. We know by his reputation and by his experience that he has been an exemplar of non-partisan professional service to Canada. I take great exception to that.

The Privy Council works on behalf of all Canadians in executing the work of the government that Canadians have elected. Therefore, when Mr. Shugart gives us his word that he will produce a document, I think we should take him at that word. Knowing that he's in a health situation right now and that he's undergoing treatment, I think this committee can show the same kind of flexibility that we have shown to other witnesses. Indeed, where I will agree with my colleagues is that we have much more important work to do than to continue taking up valuable committee time calling witnesses on a fishing expedition in pursuing this study.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll turn to Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, and thank you to my colleague for this motion.

I'm certainly interested in it if there's a due diligence report. I don't have a problem looking at it. The issue of due diligence is something that has been important from the get-go.

As for Mr. Shugart, he is off. He is, I believe, taking medical treatments, and I don't think it's fair to ask him to come back. Mr. Shugart did testify last summer. He testified for a good period of time. I was at those hearings. If we asked him now, I don't believe Mr. Shugart would give us anything different than what he gave us then. I don't believe there is anyone else at Privy Council who has stepped in to replace him who would be helpful, because it was under Mr. Shugart's watch. If there's an issue of a due diligence report, I'd say let's just add it to the list.

I hope we can get these things settled, my friends, because we know the Liberals are going to be bringing out Bill C-11, which will upend all our other work. That's going to be coming soon. We also have to finish the Pornhub study. There are a lot of people watching that. We have agreed to the facial recognition study, which I think we need to get to.

I'm really adamant that we have to get this WE report to Parliament. We've been on this for a long time. If there are other documents that could add to it, I think it's time that we actually moved on it. As much as I appreciate Monsieur Fortin's intervention, I don't see that this is an emergency issue that suddenly came up out of nowhere, because it's testimony from eight or nine months ago. If there's a report, I'll take it, but I'm not interested in having Mr. Shugart come at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Erskine-Smith, you are a visitor at our committee today. You're not subbed in, but I'll welcome your intervention at this point. We'll extend that courtesy to you.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much. I'll be brief.

I agree with everything that my colleague, Brenda, has said. I agree with Charlie as well. In the interest of fairness, the one item that came up in relation to the LinkedIn correspondence that I took from the correspondence back in August was the only correspondence between Mr. Chin and the Kielburgers.

I don't think my colleagues on the Liberal side will support this motion, but in the interest of fairness, if you write to Mr. Chin, and have him confirm that that was the only correspondence....It would be odd for us to invite him before this committee if that was in fact the only correspondence. If it's not—if he comes back and says no, “I corresponded this way and that way”—then the committee may want to reconsider the question. Based on what we know today, if that was, in fact, the only correspondence, to be confirmed by you, potentially, Mr. Chair, it would be....Brenda is putting it politely, calling it a fishing expedition. There would be no merit whatsoever. That's all I have to say on that, but that would be my one suggestion, a possible consensus, and a way forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Dong, we'll turn to you.

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

This is my first chance to intervene on what I'm hearing so far. First of all, to Mr. Angus' point, I agree with writing and requesting documents, and having a response in five days.

I am concerned when family members are brought into the extension of our work. It's not a good thing for democracy. We should be able to speak and ask questions freely at committee, and not have to think about consequences and what might happen to our family members. He has my support.

I agree with Mr. Erskine-Smith's point. Let's write to individuals of interest. I don't think these are new revelations. I agree with Mr. Barrett's point that it's been happening for months and months, and I feel like we're just going in circles.

If we hear something, we want to study more or bring more people in. If we don't hear something, we think they're not telling the full story. I feel like we've been going in circles. Let's write the letter, request the information we need, and move on to finalize the report. That's where I stand right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mrs. Shanahan, we'll turn to you.

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

We have heard from all the parties now, so I move that we vote on the motion before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We don't have anybody else on the speaking list at this point.

Mr. Fortin has indicated that he would like to speak.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to add that we're aware of Mr. Shugart's health. If you read the motion, you'll see that the request is for Mr. Shugart or someone else who can represent him to come and table the report.

That said, if someone wants to move an amendment to ensure that we receive the report without the testimony, I would agree to it. However, I think that we must make sure that we receive the report to obtain a clear picture of what took place when the contract or approval was given to WE Charity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Barrett.

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

In response to Mr. Fortin's comments, I would move an amendment to his motion. For brevity, because I know everyone's going to need to update the copy in front of them—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair. I did request the vote. I moved that we go to the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

As you know, Mrs. Shanahan, as long as somebody's on the speaking list there is no way for a member to force a vote. You do know that from previous experience, and you're now a seasoned parliamentarian, having involved yourself in extended debates.

Mr. Barrett, we'll turn back to you.

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

Chair, I would strike the reference calling for testimony or an appearance by a representative from PCO, obviously, with Mr. Shugart away from the office. We're, of course, wishing him good health and good results, and when he's ready, a return to his duties.

That being said, to receive the report and not require someone to come and present it to us.... Of course, should the committee have questions about it, there can be a discussion following receipt of the report about whether anyone needs to testify.

The motion sponsor, Mr. Fortin, suggested that he would be amenable to this, and so that's the amendment I'd like to propose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Monsieur Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I accept Mr. Barrett's proposed amendment. I agree with him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Very good.

We have Madame Lattanzio on the speakers list, and then Mr. Sorbara.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can we have the motion amended and sent to us in both official languages so that we can see the latest amendment before we vote on it?

Also, am I to understand that if we receive the report, committee members will be satisfied with just the reception? Or are we going to be then having questions, and depending on the questions of the members, envisage having to subpoena more people to come to the committee and ask more questions?

I want to have direction from both Mr. Barrett and Monsieur Fortin on where this amendment will go. At the same time, I'd also like to receive the amendment in both official languages.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

The debate now is on the amendment.

We'll suspend for a few moments. As soon as it's been circulated, I'll call the meeting back to order.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'll go back to Madame Lattanzio. You now have the text in front of you. Were you done with your intervention, or do you have additional comments you'd like to make?