Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 15th, 2020

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Drouin, I have a point of order.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

They don't like it when I tell the truth.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Drouin, there's another point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Chair, if Mr. Drouin is suggesting that, if our parents released their financial information, he would vote in support of this motion, I think my parents would be happy to release their financial information to this committee. If we could be sure that he would vote in support of this WE document scandal release of documentation....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Warkentin, that's not a point of order.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

I'm looking for consensus here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I realize the member is trying to reach some sort of consensus, but I would encourage him to check with his caucus before proposing something like that.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Barrett's argument. He clearly stated that this wasn't covered under the Conflict of Interest Act. The committee may wish to examine this issue, but I encourage my fellow members to think about who would want to run for election when they have to disclose not only their information, but also that of their parents. I don't have anything to hide either. My father is retired. My brother works in construction and doesn't have any government contracts. I have absolutely nothing to hide.

Mr. Barrett's motion would require that a person's mother, brother and all sorts of other people who aren't subject to the Conflict of Interest Act disclose their information. Mr. Chair, I'm wondering why you didn't rule it out of order for that reason.

What I'm trying to say is that, in principle, it's not the job of politicians to determine whether something corrupt occurred. It's up to police, and here's the proof. When the WE issue made headlines in early July, Mr. Barrett, the member for Carleton and even the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle called for an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and so forth. We are still waiting for the results of that investigation to find out whether anyone will be going to jail because of this situation or whether it was nothing more than stories made up by Mr. Barrett and the member for Carleton, yet again.

Mr. Chair, as members, we have a responsibility to decide on a process and follow it. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is in the midst of looking into the matter, and it is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to have full confidence in him.

I know that, come Sunday, Mr. Barrett and the member for Carleton will probably demand another kind of anticorruption investigation and who knows what else. It'll make the news, which will please them and make them feel validated. That's fine and dandy, but at the end of the day, the Liberal members in the House take the matter seriously. With the members of the opposition continuing to demand some sort of investigation into another investigation regarding a different investigation, at some point, we have to take our jobs as parliamentarians seriously. We have work to do.

People want to know what we're doing in response to COVID-19 to support them and make sure businesses come through the pandemic.

When it comes to information about this person's or that person's family, there's a long-standing tradition in politics: you can go after a politician, but you can't go after their family. I call this doing things à la Deborah Grey.

Well, the hypocrisy, Mr. Chair, is that Deborah Grey later signed on. As much as she spoke against that MP pension, she signed on to it. She is now collecting an MP's pension.

I feel the hypocrisy from the opposition. I have to mention Deborah Grey. Deborah Grey, in the 1990s, was the parliamentarian who was saying about MPs' pensions, “How dare you grab an MP's pension? How dare you MPs, Liberal MPs and Conservative MPs?” I remind everybody that the Canadian Alliance, the Reform Party and the PC Party were all divorced. They were all separated, and how ashamed that Deborah Grey was saying, “How dare you grab your MP's pension?”

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

And that is, Mr. Chair, if I can say this with my final words, the Canadian Alliance and Conservative hypocrisy.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Warkentin, you have a point of order.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know my good friend over there knows how to stay relevant to the conversation, because I've heard him be relevant in other committees. Unfortunately, he has resisted the call to remain relevant. I would ask you to convey to him the importance of remaining relevant, so that we can move to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's a good point.

Mr. Drouin, Deborah Grey has been gone from the House of Commons for quite a number of years, and I don't really see how that's germane to the motion. If you could stay with comments that are germane to the motion, that would be great.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, the best way to predict the future of the opposition party is to look at its history. I'm looking at members of the opposition, and they're surely acting the same way they were acting in the 1990s, like the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance. I am trying to stay relevant. I think it's germane to the opposition motion at hand that we are studying.

Trying to go after family members.... The proof is in the pudding. All of the opposition members who want to have the financial information of family members, who are not covered under the Conflict of Interest Act, are themselves not publishing and are not being proactive about publishing the information of their own family members, who are not covered under the ethics act.

We go through a process with the Ethics Commissioner. I have to divulge all of the information of my wife—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Johns, go ahead.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the member is citing that we're going after family members. This isn't what's happening here. This is about an almost $1-billion contract that was awarded to an organization. We're trying to get information about who got paid by that company for speaking, to see the connection. This isn't a normal family matter; this is about getting to the bottom of this.

To be fair, there's still $900 million that hasn't been awarded to students, who are waiting and who were expecting to get the help they needed.

Yes, I agree with Mr. Drouin that we want to get back to work and that we want to be helping Canadians. That's what we've been doing simultaneously through this whole process. The bottom line is that $900 million is still sitting idle, not helping the very students who were supposed to be getting help.

We need to get to the bottom of this and hopefully get some answers. There's a lot of money going out the door. When this money is going out and it's not being properly vetted.... That's what we're doing here. We're finding out how this money got awarded and what sort of conflict there was, potentially. We're just trying to get these simple answers about who got paid.

This isn't targeting—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I don't believe this is a point of order. I think the member is debating.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Turnbull, if you want me to cut off everybody who I think doesn't have a point of order, I'd be glad to do that, but I will do it consistently. I'll either give people the time—I've usually given only one or two minutes—or I'll cut everybody right off as soon as I sense that it's not a policy or procedure issue.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Sorry, Chair, I was just sensing that it was getting into debate. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No worries, it's just the way I operate. I give a little bit of space, as I have with Mr. Drouin, with regard to being germane to the subject.

Mr. Johns, are you just about done with your point of order?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, the member is saying that this is a witch hunt after family members. This isn't going after any family members. We're talking about $900 million that has been doled out. We're trying to find out what the links were with the organization and get to the bottom of this.

This is a reasonable ask, with $900 million. There are students still waiting for help, and they're calling our office. These are students who went out and volunteered when the Prime Minister said, on April 24, “Get out and help. Contribute to your country.” I know young people who went out and started volunteering down at the Salvation Army and at the Bread of Life in my community, delivering food to the most vulnerable. Then the Prime Minister said, “We're going to help you out.” At the end of June, what does he do? He announces a new program. He says the program is going to be working through WE Charity, and that they may not even be able to stay connected to the organization they are helping.

I mean, the apathy here, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Johns, as I mentioned to Mr. Turnbull, I like to give some space, but think we need to conclude that point. I get your point. It's not a point of procedure.

We'll have to let Mr. Drouin continue.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hear Mr. Johns' point and I respect him as a colleague. He's complaining about $900 million, but of course what my constituents are asking me now is, how the heck did the NDP buffle $2.5 million when they were almost in power and the official opposition? My question to that particular member is, have they paid back the expenses?

That's a side note, Mr. Chair, and obviously I want to stay on topic and the issue at hand. The motion of Mr. Barrett is going after family members, which is not covered under the ethics act.

What Mr. Johns has said is somewhat relevant, because we're trying to ask for information from a third party that is in no way connected to WE. The Speakers Bureau is in no way connected to WE. We're asking for information from them, and they offer speaker services and client services to a bunch of organizations across Canada. I believe Rona Ambrose is a member. John Baird is a member of the Speakers Bureau—I wouldn't say a member, but I would say a speaker, part of the Speakers Bureau. They offer their services, which I respectfully say is an offer. I respect John Baird, and I certainly respect Rona Ambrose, especially for her work trying to get judges trained about sexual harassment.

This is where, Mr. Chair, I'm trying to understand where the opposition is trying to go. They've asked for the Prime Minister to appear. He has appeared. They've asked for the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. She has appeared. They've asked for the Minister of Youth and Diversification. She has appeared. They've asked for the deputy minister and the ADM to appear. They've appeared.

How long is this going to take, and is this a fair process, Mr. Chair? There is a fair process going on right now, and this is with the Ethics Commissioner. Let's let the Ethics Commissioner do his work and then, if the opposition thinks that we should go after family members who are not covered under the ethics act, the Conflict of Interest Act, then maybe that's something that—I'm not a regular member of the ethics committee—opposition members will want to look at.

Mr. Chair, I will end my comment here. I will wish my colleagues well, and I hope that the opposition parties, especially the Conservative Party, which voted against the Prime Minister appearing before committee, see the light of day.