Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's really great to be here. It's my first time joining this committee and having an opportunity to speak. I want to thank Mr. Simms, too, for his remarks. I know it was more than entertaining; I found it insightful. Thank you. I really appreciate your being here as well.
I'm subbing in for one of my honourable colleagues. I certainly share some of the concerns that other members of my team have expressed, but, you know, my hair doesn't stand up like this because I was overly shocked, Mr. Chair. I have seen motions like this at PROC. I also sit on that standing committee. We saw a quite lengthy motion that was perceived to be out of order eventually and deemed so by our honourable chair, who is also here tonight. It's really great to see Ruby Sahota here as well. She's done a wonderful job on the procedure and house affairs committee.
I say I'm not shocked by this motion, but I'm really concerned about it. I have a bit of background in an area that's relevant to this committee; I studied ethics. I'm one of probably very few people in Canada proud of having two philosophy degrees at university. I taught ethics and have a bit of background that might be relevant to this debate today.
I look at this motion—I have it here in front of me—and I think some of the concerns that have been expressed are deeply concerning to me as well, certainly the privacy issues that put the Prime Minister's family in a situation where documents would be disclosed about their speaking engagements. I don't see how this is relevant to the issue at hand. I know the opposition, quite rightfully, wants to dig into this supposed scandal. They keep saying it's a scandal. I have studied the facts of this issue. I've really paid attention to all the documentation. As an ethicist, I really do not feel like there's anything more than a very minor misstep with regard to this issue.
I really feel that this is a big overstep. One of the things that we learn, if we study and read the Conflict of Interest Act, is that a conflict of interest only occurs when an elected office holder, member of Parliament, or a reporting public officer holder acts in a way that furthers their own private interests or that of their family members. Family members are defined as a spouse, essentially. In this case, the only people who are really relevant here would be the Prime Minister and his wonderful wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau.
I think, from the testimony that I've seen, that Sophie Grégoire Trudeau has already disclosed all of her speaking engagements—or volunteer activities, I believe is more accurate—with regard to WE Charity. I believe that the Ethics Commissioner approved those in advance, well before any of the Canada student service grant was even entertained. It wasn't even an idea; it hadn't even been formulated yet.
The extension to the mother and brother of the Prime Minister is a very large overreach, because it's not relevant to even a potential conflict of interest, if there was one. If we look at the facts, I don't think there is anything more than a perceived conflict of interest. Let's just think about this for the moment. If there was a conflict of interest, as I said, you have to further your own private interests. How did the Prime Minister, if he were to sway decision-making towards WE Charity on this...?
We've heard repeatedly, time and time again, that the public service made a recommendation to go with WE Charity because of their due diligence. We've seen that they made a very clear recommendation. I know that other members here contest that. They think the public service didn't do their due diligence. But in fact they did. I did a lot of work in the charitable sector for many years, and I've seen the fact that WE Charity, for its faults—it had some, as all organizations do—certainly was well positioned to implement this type of program.
I can see how the public service, doing its due diligence, landed on a recommendation to go with WE Charity. Given the context of a pandemic, how can we really fault this decision and say that this binary decision in the Prime Minister's testimony...? He clearly indicated that this was a binary decision: either move forward with the Canada student service grant with WE Charity or not. How can you have a conflict of interest when you're making a go or no go decision? There were no other options to sway the Prime Minister's decision-making and to say that—