Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 15th, 2020

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

Good afternoon, colleagues, and thank you very much, Chair. I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving long weekend and relaxed a moment with their family.

I have been listening carefully to all members of the committee, not just today but last week as well, and I want to clarify something. I heard the opposition members accusing the Liberals of playing political games, going back and forth. I think I remember Mr. Barrett saying last week that this is a tactic we use and that they have tactics too.

For the record, I take my committee work very seriously. I was elected by my constituents and I was sent to Ottawa to do a good job. You have my 100% commitment to at least try to do a good job. I'm not gaming or anything like that. I take my job quite seriously.

We heard the opposition, both in this committee and also out there through press conferences over the weekend, trying to portray that we are delaying, but I think many good questions have been put forward on this side to Mr. Barrett, and they weren't answered. They tried to portray that the same motion was passed in July. What changed now, and why are we delaying on this?

For the record, let me just remind my good colleagues on this committee what the motion was back then, and the motion we are facing right now.

The motion back in July was put in writing on July 13 from Mr. Barrett to the clerk:

That, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(3)(h), the Committee review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contribution and other expenditure policies; and that, to provide a case study for this review, an Order of the Committee do issue to Speakers’ Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau — 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 — provided that these records shall be provided to the Clerk of Committee within one week of the adoption of this Order.

What we are seeing today, or saw last week moved by Mr. Barrett, is somewhat different. It was much broader. That includes allowing staff members to access these documents. There was no mention of government operations, no mention of WE. They tried to tie these things together. If you want to compare apple to apple to make an argument, I get that, but in my view it's not apple to apple.

In my view, an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner is ongoing right now. He's trying to do his best to find out the truth for Canadians. I think for committee members to try to start a parallel investigation runs a risk of interfering with this investigation the commissioner is doing and potentially contaminating it, and that is not very helpful. I don't think we were elected to do that.

Then we heard Ms. Shanahan's argument about how inappropriate it would be and how intrusive it is to investigate a member of Parliament's relative, and I wholeheartedly agree with her. I think many members of this committee would agree.

We put our name on the ballot and put ourselves under public scrutiny. Our relatives should not have to be ordered to open their finances and all these privacy matters for the public to judge. The lack of protection around these documents was another concern I brought forward last week. Again, it has not been addressed.

I heard some comment was made that we'll make it accountable. If anyone believes measures of accountability will take place, I don't know what they are. As members of Parliament we are all sworn by an oath, but that's it. I don't think everyone has access to these documents. In principle, having MPs investigating another MP's relative is wrong. First of all, I don't understand the changes since the last motion, and how these protections are being put in place to safeguard the privacy of individuals related to a member of Parliament.

I also heard mention that a lot of events are taking place. There's an urgency to matters on hand. We talked about the risk of COVID-19 over the weekend. Ontario is still seeing high numbers, and I think it's the same for the rest of the country. We're seeing extremely high numbers regarding COVID and we ought to do our work to help that situation.

I would like to bring other things to the committee's attention as urgent matters that should take priority in the committee. The discussion of COVID-19 has resulted in a drastic rise in anti-Asian racism. That is of serious concern to me and my family, and I'm sure to all Canadians. I'm sure you've read on social media and seen reported numerous times on TV how Asian Canadians are being attacked and insulted. I remember one very recent case of a supermarket staffer who was just doing his job by telling an individual who wasn't wearing a mask, a face covering, to put a mask on or, for the protection of their clients, he would have to leave the store. In that exchange, he was told to go home. He said he is a Canadian and this is his home, but it didn't matter. The attack continued. Luckily, the instigator was surrounded by a group of people with the right mindset, who insisted that he should follow the rules or leave the store.

These stories are not new; there are hundreds of them around the GTA—

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

I have a point of order.

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

I think it's a very important issue—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Dong, we need to address the point of order from Mr. Angus.

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

We are talking about the documents that were ordered by our committee that relate to the WE scandal. I would ask my colleague not to divert us. There are many disturbing stories about COVID-19 right now, but it's not the work of this committee at this time. If we're going to be here all night, we should be focused on the question of Liberal interference and whether or not they will agree to go to a vote. If we could just stick to relevance, it would make it a lot easier for the rest of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Go ahead, Mr. Dong, but please try to keep comments to the issue at hand.

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

Thank you, Chair, and I thank the member for his interjection, but I am making a point.

A lot of important stuff needs to be done, and unfortunately we're debating this motion. Otherwise I could have had this opportunity to talk about these important issues and try to convince my colleagues—

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

Then end the filibuster.

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

Chair, that was uncalled for.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please keep your comments to the chair, colleagues.

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you.

This is an important issue that must be addressed and discussed by this committee, in my view, as are the concerns about racism in Canada more generally. We have all seen this coming up, not just in the past few months but for years. Racialized citizens in this country understand that acts of racism happen in this country. For too many Canadians, systemic racism is a lived reality. That is why I'm extremely proud of what the government has invested in the economic empowerment of racialized communities—including through the Black entrepreneurship program—while working to close the gaps for indigenous communities.

The government also took important steps to address racism with the release of Canada's anti-racism strategy 2019-22. It's a three-year strategy involving the creation of an anti-racism secretariat and the appointment of the first-ever minister focused specifically on diversity and inclusion.

In the throne speech—which the Conservatives and the Bloc voted against, by the way—the government committed to redoubling its effort by taking action on online hate. We've seen lots of that over the weekend. A gentleman named Justin Tang got quite a bit of support on Twitter about his experience facing racism. He spoke up in protection of himself and all Asian Canadians. I applaud that.

Going further on economic empowerment for specific communities and increasing diversity on procurement, the government is building a whole-of-government federal approach around better collection of disaggregated data throughout the government.

I don't know how many members realize that if you look at the data on the number of Asian Canadians currently in the senior levels of our public service at the federal level, you will be shocked to find there are very few—maybe just a handful or maybe none, actually. Canada is a country that embraces multiculturalism. Every year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants come to this country, and tens of thousands of permanent residents become Canadian citizens, only to learn that Canada's own public service is not reflecting the diversity of its society. That is truly troubling. I hope this committee will make it a priority to study and provide recommendations through the House to the government to change this prolonged symptom in our society.

We are also implementing an action plan to increase representation through hiring, through public appointments and through leadership development within the public service.

Also from the throne speech, the government will introduce legislation and make investments that take action to address—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Barrett.

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

Chair, I'm wondering if there's going to be a call for relevance on this. We're just hearing the throne speech read into the record. It's not germane to the motion to detail every project that the government is undertaking during its mandate, unless it's speaking to corruption in the Liberal government and the repeated findings of guilt by the Ethics Commissioner for Justin Trudeau, specifically on the release of these documents—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Let me deal with this one first, Mr. Fergus. I'll come back to you.

Colleagues, I have made every effort to give you broad latitude, but it is important to try to stay on subject. That's what we're here to debate, whether we like to debate or not.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate what you just said, and I also appreciate the way you've been chairing the meeting since you assumed presidency of this committee. I find that you have been very fair-minded in allowing some flexibility for people to raise issues.

I think my colleague has been raising important issues that we should be focused on. I pay particular attention to the issue of the whole notion of combatting racism. I think it's important for us to have the ability to talk about this. The constant interruption to talking about this issue—I know it's not the intent of my honourable colleagues—reminds me of the microaggressions that a lot of Canadians of colour face.

I don't hear other members being interrupted, so I know that is not the intention. That is far from it. I've worked with these members for a long time, and they're honourable people. But I would ask that they exercise a bit more politeness and allow my honourable colleague from Toronto to continue with his comments.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. In response to the member's comments, my call for relevance has to do with the immateriality of the topic to the motion.

Discussing racism and measures by the government to combat racism is, indeed, very important, and it is the purview of Parliament and parliamentarians. So on that, we certainly agree. However, the matter at hand is not that issue. We are talking about the release of documents related to the WE scandal and corruption in the Prime Minister's Office.

I would relish the opportunity to hear from the member opposite, at a time when it is appropriate, to discuss government action to combat racism, but at this time, that is not germane to the matter at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus and Mr. Barrett.

Please go ahead now, Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Chair. I was again listening carefully to what my colleague had to say. As I said, many questions have been raised last week and this week about the motion, and I have not heard a clear answer to those questions.

It is important for me to talk about anti-racism at every opportunity I get, not just here at committee, but on social media or in front of a mike. Every chance I get, I will talk about that.

Unfortunately, we are going back and forth debating a motion that clearly is a fishing expedition. The opposition has cast a broad net, much broader than the motion they moved back in July. I just don't understand what has changed in the last few months for them to think that investigating an MP's relative is appropriate.

It doesn't matter what the subject is; they just want to see all the records, going back to 2008, I think, and want access to these documents. Those questions have been answered. It doesn't matter what.... Opposition members are saying how simple it is. I don't think we should take it too lightly. We had the Prime Minister and chief of staff testifying for hours before the finance committee. There were a lot of truthful testimonies already given to the public. This shows the willingness of the government to present its argument, to present the facts to opposition members as well as to the public.

As to the whole notion of us trying to hide something, or why we are we not supporting this motion that was supported back in July, I don't think that's true. Until my concerns and my questions are answered, I will continue to take every opportunity to raise issues that are important to me, my constituents, Canadians and future Canadians. I will continue to talk about how important it is and why the committee is not looking into the matter of anti-Asian racism happening during COVID. This is a big problem.

I applaud the government for what it announced in the throne speech. I remember that the Conservative Party dismissed it and decided to vote against it right away, without even taking the time to investigate and consider the content and extensiveness of the throne speech.

I take this opportunity to share something I picked out from the throne speech that might be of interest to all members of this committee: “Move forward on enhanced civilian oversight of our law enforcement agencies”, “Modernize training for police and law enforcement”, “Move forward on RCMP reforms” and “accelerate work to co-develop a legislative framework for First Nations policing as an essential service.”

These actions are not just reserved for the throne speech and the floor of the House of Commons. In fact, there was a motion adopted in the last Parliament, put forward by Mr. Angus, to study facial recognition technology in Canada and its use. The motion adopted by the committee read:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), the committee study the use or possible use of facial recognition technology by various levels of government in Canada, law enforcement agencies, private corporations and individuals; that the committee investigate how this technology will impact the privacy, security and safety of children, seniors and vulnerable populations; that the committee examine the impact of facial recognition technology on racialized communities; and that the study include how this technology may be used nefariously, such as a tool for criminal harassment or for other unlawful surveillance purposes....

I think it's a very good motion. I would support it right away. We are in a very unique situation with COVID, where a lot of people are required to wear masks. It presents a very unique situation for us to understand other important aspects of this technology. This is very important work. In many ways, the pandemic has been a good thing to reduce the uptake of facial recognition technology. Now that everyone is wearing masks, these companies have not been able to move their technology forward.

Speaking of wearing masks, I remember a story my wife told me at the beginning of COVID. I was outraged after hearing it. She was supposed to meet up with a friend. Her friend was taking a ride on the red rocket, which, as you know, is what we call the subway here in Toronto. She was wearing a mask. At that time, there were a lot of negative views toward people wearing masks, at the start of COVID. She was called the B-word, and it was very offensive. She was shocked and hurt; worse, nobody stood up for her. She just moved to the other end of the car. She told my wife, who shared it with me, and I shared it with my colleagues in the caucus.

I applaud the Prime Minister, Minister Ng and many of my colleagues who spoke up on that point, and on any incidents where Asian Canadians wearing masks became targets of hate and racial attacks. It's not getting any better. We've seen hundreds, if not thousands of incidents throughout COVID where Asian Canadians are getting attacked. Some of their families have been here for generations. They're Canadians. We heard from the Prime Minister that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We all need to stand together in the face of COVID, and also in the face of these exposures of racism happening in our society.

I mentioned earlier Justin Tang's recent experience. He was in Ottawa, at the Rideau Centre, and someone not wearing a mask held the door open for him and his friend. He walked by and was told that it was his fault that we're in a COVID situation. There was a death threat following the comment. That is completely unacceptable.

That's why I am taking every opportunity to raise these issues. I hope this will change the minds of my colleagues and we'll study these important issues and provide some recommendations to the government through the House, so we can change these things. We can at least slow the pace, because these incidents are happening so often and they are not slowing down.

In addition to the work of the House—

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Gaudreau, go ahead with your point of order.

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

With all due respect, I would very much appreciate getting back to the original subject, as you suggested, Mr. Chair. The notice of this meeting dealt specifically with the motion. I would therefore urge all members to follow the instruction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau. As I mentioned before, relevance is key and to broaden it too much means that the efficacy of our debate would be diminished, so thank you for that point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.