Information & Ethics Committee on March 29th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I call this meeting to order.

This is the 26th meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Today we're continuing the study with regard to the questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending. The hearings will be webcast and will be available on the House of Commons website.

Today we have an unusual situation where we had a meeting scheduled by the expectation of the House, or the order of the House, but instead of the witnesses who we had planned, we have the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez joining us—

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I want to clarify that Mr. Rodriguez is not coming instead of the witnesses who were requested, but in addition to them. We welcome him to be here. Whenever a government House leader says he wants to testify at an ethics committee to unburden himself of some things, we obviously welcome that as parliamentarians, but obviously that doesn't replace the motion to have either the Prime Minister or his staff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes. I will be taking direction, of course, from the committee. However, we are taking direction as well from the House of Commons, which had that extensive list of requirements. Therefore, you are correct that today does not replace anything that was expected by the order from the House.

I have a bit of a speaking list here now.

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

On the point of order, yes—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I have Mr. Barrett, and then Mr. Angus, Mr. Fortin and Mrs. Shanahan.

We'll go to Mr. Barrett next.

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

Thank you, Chair and colleagues.

As you said, this is unusual. There is some precedent for this situation and I would like to address that.

The parliamentary law clerk, Mr. Walsh, had said at committee hearings in 2010:

the Prime Minister, and any minister, has no authority to prevent someone from appearing in front of a committee.

Their ministerial function may present a limitation on what you can ask that political aide when they're in front of you, but everyone has a duty, apart from members of Parliament, senators, and the Governor General, to show up when summoned before a committee.

I think that context is very important for the situation we're faced with here today, and do expect that the committee at a later time should discuss instructions to have the parliamentary law clerk called to speak to this issue.

We were to meet today by order of the House, a majority of members in the House, the will of Canadians being expressed with respect to the appearance of witnesses and the production of documents. That order gave the government an option. That option was to have the witnesses who the committee requires and that discussion had been initiated at committee and then was continued in the House on Thursday, those witnesses being Mr. Rick Theis, Mr. Amitpal Singh and Mr. Ben Chin at this committee, as well as the production by the PCO of the committed due diligence report, as well as an order with respect to the national defence committee and a witness appearing there.

The government House leader did say in the House and subsequently outside the House that the government would instruct individuals who were asked or ordered to appear not to appear.

The motion, passed by a majority of members in the House and representing the will of Canadians to have those folks appear, did provide an option to the government, which was to have one person appear in place of those witnesses: that is, Prime Minister Trudeau.

Those were the options that the government had, and now we're in a situation where we have public statements from the government spokesperson, the government House leader, that they will defy an order of the House. This is preventing Canadians from getting answers, this is preventing committee from doing its work, and it is clearly a violation—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Dong.

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

Chair, on a point of order, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Barrett, but are we in debate or are we actually still doing the points of order? I was listening to your instruction as how we're going to proceed. I think some of the issue he raised could be addressed by the minister in his answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

The point of order is where we are at this point in time.

Colleagues, obviously we have a witness who volunteered. He has not been instructed for us as a committee to hear from him, and committee members have not called this member.

Really, at this point, effectively, the House leader has volunteered to be here, and now I need to hear if in fact it is the committee's will to hear from Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Rodriguez was not invited by this committee. He was not instructed by the House of Commons to be here. I guess it is my duty as the chair to recognize whether there is a will of the committee to hear from this witness who has not been asked to be here.

Mr. Dong.

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

Chair, on a point of order, I thought there was a notice given to Mr. Rodriguez to appear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You are incorrect. He volunteered to be here.

We have a second point of order. Ms. Shanahan.

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

Yes. On a point of order, indeed there was an amended notice of today's meeting that was sent out that indicated—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You are correct.

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

—that Mr. Rodriguez would be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes, Ms. Shanahan, I did put a notice out saying that he would be here, but I did not have the committee's agreement to do that. I arbitrarily did that.

It is now my requirement. I'm the servant of the committee. If the committee decides that they don't want to hear from somebody who they have not asked to be here and the House hasn't instructed us to listen to, it is my duty to abide by the desire of committee members.

Going back to the speaking list, we'll return to Mr. Barrett.

It would be nice for us to come to a decision, because we have only three hours in this meeting.

Mr. Barrett.

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

Chair, you're absolutely right that this witness was not invited but has requested to be here. We have a member of the Queen's Privy Council, the government House leader, who wants to be here. We have white space this afternoon in our calendar because the witness who was ordered by the House has failed to appear, so let's hear what the government House leader is prepared to or able to offer in answer to our questions, but we will have to review this matter with the law clerk and then look at next steps.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Angus, we'll turn to you.

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

Thank you.

I had put my name down to speak on a point of order, hoping that I could get ahead of this debate so that we could get another piece of business finalized, but I will put that on the table at this time and then speak to this issue as well.

I had wanted to raise the issue of the letters that we've been receiving from Victor Li's lawyers, just to make sure that we have a clear path going forward. I was very surprised to find out that Victor Li's lawyers were responding to the committee through Twitter, as opposed to through the committee. There is a process. I've never seen that before.

I was very surprised by some of the claims in the letters, and I want to say, I'm very hopeful that Mr. Li's health is good. This is not about creating undue stress, but this committee agreed to issue a summons if Mr. Li did not answer. The fact that he says he's asserting his rights under the Canada Evidence Act about responding to us, I find very surprising. Is he concerned about a criminal investigation that we are not aware of?

The letter from the lawyers stated that the questions that he failed to answer were follow-up questions. That is incorrect. These were the fundamental questions we had asked, and we asked questions regarding the corporate structure. After eight months, I think we're all in agreement that none of us has a clue about the corporate structure, the immense real estate holdings, the side hustles, the private companies, the for-profit companies and the shell companies that the WE group has, and Mr. Li can give us that information.

His lawyers stated that the question we had asked about giving us a list of where the schools were built would take months. I find that to be a ridiculous assertion. If you're a charity and you're in the business of building children's schools, that list should be fairly straightforward. In fact, I see that WE advertised that they have a special donor accountability tracking mechanism so that you can track your donor's pledges, so that should be an answer that's easy to give.

I was surprised in the last letter that said there was no one else they were aware of who could maybe find this information at WE. Are we to understand as a committee that an organization that has property and assets worth millions of dollars has had a man off sick for eight months, and there is nobody in that organization who has the capacity to find any of the answers that a parliamentary committee has been willing to actually issue a summons for if necessary?

I'm asking you, Chair. I think it's fair that we ask for a doctor's letter at the very least. We've given extra time. They've said that they couldn't meet the deadline. We said that's fine, but I think we need to take this seriously. If someone has medical conditions and they're posting on Twitter about their medical conditions, then I'm very respectful of that, but I also think we should get a doctor's certificate, so I'd like to ask my colleagues if they could at least agree that we need to get this done and answered. I put that as question number one.

In terms of the issue before us today, I'm a big fan of Mr. Rodriguez. We go back a long ways. I don't know what he has to offer this committee. I'm willing to hear from him because it's a matter of respect, but I also urge my colleagues to remember that time is ticking before legislation comes to our committee. We have to finish this report. I want to get this report finished. It is a priority for me, and it is a priority to get the PornHub study finished because people around the world are expecting us to do this, so I'm urging my colleagues to do this right.

Maybe a solution is to get a briefing from the law clerk. Maybe that's a way that we can get out of this without breaking down into a filibuster. I'd urge my colleagues, let's hear from Mr. Rodriguez. Let's decide whether it is pertinent to our study, and then decide what to do about the fact that the three witnesses who were asked for by Parliament have not shown up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Angus. I'll take that as notice that you're going to move a motion with regard to the requirement of medical proof with regard to Mr. Li's condition.

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

Can I just do that now? How would you like me to do that?

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Shanahan, I think maybe we're settled there.

Mr. Angus, I will take that as notice, and if you want to provide that in writing to the clerk, that would be helpful as well.

We will now move to Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Something serious is happening here today. I see that the government House leader has decided to appear before the committee. I agree with you, Mr. Chair, that the committee would certainly benefit from hearing what—

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fortin's sound is very low.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Madame Shanahan has a point of order.

We have a technical issue.

I'm wondering if we can do another test of your sound, Monsieur Fortin.