Information & Ethics Committee on March 22nd, 2021

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I'm sensitive to the questions about what we're going to be doing next as a committee. As I previously stated, I think that the items dealt with in this motion can be resolved inside of a week. We dedicated the equivalent of 20 meetings to not doing anything except live through a filibuster. With respect, then, given the amount of time the committee has not been doing other things, it's not reasonable to say that the opposition is looking to rag the puck. These are germane questions.

The issue of the message with Mr. Chin reignites the questions that were raised about the origins of the Canada student service grant.

Mr. Theis and Mr. Singh were both revealed in the document release from last summer to have had contact. Mr. Theis was sent a message by Mr. Craig Kielburger with information about a suite of options with respect to programs that they could choose from. That was last May. The same is true of communication between Mr. Singh and the WE organization. Now we have the question about Mr. Chin and the WE organization.

We're not, then, starting the study over again; we're looking to resolve these questions. That can be done in one day. It could be done Friday of this week. We could have that response from PCO. It was offered many months ago, so I expect that it is prepared.

There have been some unexpected changes, particularly with respect to Mr. Shugart's legitimate absence from his role. Give them a couple of days to get that together. The document would have been created last spring, if it was created, so they could furnish the committee with it. The same is true of Mr. Lee's fulsome responses, following the letter that the committee has instructed the chair to write.

Concerning the question about Bill C-11, the committee hasn't received Bill C-11 from the House. Once that happens, there will be some urgency there, but there are other matters that the committee has expressed an interest in dealing with, and we can do so. As I said before, we could be moving ahead with those as early as next week, should we resolve this matter this week.

Ms. Lattanzio asked whether there would be a commitment that there would be no further questions. Well, sometimes the work we do causes more questions to be asked, but my intention is that we wrap this up, and I think that we can wrap it up with hearing from these witnesses and getting the information we're requesting. Then we can provide instructions to the analysts. I think that's very reasonable.

As to the clarification that can be provided by these individuals to the committee in answer to the questions, yes, sure we could write a letter. If we're doing this in the interest of saving time, however, and are writing letters to three different individuals, and then they write back to us, and on and on, we're not going to have this wrapped up in short order. We'll be dealing with it in June. That is not an outcome I would prefer, and I expect, based on the comments of my colleagues opposite, it's not the outcome that they prefer.

The most expeditious way for us to dispose of this study on pandemic spending and potential conflicts of interest is to just call the witnesses, as we normally do. We made an exception to this practice by writing letters with respect to an individual who is on medical leave. Now I think we should return to business as normal: we call the witnesses. That is why those witnesses specifically are being referred to.

We're not looking to have people reappear, we're not asking for the Prime Minister to come to this committee, and we're not asking for his chief of staff. We're looking for three very specific people based on correspondence and communication, and the evidence of that communication contradicts what we heard previously or evidence in other committees. The multiple communications between Mr. Singh and the WE organization, the communications between Mr. Theis and one of the founders of the WE organization, and the question with respect to Mr. Chin, if he's appearing and has no other information to offer, would be a pretty quick panel for us to dispose of.

We can do that and in the interest of time we can vote on this now. We can give our instructions to the chair and we will be off to the races and hopefully concluding this work, reporting it to the House and moving on to the many other important subjects this committee has decided it would undertake.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Ms. Lattanzio, you are next, and then Mr. Angus.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm eager to hear from my colleague Mr. Angus. I'd like to come back right after him as we're discussing how to best time manage this issue. I will let him go before me.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Angus, we'll turn to you.

Again, we are debating the amendment.

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

I think we need to move forward because we have a lot of work to do, and I can see we're starting to get locked down. I don't want to return.

On the issue of writing letters to the three men, I agree with my colleague Mr. Barrett. It does start to set a dangerous precedent that we are writing letters to people instead of having them testify. That will be used as a precedent in the future.

My suggestion as a compromise would be that we call Ben Chin because he was named in the testimony last week. Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh are in the documents. From what I heard there was nothing new from the Kielburger testimony that makes me think we're going to learn something else. I think that we need to clear up this LinkedIn message. The answer to Mr. Kielburger struck me as odd; it may be very straightforward. I imagine it probably is.

I would suggest as an amendment to the amendment that the committee call Ben Chin and we leave out Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh. Therefore we're just responding to the testimony we heard and we're getting clarification. We could have that done by Friday, as Mr. Barrett says. We could get our instructions and we could start to move on, The issue of the Pornhub study is vitally important. I urge my colleagues to read all the letters and presentations that are being sent to us. This is not just in Canada; people around the world are watching. It is incumbent upon us to finish this. To Mr. Fergus who has been my biggest supporter in trying to get this facial recognition technology study done, I have put in my witnesses; I hope other people do. I am ready to move on that at any time.

I would amend the amendment so we call Ben Chin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Now we're onto a new subamendment. Again we'll ask Mr. Angus to work with the clerk to get that in writing and be distributed to members. We will suspend until that's circulated to members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We will resume.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I address the proposed subamendment, I want to say something that may be relevant. I believe that Mr. Poilievre, your colleague from the official opposition, raised the issue over the summer, in the Standing Committee on Finance, regarding the LinkedIn message sent by Mr. Kielburger's employee to Ben Chin. Nothing came of the matter. It didn't lead to anything. This isn't a new fact, since it was revealed six months ago. I may lack imagination, but I don't see the point of addressing this issue. There's nothing new, apart from the fact that Mr. Kielburger simply brought up Ben Chin's name.

My colleague Mr. Barrett said that we would just need to set aside one day and spend two hours on this. I've heard this a number of times, but again, there's nothing new. This issue came up six months ago. At that time, everyone thought that it wasn't relevant. We can resolve this issue with a letter. I don't want the committee to waste time, given the issues that we must address and the studies that we must finish. Already, when it comes time to write our WE Charity report, the consensus-building process will put all our skills to the test. The sooner we can begin this, the better.

It seems pointless to listen to two hours of testimony regarding a question that can almost be answered yes or no. I'm exaggerating a bit, I admit. I imagine that several members will want to ask questions, but in the end, the question will remain the same. We'll ask the witness if he corresponded with the Kielburgers in any way other than this LinkedIn message. We'll probably find new ways to ask that question, but it will remain the same. That's why I hope that I can convince my colleagues to resolve this quickly.

Just because we have the power to summon people to talk about irrelevant matters doesn't mean that we should do so. With Pornhub, MindGeek and WE Charity, we have repeatedly sent letters seeking clarifications. We could just use this method once again. There's nothing new about this approach either. It would be the most effective way to proceed.

I hope that my colleagues will support my point of view and that we can then move on to more urgent issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm speaking to the subamendment. I really do appreciate the effort by Mr. Angus to help this committee complete this work, so that we can get to other work.

In the same way that Mr. Fergus said that the only mention of Mr. Chin was by Mr. Kielburger referring to a LinkedIn message, I think that by the nature of that involvement—especially after seven months and all of us going through reams of documents with a fine-tooth comb on this issue—if there is an outstanding question, it can be dispensed with very quickly with a letter of request from yourself. That's just as we ask witnesses to do all the time—to provide us with written documentation.

I do agree with Mr. Angus that we can then move on to the material that we have received just recently with regard to MindGeek. It is very disturbing and I think that we owe it to Canadians to get back to that work.

On this issue of the WE study, we can dispense with it very quickly. That was the effort we made in the subamendment we had earlier, which was to request the answer to the committee's questions and move on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me.

There are a couple of things. One is Mr. Chin's name and the LinkedIn exchange brought up by Mr. Poilievre in the Kielburgers' meeting. This isn't on you. I remember an article going back to last summer in which Mr. Poilievre mentioned this. He subbed in at the last meeting, and he brought this up. Now we are locked in this debate on whether or not to have Mr. Chin come to the committee to testify. I agree that we need to get a confirmation directly from Mr. Chin. I think writing a letter is a good, efficient method and quite effective as well, because that's sort of the final piece that got thrown in from the last meeting, but that information is not new. If it wasn't included in the previous work plan, given that it was old information, I have a tough time understanding the significance of having him come in. That's my first point.

The second point is that I heard about the precedent setting. In my time on this committee, there has been a lot of precedent setting. First we talked about whether or not the Prime Minister's family members should be involved. In the end, their documents were called for and reviewed and there wasn't any substantial new information that we found from that action. I spoke at length against that, because I don't think family members should be brought in. When we run, it's a personal decision. We put ourselves under the microscope of the public in terms of accountability and transparency. That I understand. To me, it's a matter of principle whether or not family members of MPs should be subject to unveiling their own personal privacy and story. We heard earlier about a lot of support, including from me, for Mr. Angus. We have to defend the final line to protect our family members, so that's precedent setting.

Now, on staff, I don't believe there is a tradition of calling on political staff or on the staff of an MP's office just because a name was brought up by an opposition member on the committee questioning something that happened or that was reported on six or seven months ago. I just don't think that is a good thing. I remember that there was a question to Ms. Telford when she showed up at FINA, and she specifically said she was there on behalf of all staff. I think the question was put to Ms. Telford, and she spoke on behalf of staff members, and I think that's enough.

When it comes to this particular question about Mr. Chin's involvement with the WE Charity entity, I think the response we've heard is that clearly he has no involvement with WE Charity. We just need to confirm that, and a formal letter is more than enough to do that.

Again, I feel as though we're going in circles, and now we're deadlocked in this argument triggered by a question that came from Mr. Poilievre in the last meeting, and with some old information. I just don't think that we should waste any more time on calling another witness in. I was under the impression the work plan was to move on to finalize the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

I think we have exhausted the speaking list here now, so let's go to a vote on the subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The subamendment has been defeated, so we'll move to debate on the amendment.

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, I'll be voting against the main motion, and for several reasons. It seeks to create a controversy where none exists, simply because someone brought up the name of a witness who appeared last week. Six months ago, this person brought up the same name in the same context, and it was considered a non-issue. I'm sure that the same thing will happen this time.

People want to play—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I am recognizing Mr. Fortin on a point of order.

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

With all due respect to our colleague, Mr. Fergus, I think that he's arguing about the wrong issue. You submitted to the committee the amendment to remove the second-last paragraph of the motion, so that Mr. Shugart wouldn't need to testify. Now Mr. Fergus is telling us why he'll be voting against the main motion. I think that his comments are out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I will ask Mr. Fergus to remain on the debate we're currently undertaking, but we'll extend some latitude.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The reason I am caught short is that I am still having trouble receiving documents directly. Madam Clerk iswell aware of this, as we have corresponded via text message about it. I don't know why, but they don't reach my inbox. If you can give me a few minutes, I will look for the information in my personal inbox, where I can receive documents from the clerk.

So it may be my fault that I do not have the right text in front of me. If you give me a few minutes, I will look for the right text so I can make a proper case. That said, the gist of my argument remains the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll turn to you, Mr. Barrett.

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

For Mr. Fergus's benefit, the amendment removes the second of three paragraphs, so it omits calling a representative from PCO to speak to the due diligence report. That is the change. There is no addition to the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Fergus.

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

I thank my colleagues Mr. Fortin and Mr. Barrett.

I'd like to ask a question about this. Did the invitation to appear before the committee always include personal assistants?

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

Mr. Chair, it is not about—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Pardon me, colleagues.

Let's not get into a debate here. I will allow Monsieur Fortin to answer, and then I would like to get to the vote.

Monsieur Fortin.