Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 15th, 2020

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

Thank you, Chair.

To me, it's quite important. I understand where my colleagues are coming from in questioning why I am speaking of anti-racism, but as I said, I'll use every platform possible to talk about racism.

In my mind, our committee is a very powerful committee. We can call witnesses and examine evidence and provide recommendations, so I think we should use our power to do the right thing. I don't believe that the fact that the opposition members are trying to rush to a vote without addressing my concerns about the changes to the scope of the motion.... We should be talking about something important, and if they choose to talk about the privacy of other members' relatives, I choose to talk about anti-racism.

That's why I think, in my mind, it's quite relevant. But just to—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Angus.

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

I think the issue of anti-racism is so important, but I've been very concerned that my Liberal colleagues seem to be using it to insinuate that members of this committee don't share that concern. The issue is that if the member wants to talk about anti-racism, if he has a bill or a motion to bring, we will discuss it.

Rather than this continuation of what I think Mr. Fergus referred to as microaggressions that are being used against us when we're just trying to get answers, I would ask the member that if he wants to talk about anti-racism then he can vote on this motion and we can get to work. All of us have taken a week out of our lives to listen to the Liberals talk about anything at all other than the fact that documents were requested by this committee and the access to those documents is being interfered with.

If the member has something relevant to talk about on any other subject, he can bring a motion. It may get ruled out of order but he has a right to do that. I'm asking him not to play games, not to throw these heavily loaded insinuations at my colleagues, whose work I respect, and I respect his work. If he wants to talk about something, then just let's bring this to a vote so we can get this thing done.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Chair.

As I said, I take this very seriously. There is no game being played here. The concerns are that the questions are not being answered. If you want, I will point to something on the record. Back in 2003, an investigation was done by this committee, when Mr. Chris Warkentin said:

It's unfortunate, Mr. Chair, that my colleague has undertaken to bring this forward now, simply because we do have important witnesses we should be hearing from. I do apologize on behalf of this side of the table for dismissing our previous witnesses much earlier. Obviously, they have important subject material that didn't get covered because of the choice of Mr. Andrews not to wait until committee business later on in the meeting.

Having said that, this is before committee now, and we'll have to undertake to review this.

You know, Mr. Chair, the Ethics Commissioner is currently reviewing the circumstances and the submission that has been brought forward. We also know that the Senate ethics commissioner is reviewing this. We also know that the Prime Minister has answered the questions in regard to this, and has said he knew nothing of it.

I can go on and on. I can read more if you want me to. It's just to prove a point that the accusation coming from the opposition members, especially from the Conservative members, that we are trying to stall this unveiling of documents or secrets, that we are trying to cover it up.... Just a few years ago, they were making the same argument, that a parallel investigation is taking place and there is no need for the committee to do the investigation. I wasn't there, but many members were. You will remember this; you debated it at this very committee. What's the difference? Why are you taking such a different position now and arguing that there is a need for a parallel investigation?

It's pretty relevant to what we are talking about today. That's another question. I see Mr. Barrett is super happy about this, and I look forward to hearing his answer. That's another question I put forward with regard to this motion. I was elected by constituents to ask questions. I won't vote blindly. I need to be convinced that there is a need for a parallel investigation, and I need to be convinced that you will not run the risk of contaminating the current investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. Again, there is an investigation happening right now.

Also, why take away all the safeguards of the privacy of these documents and broaden access as to who may see these documents? I think there are legitimate concerns, and I have not heard in the last week, including today, how they are being looked after.

With that, I'll pause my speech and I look forward to contributing at a later opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Dong.

Now we'll move on to Madame Gaudreau.

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

Mr. Chair, my dear colleagues, good afternoon.

After almost two hours already of long speeches packed with information, it is now my turn to raise a few points.

We started out saying that we would try to maintain trust, that we did not want to go too far, that we wanted to do things right, and that we were in a democratic environment. Actually, I have a question for you to ponder: really, what is going on here?

A group like ours has three functions.

The first function relates to the topic. I have held my tongue on this matter, and I thank my colleagues for raising points of order. When we hold a meeting, it's very important that we stay on topic, that is, that we complete the task at hand. I respectfully submit to you that, as representatives of our fellow constituents, we owe it to ourselves to maintain trust. However, I hope not too many people are watching us right now, as I told you last time, because this is no way to maintain their trust.

Next, we have a process, and it's also very important that we follow it. Everyone legitimately has the right to speak. Some decisions made in the past were good, while others need to change.

Finally, the atmosphere. We first met only a few months ago. By the way, I cannot wait to see my new colleagues in person and in the flesh. Back then, you could sense a palpable desire to improve the lives of our constituents or to solve their problems. Today I see my colleagues on the screen working with their heads down, and that says a lot. I am no longer hearing stories or seeing smiles. At the end of the day, we have an objective and a role to play, and that is to improve living conditions for our constituents. We are parliamentarians and we are trustworthy.

The first time, I told myself that I had just arrived here and I would figure out how things work. I agree that we have a culture and it cannot be broken down. However, remember what was said in all the speeches: they spoke of how rapidly technology has advanced and how quickly we, as human beings, need to adapt to it.

So, what I have to say today is directly related to the motion. Why are we moving in opposite directions? When someone says one thing, someone else says they have done that themselves before, and they are not obstructing.

It's true, we can blame the pandemic for a lot of things. We can come up with a bunch of reasons why. The fact remains that we have a job to do.

I have said it before: we set an example, but we must be accountable. However, there are different levels of accountability. If we make a mistake once, we correct it and learn from it. If we do it twice, we begin to wonder what we might have done differently. When we do it a third time, we have to question our vigilance. Are we acting like professionals, to use a word that I have heard here?

We all know what we must do. What we need to determine today, now that we have established certain facts, is what should we have done and what did we fail to do. We need to get to the bottom of it; it's our responsibility to do so.

So I am appealing to your conscience. My dear colleagues, we are on an ethics committee, where we need to reflect on how we behave and live our lives, on what is good, what is bad, what is right.

At the moment, I see several things that are not right. For example, we have taken all this time to finally say that we really have to vote. I feel as though it is 4:29 p.m. and I haven't had the chance to speak. I feel we have all had plenty of time for debate, and we are realizing that we are already in another place. We know the matters we must deal with. Several motions have already been moved. We know what our constituents need, not only as a result of the pandemic, but also because of the changes in our society.

I would really like us to challenge ourselves to be watchdogs for what feels morally right. In theory, when we want to hide things, we can do that in various ways. Mr. Chair, I am not passing judgment on this; I have noticed a change in behaviour and language used on this committee. People may say it's because we are in a hybrid meeting; they may remind us that we work very well together in person. In any event, it saddens me. We are capable of doing better and getting it done. However, it's a minute to midnight in all respects.

I agree, Mr. Chair, people would still like to speak to us. I am one of the first to take as little time as possible and try to be as constructive as possible. That is my conscience speaking. I am not saying you don't have one, but I am trying to state facts that might help us work better together. We have matters to attend to now, but I feel we are showing people that our committee doesn't have much to do. Based on what has been said at the last few meetings, you certainly see no urgency.

According to my constituents and some journalists, we are doing ourselves no credit at all. They do not know whether they can trust us, their elected officials. They believe that, with our actions, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. So it is time to walk the walk. At the very least, we need to listen to our conscience, if only because we are a committee on ethics.

I, too, could speak for 45 minutes, for an hour and a quarter. However, I am stopping after four minutes, and I encourage all my colleagues to be concise when they exercise their right to speak. Our community will be the better for it. We are ready to vote. We must maintain democracy. Democracy is about speaking out. People elected us. We are who we are, with the government we have. So let us get on with it.

I am ready to vote, Mr. Chair. I know there are still some hands up, and I would like my colleagues to speak briefly. I can raise my hand too, and I want you to know that I will always be available.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

I listened very closely and I thank my colleague for being very relevant after the last hour, which felt like a time in the wilderness. When she said she's ready to vote, is she calling for the vote, because I think that would be a good opportunity for us to test the floor?

I'm certainly willing to vote after what we've been through, so I'm asking her if she's ready to call the vote.

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

Hear, hear!

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I see that we have a pretty extensive list of speakers who have raised their hands already to chime in. I just want to point that out.

Also, I take this opportunity to correct the record that, when I read the evidence from Monday, May 27, of what Mr. Warkentin said, I meant 2013, not 2003.

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

Sorry, I have a point of order, Chair.

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

I just want to correct my record.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Dong.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

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

Yes. I think my colleagues need to show some respect. The question was whether Madame Gaudreau was calling the question.

I'm not interested in whether the Liberals want to hear the question; I want to hear Madame Gaudreau. She's a member of our committee and she has a right to say if she's ready to vote. I wanted to hear from her.

The Liberals can vote against her if they want, but they shouldn't be interrupting her ability to answer a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Just to be clear, I want to go to Madame Gaudreau because you've addressed your....

To be clear, colleagues, there's really no action that can be taken to call a vote. However, I think any member can address the chair and ask the chair to canvas the membership if they're willing to go to a vote, and in this case, as Mr. Dong pointed out, there are other members who are on the speakers list. They can certainly surrender their position on the speakers list and be willing to go to a vote.

That's just to be clear as to how that process would work.

Madame Gaudreau, do you have a comment in regards to Mr. Angus's intervention?

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

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

I was saying that we have an allotted time for this meeting, which should end in the next few minutes. We know very well that we can deliberate as long as we want. Earlier, I respectfully said that it would be nice to hear what all members have to say. However, some have taken up an enormous amount of time, leaving less room for others. Having said that, we have a process, a topic and an atmosphere to maintain.

Mr. Chair, I appeal to everyone to move to a vote.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there is still a speakers list, and I'd like you to name the speakers on that list.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Presently we have Madame Lattanzio, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Housefather, you and Mr. Warkentin.

As I mentioned before, colleagues, anybody can ask if there is a willingness in the room to vote, so you should give me some indication if there's a willingness in the room to go to a vote.

I see lots of shaking heads. That would indicate to me that there's no willingness to go to a vote now.

I will move to Madame Lattanzio.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I listened to my colleague's comments very attentively and I want to come back very swiftly on Madame Gaudreau's intervention.

I agree with my colleague that we have a process to follow. The process requires us to formulate our opinions and have a solid grasp on what we are talking about. I am a new member of this committee, but I think I speak for most of us when I say that it's essential—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Ms. Lattanzio, just one moment, please.

Clerk, Ms. Lattanzio's audio is louder than the translation, so it's almost impossible to hear the translation because of the audio and the way it's tuned. Is there somebody in IT who can handle that?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Miriam Burke]

I'll get somebody to look into that.

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

Mr. Chair—