Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 15th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Drouin, I just wanted to say that on all sides—and it has been on all sides tonight—there have been points of order in regard to staying with the point at hand, and that is the motion at hand. I have cautioned a number of colleagues in that regard, so just make sure that your comments are germane to the motion.

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

They are exactly germane to the motion, Mr. Chair. What Mr. Barrett is trying to bring forward are the family ties of the Prime Minister, which are not covered by the ethics act, by the way. I have serious issues with the relationship between Mr. Ballingall and Mr. O'Toole, and with his policy to defund the CBC. Perhaps a better use of time for the ethics committee would be looking at that particular issue. I hope that in the matter of transparency, my colleagues on the Conservative side would want to take a look at that.

If the media and the Conservative Party are in cahoots, then I have an issue with that. If they are lobbying to defund certain—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I don't think that anyone believes that the Conservative Party and the media are in cahoots, and I don't think that this is germane to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. I had just mentioned that.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

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

Great.

I want to thank my colleague from Leeds—Grenville. I have to come back to the point.

No matter how many times Thelma & Louise stand up on Sunday afternoons or Thanksgiving Sundays, we know how that particular movie ends. It's two people driving off a cliff.

I know they're just trying to drive a particular matter that has absolutely no scandal. In Canada, when there is corruption, there is only one entity that can determine that, and it's the police. If Mr. Barrett has some particular evidence to provide to the police, then he can do so and provide that to the police, because at the end of the day, we know that Mr. Barrett is just trying to do a drive-by smear. He stands up with the MP for Carleton and the member for Leeds—Grenville. They stand up on Sundays and Thanksgiving Mondays, trying to drive media attention, and it has absolutely—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I don't believe that the member has moved to relevance, but if he is suggesting that we should take our evidence to the police, I would recommend to him that he release the evidence to this committee so that we can determine whether it should be handed over to the police. It's he who is limiting our ability to have any evidence to review.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please continue, Mr. Drouin.

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

Agreed.

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

I would respond to my colleague that the police are free to do anything they want, despite pressure from the opposition and/or any government entity in this country. The police are free to do whatsoever, free to investigate anything they want to in this country.

That's where it lies, Mr. Chair. This is a drive-by smear by the opposition, and it has nothing to do with anything that is relative to this country.

I would ask my honourable colleagues from the opposition how many emails they are getting on this particular matter. I have Conservatives in my riding, and they're not even sending emails on it. They're worried about what is going to happen tomorrow, what is going to happen in a few months and what is going to happen when the provincial governments close the economy, close the restaurants. Is the federal government going to be there to support them? That's what matters, Mr. Chair.

I understand that Mr. Warkentin, who voted against his own Prime Minister appearing before his own committee.... He speaks of transparency, but he voted against his own Prime Minister appearing in order to show transparency.

I get it. Listen, I get it. I've been around this town for a long time. My riding is only half an hour away. Trust me when I say I'm in the bubble. I get it, I honestly get it, but at the end of the day, Canadians care about what the federal government is going to do about COVID-19 and about how it is going to support them.

I'm going to switch to French.

I'm francophone, after all.

I think that Canadians must understand how much the government wants to take care of them. When I hear my opposition colleagues on this committee suddenly preaching transparency when they voted against transparency, I have an issue with that. Mr. Barrett's motion isn't important to Canadians and doesn't affect them.

I'm trying to understand Mr. Barrett's motion. I'll ask him the question later. I hope that, in the spirit of transparency, he'll want to confirm it. However, if he's currently proposing that we ask for the financial statements of the parents and siblings of the members of Parliament—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

The member is saying I'm suggesting something that is absolutely not true. I've asked only for the documents related to the WE controversy, to the scandal involving his Prime Minister, and the Liberal members on this committee voted against having him testify. That's all that I've requested.

I've made no request for financial information from the family members of other members, because it's not germane to the investigation of the latest corruption scandal involving [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please continue, Mr. Drouin.

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

Mr. Chair, you can see that this is where the issue lies. Mr. Barrett is asking for a double standard. Regardless of who the Prime Minister will be in the future, he's asking for financial information on the Prime Minister's family members when they aren't subject to the Conflict of Interest Act.

If Mr. Barrett really wants to meddle in the affairs of members' parents and siblings, let him move a motion calling on all members to proactively disclose their parents' financial statements. However, I know that Mr. Barrett wouldn't support this type of motion. Nevertheless, through his motion, he wants to see that information disclosed. Therein lies the issue. How far does Mr. Barrett want to push the boundaries of ethics and conflict of interest?

I don't see an issue regarding the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. He's doing an excellent job. He's already investigating this matter.

If Mr. Barrett is basically saying that politicians should be able to investigate other politicians, he's completely out in left field. I know that he understands what it means to be out in left field, because there are several fields in his constituency. I speak to a number of farmers from his constituency and I know them very well.

The issue is whether Mr. Barrett would be willing to submit his parents' financial statements. As a member of Parliament, I have no idea why Mr. Barrett would vote for or against a given bill. According to the Commissioner of Lobbying, the definition of “designated public office holder” doesn't distinguish between a prime minister, a member of Parliament and a minister.

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

Chair, I have a point of order.

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

Mr. Barrett can rise on a point of order all he wants. He's wrong when it comes to this matter.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Chair, I'm not sure if I misunderstood the interpretation. Is the member moving an amendment to call for the financial information of my mom and dad?

I just want to be clear. That would be confusing, because I'm not a designated public office holder covered by the Conflict of Interest Act, unlike the Prime Minister. I am covered by the conflict of interest code.

The member, not being a regular member of the standing committee, may not have an understanding of the difference between the act and the code. I just wanted to be sure that I understand his amendment correctly. If he is calling for the financial information from my mom and dad, is that based on the conflict of interest code or the Conflict of Interest Act, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I didn't hear an amendment there, but I'll have Mr. Drouin respond to that in that regard.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

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

Mr. Barrett just proved my point. The Conflict of Interest Act doesn't apply to—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

—the parents and siblings—

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

I love it when the Conservatives interrupt me by rising on a point of order.