Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 15th, 2020

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

Frank, you interrupted me the same way.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, colleagues, please address your comments through the chair.

Thank you very much for your intervention, Monsieur Drouin.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate it. I won't further that little side debate.

I do think that cognitive bias has come into play here. I've spoken to scholars for many years. I have studied this. Within organizational cultures, individuals and leaders can be subject to cognitive biases. This is a human thing. All of us experience these all the time when we have to make decisions.

I have another really great book here that I've read multiple times. I actually know the woman who wrote it. She's world-renowned. Her name is Mary Gentile. She wrote a book called Giving Voice to Values. It's about how you can speak up or speak your mind when you know what's right.

It's very interesting because her theory of ethics is that ethics are really something to be practised. It's not to say that you'll never make mistakes, but that ethics are a practice of decision-making. There's constant improvement, learning and evolution in becoming an ethical leader. It's not a “we are” or“ we aren't” type of thing. It's not a light switch type of thing.

This means that we have to understand that ethical leaders—even the most courageous and honourable ethical leaders, like our Prime Minister—are going to make the occasional misstep. I would argue that, within a global pandemic, when we are rolling out programs and working around the clock for Canadians....

I mean that. My eyes are red every day because I lose sleep over my dedication to Canadians. I'm not saying that other people here don't do the same. I think we all do that.

I don't think that you have to be perfect all of the time. There's some degree of understanding and compassion that I bring to this work. When our honourable members occasionally misstep, I don't then say that they're horrible people, or that they're cruel or corrupt. These headlines and these claims are just sensationalizing something that is absolutely untrue. I know it to be untrue based on my experience of the leadership within our party. I really feel that I have to speak out about this.

Not only are ethics about knowing consequences and performing our duties, they're also about our moral character and cultivating that. That's what Aristotle said. He put forward virtue ethics and talked about our moral character. We're constantly developing a moral character and expressing moral courage.

It's like a muscle that we're constantly practising. We can't expect ourselves to be perfect all of the time. It's not as clear-cut as whether you did it right or wrong, in many cases. There's a complexity to ethics that goes way beyond a simple kind of thinking that says, “you made a mistake, so you're out”.

These cognitive biases have been well documented and well researched. I'll mention just a few of them here. I think they're really relevant. In particular, I would suggest that we should all be aware of the fact that within a high-stress environment, within a very compressed timeframe and with a high degree of duty and responsibility, there's a high-pressure situation that lends itself to even more potential for cognitive bias to come into play. Suffice it to say that we're more prone, as human beings, to mistakes within our decision-making process within that high-stress environment.

I'm not making excuses. I'm just giving you the latest thinking in ethics. This is not me saying this. These are experts. I'm quoting from the Oxford English Dictionary, the Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics. This is the world-renowned author, Mary Gentile. This is not really contestable stuff, in a sense. These are leading thinkers in the world on ethics.

Some of these cognitive biases are obedience to authority; social proof, which is similar to groupthink; a false consensus effect; and over-optimism. How about that one? I think we are definitely guilty of that. I'm certainly guilty of that. As an ethicist, I consider myself a person of high integrity, but I'm definitely subject to over-optimism. I definitely am. I can't deny it. It's a self-serving bias. There's a bias which says that as human beings we tend to underestimate the amount by which our personal interest has an impact on our decisions.

How do we as leaders counteract that? I would say that it's about the support system within the organizational cultures that we cultivate and that can help support us to identify those cognitive biases and make better decisions. In some cases, we need an opposing voice within the process, or the courage from public servants to say something that may be contrary to what they think their minister wants to hear.

Anyway, some of the other cognitive biases are framing, process and cognitive dissonance, which people have probably heard about, sunk costs and loss aversion, the tangible, the abstract and the time-delay traps. I could go into the these at length. Maybe I will later on, because I think they are really relevant for the given situation.

Essentially, you know, we can't blame individuals for actually falling prey to cognitive biases, because it's a human phenomenon. Research shows that all of us experience those biases. We should be saying that it's just hypocritical for us to always point the finger at our leaders and allow them to be smeared in the media when we ourselves are subject to the same criticisms. That includes the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP, all of the Liberal members and all of the Independent members. We're all ethical leaders who are striving to be more ethical. I couldn't feel more passionate about that statement and claim, and I believe it to be true within our caucus. I've seen it first-hand.

Let's talk about the character of our Prime Minister. Let's talk about how within this process.... Again, for conflict of interest, you have to put your own private interests ahead of your duties. In this particular situation, did the Prime Minister put his private interests ahead of the interests of youth? Absolutely not. He put youth first.

In terms of youth not having the supports they need, the consequences of this supposed controversy have put youth more at risk than the decision the government made to move forward with WE Charity. I would argue that the Prime Minister and cabinet still put their duty to Canadians and to youth ahead of any private interests. Again, they're still not guilty. No matter which way I look at it, they're not guilty of a conflict of interest, not an actual one—maybe a perceived one, maybe a created one—and this goes on and on.

This is my first term in politics. I'm celebrating my one-year anniversary here. I don't see anyone congratulating me, but thank you. I appreciate it. I'm learning so much. I really am learning a lot.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Congratulations.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

One of the things I'm learning is how to deal with the emotional side of this—that smearing people's good names is somehow okay and we're supposed to give in to this. I really feel strongly that we have to battle this and fight back against it. I just don't think I can stand for the precedent-setting nature of a motion like this that digs into the lives of Margaret and Alexandre Trudeau in a way that is completely unjustified. I see no way that it's justified. They're not even covered relatives or family members in the Conflict of Interest Act, so how can they be included in this motion? This is the ethics committee. We need to be ethical. This is not ethical.

I digress. I think I'll leave it there for the moment, Mr. Chair, and pass it on to one of my other honourable colleagues. I do appreciate everyone's time in humouring me. I know I get quite passionate. I hope I didn't offend anybody.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull.

Just for a reminder, even though Ms. Shanahan isn't here to keep me accountable, I will still do it anyway. The speaker's list is as follows: Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Barrett and then Madame Gaudreau.

We'll move on to Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to commend everybody's remarks this evening and congratulate them for all the insightful information.

To you, Mr. Chair, I say thank you for the great job you are doing as chair of this committee. We are on multiple hours of speaking to the motion brought forward by MP Barrett. There are a lot of differing views. We all get very passionate about our views and the information we wish to provide, not only to the committee, but to our residents and Canadians watching at home. It's great. You've done a fantastic job, so thank you, Chair, for that and for the guidance you're providing all members of the committee.

To my colleague and friend, committee member Mr. Turnbull, you're doing a great job. It's your first year anniversary. That's awesome, and I wish you much continuing success.

MP Warkentin, you've got to stop attacking me on Twitter, my friend. You're going at me pretty hard there. I thought we were friends and stuff. I'll still consider you a friend, but I had a few people point out that you tend to attack me once in a while, but that's politics, right? We're here for the good of all Canadians. Let's try to keep it on that point. We may not agree on everything, and I don't agree with MP Barrett's motion for many reasons.

One thing that I did, Chair, in my time.... Thank you for acknowledging the passing of the father of a good friend of mine from graduate school. His father passed away over the weekend, and I was able to get to the viewing this evening and express my condolences to my friend, Mauro, whom I've known for 20-some odd years from my days at U of T in graduate school. It was nice to see Mauro tonight, but not under those circumstances. Thank you for acknowledging that.

When I read the motion brought forth by MP Barrett in terms of the speaking experiences, and when I look at everything that's been going on over the last several months in terms of the committee work that was done, which was everything that was released in the media and is widely held and widely available for all of us, I think there are a number of things I want to correct. Maybe this is debate or not, but a number of MPs have thrown around numbers in the last hours. This is a billion dollar number.

Frankly, before the pandemic even started and when our government was putting together a whole hash of programs to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast, the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency business account, which we've now expanded, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which we've extended.... When we were looking at a plan to put in place for students specifically and we introduced the Canada student benefit, which would benefit over 700,000 youth, we attempted to put together the Canada student service grant program.

Obviously, the road that path took and the due diligence that was involved from our side and from everyone's side was significant.

Personally, I did not even know that this organization called WE even existed. I had never attended an event. I had never interacted with any representatives from the organization. It was a very new organization for me, personally. I have two kids in the elementary school system here in Ontario, and they had never gone to any events. I just didn't know anything about it. I didn't know what they did or what they didn't do. I was very interested to read and understand what was going on and what you could say was political spin from the opposition. What was reality? Where were mistakes were made on our part? No government is perfect.

The Conservatives know that no government is perfect. They are not perfect. We are not perfect, and I would never profess to be perfect. That is why we constantly learn and try to do better. That is why we try to act with a moral compass that takes us in a direction we believe we're comfortable with and we think is right. When I listened this evening, and in the last few hours to some of the comments with reference to the motion and to documents, first of all, I have to say that there was never a $900 million or a billion dollar program, to my understanding. The opposition can say there was, but there really wasn't.

If you actually go to the organization that was engaged with the government, and went through the process of being engaged with the government, first off, you can read the contribution agreement, which I have here, and you can go through it. You can go through that contribution agreement line by line, and you can understand where we were going with the contribution agreement, who we were trying to help out and what our intent was.

The intent was to help students. We did it through the Canada summer jobs program, which we expanded since we first came into office, and we did it through the Canada emergency student benefit. We've done it through changing the Canada grant programs and boosting them by billions of dollars. We also lowered interest rates for students on their student debt, helping them out in so many ways.

Therefore, when we think about the program in place and how we got to this motion, it's like a trajectory. I'm not going to read the funding agreement, but I am going to reference it.

Going to the WE website, the organization has obviously suffered consequences from everything. I say this to my colleagues—because it has been said tonight in debate, and I know my colleague Gord Johns mentioned it—it was never a billion dollars.

First, the total value of the contribution was $543 million. That is the number. In the contribution—and you can read it—there was no money spent on this program. The program did not in fact then depart; it was not executed. It was not done. The theoretical maximum expense reimbursement to WE was approximately $35 million for the design, delivery, disbursement of grants and third party costs.

The second fallacy was that the WE Charity was chosen to administer the program due to political connections. I looked into this, because of what Ian Shugart, the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to Cabinet, said in his remarks at the Standing Committee on Finance in July. He said that WE was chosen for its track record and that “What WE was able to provide…was the full range of services that would go to the heart of this matching program that would put young people in contact with not-for-profits so they could gain the relevant experience; their ability to promote the program with a massive social media following; experience in other situations of matching young people to service opportunities;…existing database information; representation right across the country with partnerships with other charities.”

That was the Clerk of the Privy Council commenting on this and vouching for it and saying that this is why the program went in this direction. Unfortunately, the program was never implemented. We went with other programs for youth. Those funds were not spent. It's not that we'll put that aside, but I'll speak to that in a second.

Then there's been this spin that the Trudeau families and the former finance minister gained exorbitant benefits from WE Charity. That's why I called it a fishing expedition and an overreach by the opposition party. I fundamentally believe that.

There's actually a public link to the documents that WE disclosed during the summer for the Prime Minister's mother, Margaret Trudeau, his brother, and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau. It's there. I'm going to read it, because it pertains to this motion. It didn't take me too long to get the information. I just did a quick Google search.

The WE website notes:

Incorrect information is circulating regarding members of the Trudeau family earning honorariums, and the amount reimbursed for their associated expenses.

It continues:

Honorariums paid to members of the Trudeau family totalled $217,500 for 35 engagements (with multiple events per engagement) between October 2016 and March 2020. Some media outlets and politicians are incorrectly identifying expenses paid to cover their travel, food, hotels, etc., as fees paid to the speakers themselves. In order to correct the public record please see the full breakdown of all engagement honorariums and expenses related to Margaret Trudeau, Alexandre Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau here:

Now this is the information put out by WE itself:

Margaret Trudeau Between October 2016 and March 2020, a speaking bureau was used to engage Margaret Trudeau 28 times. On each occasion she provided an average of 3-5 events per engagement.

This is all public. Nothing is not in the public realm. I didn't find some magical source for information. The site indicates:

For one engagement, there was no compensation. The amount she received in fees for the 27 engagements totalled $180,000.00 (after 20% commission paid to Speaker’s Spotlight) averaging $6,666.66 per engagement. The total amount of expenses (hospitality costs including food, hotels, car service) was $163,654.74, which captured several international trips to both the United States and United Kingdom, and represents an average of $6,061.29 for each engagement. An additional $160 in gifts was provided to Margaret Trudeau during this time.

It goes on to say the same thing about Alexandre Trudeau:

Between September 2017 and February 2018, a speaking bureau was used to engage Alexandre Trudeau 9 times. On each occasion he provided an average of 3-5 events per engagement. The amount he received in engagement and ancillary event fees for these 9 engagements totalled $36,000.00 (after 20% commission paid to Speaker’s Spotlight), averaging $4,333.33 per engagement. The total amount of expenses (hospitality costs including food, hotels, car service, and flights) covered for Alexandre Trudeau over the 9 engagements he attended was $22,025.42, or an average of $2,447.26 per engagement. An additional $230 in gifts was provided to Alexandre Trudeau during this time.

I think that during this time the mother of the Prime Minister may have been to other events, speaking about mental health, life experiences, and inspiring youth and young women, and that's fine. There's nothing untoward. These individuals have private careers and private lives, and here we are with Mr. Barrett's motion to go on this fishing expedition because he doesn't like...let me rephrase that, because the official opposition doesn't like the information that's out there because they think there's more sauce out there, if I can use that analogy. I think I was quoted about going after someone's mother and brother, who are not elected representatives, who have done nothing wrong, who have been exemplary citizens in my humble eyes, and I think that's completely wrong.

As its last comment on the website, they note the following regarding the Prime Minister's wife:

...Sophie Trudeau attended a total of eight WE Day events. She received a one-time speaking fee of $1,500.00 in 2012. The total amount of expenses (hospitality costs including hotels, car service and flights) covered for Sophie Trudeau over the 8 events she attended was $23,940.76, or an average of $2,992.59 per event. An additional $240 in gifts was provided to Sophie Trudeau during this time.

I read this the other day, and I read the information on the site. I looked at it because we're here because of the motion, and what and who it relates to. Again, this concerns me considerably, to the extent that this is nothing more than going after the Prime Minister's mother and brother and wife. That's all it is, no more, no less. The documents have been disclosed. The tough questions were asked over the summer. The information was provided.

The way I view this is that it's a complete overreach by the opposition. Yes, it's unfortunate that the program did not go forward.

MP Simms is no longer on the call, but I've had the pleasure of working with Scott on the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association because he chairs it, and I've travelled with him. Scott is an exemplary MP for many reasons, not only because he's very well spoken and quite eloquent—we would all like to rise to that level of eloquence, absolutely. At the same time, he likes to call it the way it is. And he was right. He's says we've done a good job in a lot of programs that we've put in place. Definitely. We've helped Canadians from coast to coast with input from opposition parties, in co-operation with other levels of government, and we got it right.

I would fundamentally say, on all the programs, we got it right, and even on assisting our youth. I know MP Green who was on earlier, and MP Angus, spoke about that. There were programs put in place that assisted youth across this country, from Canada summer jobs, the Canada emergency student benefit, in addition to a number of measures we've taken over a number of years in various budgets, from the first time we formed a majority government in 2015 until now. We need to look at that.

Now, I look at their testimony. MP Johns said, well, it was a billion dollars. No, it wasn't a billion-dollar program, not at all. Was it supposed to help 100,000 young people? Yes, it was. Did we put in place other programs to replace that? Yes, to a certain extent we did, absolutely. Was it unfortunate the program didn't go ahead? Yes, absolutely.

At the same time, we are helping Canadians, and continue to help Canadians.

I do encourage my Conservative members to go to the WE website and find the information I found. You'll get the numbers you need. You'll see the expenses disclosed and the information I found. I think you should be quite satisfied with that and understand the fact that you really are overreaching, and Canadians will understand that fact. You are looking at this from unfortunately a very small prism, as I would call it. I like to use this term. There is a bigger picture. The bigger picture is that we in the middle of a second wave of a pandemic.

I do think it's important that certain segments of the funding agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of State of Diversity and Inclusion, and the WE Charity Foundation...because I think it's important to look at intent, the intent of the program, and why that relates to the motion at hand. The motion at hand is nothing more than trying to grab some documents. It's interesting to note that the motion doesn't ask about the intent of the Canada student service grant, the intent of our helping out youth. Who were these youth that we're supposed to be helping out?

I look at the intent in the funding agreement to provide biweekly reports to ESDC on all students registered in service opportunities and all the students who register for the CSSG with the following indicators as available: estimated volunteer service hours completed; number of students per birth year; number of students who identify as first language English or French, male or female or other, LGBTQ2+, visible minority or racialized, and as having a disability, as indigenous, and whether they identify as registered on reserve, off reserve, or as non-status, Métis or Inuit; the number of students who are newcomers to Canada; and the number of students by their highest level of education and completed, elementary, secondary and post-secondary.

When I look at this funding agreement and how it came to fruition, how it was recommended by the amazing public bureaucrats—I don't like using the word “bureaucrat”—but public servants that we have in the Government of Canada, what was the intent of this? The intent of this was to help students.

Now we've gotten to a point where this motion is not talking about anything in the realm of helping Canadians, but about wanting a copy of all records “pertaining to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008” of the four individuals, “including, in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it—which had been originally ordered to be produced on July 22, 2020”.

It amazes me that with all the information out there we're still trying to draw from a rock anything left, because there is nothing left, the information is out there.

To my esteemed and learned colleague—I think that's the word—Mr. Turnbull, for whatever reason, I went and looked at what “ethics” meant and where it derived from and everything to that extent, but I put that aside and said that ethics to me is making sure you try to do the right thing. I think as parliamentarians we always try to do the right thing. I think someone who is in cabinet, or someone who is the prime minister, always tries to do the right thing. Yes, politics is politics. We all understand that, but fundamentally during this pandemic we are all in this together. A number of programs were put in place—and I know, Chair, I apologize if I repeat it—to help Canadians, yes.

This motion, does it aid the process? Does it assist this process in helping Canadians out? Absolutely not. This is nothing more than looking into a barrel and seeing nothing, but putting forward more motions that achieve nothing. Something on the website that I found interesting was about what we were thinking in the summertime and what the organization that had been engaged by the public servants to help our youth out was thinking about even before the actual program came to fruition.

I want to read the executive summary, because I think, independent of organization, this is how Canadians wanted to help, this is what Canadians wanted to do, especially a lot of organizations.

In that regard, I had a number of organizations in my riding convert production lines so they could make sanitizing lotion, PPE. The Premier of Ontario has been to my riding several times.... There are a number of companies that converted to make personal protective equipment: gowns, masks, sanitizer. We are all in this together, and I look at this motion and ask, where's that spirit? It's like we're just going to play politics.

I look at my Twitter feed and I see Mr. Warkentin attacking me, and a number of Conservatives then attacking me. You know what? I'm really sad to see that, because for me, the parents in my riding and the families in my riding, they're not really paying attention to that, but to their kids going to school tomorrow morning and making sure that their hydro bills are paid at the end of the month. They're not paying attention to what Mr. Warkentin's tweeting about this motion and about my testimony.

It's unfortunate, but they're not paying attention, Mr. Warkentin. I hate to tell you that, they're really not.

I look at this motion and I'm like, really? You just go to the WE website and it's all disclosed there. You can get the information. If you want to see each individual receipt, each time a piece of food was eaten, each hotel, or each person who was involved, if that's where you want to go.... I don't know. Are we going to go down that path? Do you want to bring in every single tie..? It just amazes me. Where are we going with this motion?

I just wanted to read this into the record, Chair, if you'll allow me to:

This document outlines an opportunity to launch a national, bilingual turn key digital service program to enable 20,000 young Canadians to engage in summer service placements and projects during the COVID 19 crisis. There is an urgent need to support young people between the ages of 16 and 29, particularly those from under-represented groups, who are seeking meaningful opportunities to develop life skills, earn income for personal use such as paying for post secondary studies, and serving Canada to benefit communities. By incentivizing and supporting youth to engage through a system of well organized service opportunities, they will—

I think Ms. Blaney would like to make a point of order.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam Blaney, we're not hearing you at all. Your audio is very low.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I'll fix it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's better.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I would just remind members that the interpreters are working with us very late into the night and as you are reading, you are reading very rapidly. I wanted to remind us to be respectful of the people who are working so hard to allow us to do our job.

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

May I go ahead, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes.

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

MP Blaney, I thank you for that comment. My policy adviser texted me and said the same thing, so thank you to both you and my amazing policy adviser.

Thank you. I will slow down for the benefit of everyone. My sincere excusez-moi to the interpreters for going at a faster clip. I know they've been working terribly hard for hours on end. I thank them for all of their efforts, and MP Blaney for her gentle reminder.

Thank you so much. I'll continue:

By incentivizing and supporting youth to engage through a system of well-organized service opportunities, they will be empowered both to safely participate in service projects in an era of physical distancing, and to provide tangible benefits to addressing important social causes in their communities in collaboration with non-profits across Canada.

This bilingual digital service program seeks to:

Create meaningful service opportunities for approximately 20,000 youth between ages 16 and 29 years across Canada, bearing in mind COVID-19 physical distancing measures.

Offer turn-key service opportunities that are flexible and supportive of social impact efforts and designed in collaboration with non-profits across Canada.

Support Canada Service Corps national partners that may be in need of support to transform their traditional volunteer placements into digital service projects.

Ensure service initiatives are diverse and inclusive in nature for youth, provide skill-development...that benefit society, and include effective economic incentives to encourage participation.

This organization that put forward this idea and how it evolved to the CSSG goes to show me (a) how much they were involved in wanting to assist youth during this pandemic and (b) how genuinely forthright the information is out there for us to see. During the finance committee testimony, we heard from a number of individuals, from the Privy Council clerk to the Prime Minister to the Prime Minister's chief of staff. It's important for us to understand that the testimony was there for us to read and go over. For me, in my humble view, it answered many, many questions.

Now, I'm sure that the opposition—in their right, of course, in their job—want more questions answered. That's within their prerogative, and they need to keep doing that. I get that and I understand that.

I also would take a step back and ask what are the questions that we are trying to answer with this motion. What are we trying to get at with this motion? To me, again, the Prime Minister's mother was here at the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce. I'm sorry to repeat this, but for MP Blaney, who was not here when I said this, for her benefit, the Prime Minister's mother was here in the City of Vaughan. She participated in an event with the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce. She spoke about her life experience and her life story. There were approximately a good 1,000 people there, I would say. The majority of them—I'd say 800, probably 950—in the audience were women. You could hear a pin drop.

I would just be very saddened to know that this motion captures an event like that by an individual. It was a non-political event. They were invited by a non-political organization. It was attended, frankly, by a majority of people who were non-political, who run businesses and are women entrepreneurs who take risks every day, and are mothers—the whole gamut, spanning all different occupations, careers, experiences and communities—and here was the Prime Minister's mother coming to speak at that event.

This motion captures that. That concerns me. It concerns me especially when what's relevant has been disclosed and is on the public record. I think that is something that we all really need to dwell on. Now, on the ethics of the motion, being on the ethics committee, I'm not a philosopher. That's just not my shtick. I think I actually switched from philosophy class to an economics class. I went into economics instead, both at the undergraduate and the graduate levels, and that's my field. I love numbers, and that's why, when I read this document that's available about what the engagement honorariums were, what the associated expenses were.... It's all out there.

Why are we going back to 2008—I think it's 2008—when I believe there was another government in power at that time? How does what the Prime Minister's family were doing in 2008 pertain to today? I would argue that the intent of this motion is absolutely nothing other than a fishing expedition. That's all.

It is much to my dismay that we are down that path and that the opposition party has chosen to go down that path. I would hope that the other parties in the House and colleagues from all sides would look at that and say, “You know what? I think there are other avenues that we could proceed along. There are other ways of getting and having tough questions answered.”

I said this earlier on. I absolutely believe in asking tough questions and answering tough questions, no matter what aspect of my life I've been in, whether it's my private sector career for 20 years, growing up as a kid or now as a public servant, and I think it's important.

I'm just going back to the funding agreement because I think it's really important to again recognize that the aim of this agreement was not to benefit an organization, not to benefit individuals. The aim of this program was to benefit youth. That, to me, is the unfortunate aspect of how it evolved. Here, I agree with Mr. Simms, absolutely.

The principles of all the programs we entered into were to make sure our seniors were taken care of as they face higher costs, make sure that people who lost their jobs due to COVID-19 or were impacted were taken care of through the programs and to make sure there was continued attachment between employers and employees, which we did through the CEWS.

I argued vehemently that the original program of 10% needed to be 75%—I sent several emails—and I was very happy to see, when it went to 75%, that small business owners in all our ridings were assisted through the CEBA, and that, yes, students could be assisted through various channels like Canada summer jobs, which I know the opposition pointed out and we acted on, as well the Canada emergency student benefit. We all know those programs are put in place, but, again, going to this motion here that's been brought forth, what does this achieve? That's the one question I would love the opposition to answer. What does this motion achieve?

The information is out there. Questions were asked over the summertime. What does this achieve other than, in my view, going after someone's mother and their brother and the Prime Minister's wife? That, to me, and as I was quoted, is to me, fundamentally wrong. People may think otherwise.

I know it's within the opposition's right and purview to ask for such a motion. I get it. To me it's overreach, and I think that, as a committee, we have many other things to study. If a committee or some sort of an agreement is reached between all the House leaders or if anything is done to study programs to look at them, great. Let's do that. Let's learn what we can learn from the pandemic. Let's learn how to make Canada a better place. Let's learn, hopefully, not for next time, because this pandemic is taking its toll on a lot of folks. We know that from—I don't want to say this, but—people who are homeless and needing help and people who have drug addictions and stuff. You read the stories. We know the numbers and the resources we need to dedicate to those areas, which we are.

This motion, however, does not help any Canadian out there. It does not help anyone; it's pure political partisanship to the nth degree, and I really wish I weren't speaking on this thing at 10:16 at night. I wish I were home with my wife and my kids, who should be sleeping by now because they need to go to school tomorrow. For me, Chair—and I'll stop in a second—this is a non-starter.

I am going to yield the floor now. I will allow someone else to speak. I want to say it's nice to see everybody for the eighth hour now of this wonderful procedure.

Let me say to MP Barrett, I'd love to hear some of your comments. I greatly appreciate your work ethic and I respect you very much as an MP and as a friend, much like many of your colleagues. I understand we all have a job to do.

My job tonight is to say that this is what my feeling is about this on a personal basis. I just don't agree fundamentally with this motion, not even with its intent. Concerning the values of going after someone's mother and their family, again I say frankly, to me it's wrong—that's the way I look at it—especially when they're not political office holders.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

Just to remind the committee, Mr. Barrett is up next, and then Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Warkentin, Ms. Sahota, Mr. Dong, Mr. Fergus, Madame Blaney and Mr. Drouin.

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

Chair, we heard about different types of cognitive biases from a member, but nothing about the evidence of selective perception in the arguments made by some of the members from the government side.

We heard from another member about Conservative members voting against the Prime Minister's being called to testify seven years ago, but nothing about the Liberal members of this committee voting against the Prime Minister's testifying this summer at this committee and, once the motion passed, the Prime Minister's not respecting the committee's call for him to testify.

We're now eight hours into this filibuster, and I'll remind members from the government side of the House that getting your say doesn't mean you'll get your way. Whether the Liberal members believe this is a matter of conscience or whether it's just the party line, why not vote on the record?

Chair, please poll the committee to see whether there's a consensus to move to a vote. If there is, we can have everyone on record with their view.

If we move to a vote, I'd ask for a recorded division. We've heard from everyone at great length, and while I see many hands ready to follow my time slot—folks who wish to speak—perhaps we'll have a breakthrough, at nearly 10:30 p.m. If not, then we'll settle in and continue to hear from other members.

With that request to you, Chair, I'll yield my time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I can tell you that with the several shaking heads I see on the screen, there's no consensus on moving to a vote.

I will poll the members individually at this time, because we have been going for eight hours. I will check to see, for those members who are here, if they would like to....You can go ahead, tap your button, and then speak. Is there any consensus to go ahead?

There's no consensus.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Gourde, go ahead.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Chair, we're at a standstill right now and there's probably no way we'll reach a consensus tonight. Sooner or later, you're going to have to decide whether to hold the vote and whether to adjourn the meeting. As things stand, the committee members are never going to unanimously agree to holding the vote tonight. Unfortunately, you're caught between a rock and a hard place since it's five against five. You're eventually going to have to make a decision because this could go on forever.

In my 14 years—nearly 15, in fact—I've seen meetings last four or five days. That's where we seem to be headed, since every member of the Liberal Party may see fit to stop by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics between now and the end of next week. Nevertheless, we're going to have to sleep someday, so a decision will have to be made—the real decision being whether to sleep or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

I'm going to return to the speaking list.

Madame Gaudreau, you have been very patient. You now have the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It's very kind of you, Mr. Chair, to recognize that I have been patient. I enjoy hearing what my fellow members have to say.

After all these years, I know this can go on indefinitely, and I am very much aware of the challenge before us. We are going to debate until… I won't say it, but whatever will be will be.

There is a tendency to paint everyone with the same brush. I've listened to everything that's been said about those who are preoccupied with power. If anyone on this committee is not in pursuit of power, it's certainly me. I therefore encourage my fellow members to stop and think about that when they bring up partisanship, power and all the rest. I would hope that, because of my political party and who I am, those comments aren't directed at me. It bothers me when people say those things. Everything I say is truthful and sincere and comes from a place of good faith, especially where the ethics committee is concerned.

It's clear to me that we are at a dead end, and my conscience is telling me I must attend to something else. I must inform you that I have to leave the meeting for several reasons. I had said that I would stay up all night, but I have a family and people who need me out there, on the ground, tomorrow morning. I feel I must do my duty.

I will leave you with this, however. We talked about philosophy and ethics. I can be a philosopher when the mood strikes me. Something I always bear in mind is Socrates and the triple filter test, which you are no doubt familiar with. Think about it.

Socrates' triple filter test is a list of three questions you must ask yourself before passing on information.

The first question to ask yourself is whether the information is true. If the answer is yes, with facts and proof to back it up, that's good. If not, you have to validate the information. You know this one, don't you?

The second question to ask yourself is whether the information is useful and achieves a benefit. You've all said it in different ways: is the information useful and what will it achieve?

The third and final question to ask yourself is whether the information is good, seriously, even though the information may be useful and true.

That test can help us, as parliamentarians, do the honourable thing. We set the example, as does the government. I heard people say that they are allowed to make mistakes. Of course, it's perfectly all right to self-correct and recuse oneself. There's another dimension to all this, however. I'm talking about the significance and magnitude of the issue. It's important to know where things stand and what position to take.

A government that leads coast to coast to coast is a government that leads a large federation, a government that must honour its duty and stay on the right track. In life, I learn from my mistakes, as I hope you do. Unfortunately, because of the two mistakes of the past, we cannot still have confidence, and with good reason, that this was a genuine and final mistake.

It's entirely legitimate, then, for us, as parliamentarians, to get to the bottom of this, within limits, I admit.

I'm perfectly comfortable taking action within reason. Let's not forget, though, the obligations we have to fulfill for simple little requests. We've been hearing about people who are vulnerable. As entrepreneurs and business people, you know as I do that, when conditions have to be met, we aren't immune to that.

How is it that we have a government that struggles with not only its reputation, but also the handling of public money, our money? How is it that some people are so vulnerable that every single penny counts? Someone mentioned the United Way, support agencies and businesses. I know exactly what they're going through, because I, too, am going through it, to some extent.

We are being told that we won't be getting to the bottom of the matter. Some have been asking whether we're not simply wasting our time. Time is what you make of it. If everything that has happened helps us work together more effectively, it will have been constructive and worthwhile.

I can see from my screen that some people are coming back and others are joining for the first time. Those people have heard everything we've experienced. Like you, some never really stopped working over the summer. We did our job, but not fully. That's why we have no other choice but to see this through.

I can't accept that, when everything comes to a sudden halt, like when the power goes out, you stop whatever you're doing, even when the power comes back on.

On that note, I sincerely apologize for having to leave in order to attend to my personal responsibilities. I didn't plan on doing this. I have no doubt that you will be carrying on for hours and will eventually come to an agreement. Unfortunately, I won't be there when it happens.

Mr. Chair, how does it work when you have to leave the meeting. Do I just let you know that I have to go and don't have a substitute?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Gaudreau, it is your prerogative. If you want to depart from the committee, you can do so. It means that your voice will be absent.

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

On a point of order, Chair.