Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 15th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm sorry to interrupt.

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

Do you want me to wait until it gets fixed, or how shall we proceed?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I think you can proceed.

Madame Gaudreau, did you have a point of order?

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

It is not a point of order. I would just like to point out that sometimes, when you use the function that switches from French to English, things can go haywire.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you for that input.

Ms. Lattanzio, do you have your interpretation channel on French?

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

I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please continue, and the technical crew will do what they can.

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

Okay, I'm just going to say a few more words in French, and then I'll switch back to English.

So I was saying that I'm a new member of this committee. I know that it has had discussions and made decisions about this before. Clearly, it's only fair that this newly formed committee be given the opportunity to address issues like this. In addition, I believe the motion has been amended since the summer. It's therefore only fair that all members of this committee have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the new information and documents and to study them so that they can make sound decisions, let us put it that way. I—

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

On a point of order, Chair, I hate to interrupt my colleague but I feel that the interpretation is having trouble because of the speed at which she's speaking.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you for your intervention, Mrs. Shanahan.

Ms. Lattanzio, if you keep your cadence just a little bit slower, that would be better.

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

I'm going to start speaking English.

As I was saying—and this was my intervention last week—as a new member on this committee, I understand that discussions were had and information and documents were shared in the previous committee. But I think it is incumbent upon this committee, which has been reconstituted, that the members have all of the information and all possibilities to be able to gain all of the necessary information and documents, so that the motions before us be disposed of with the information we have today.

That said, I also understand—and that's what I understood last week—that the motion presented by my colleague Barrett differs from the one that had been presented in the course of the summer. Though I understand that the majority of it is the same, but for the reasons that are being discussed here in this committee, I think we owe it to ourselves to be able to look very carefully at this motion that has changed.

I'd like to focus on two things: one, the nature of the motion itself; and two—and I'm going to stick to the motion—elements that derive from this motion.

I'd like to point out the following, and I'm going to read again the motion that was submitted by my colleague Barrett:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), an order...[for] the Committee do issue...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— which had been originally ordered to be produced on July 22, 2020, by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, provided that these documents shall be provided to the Clerk of the Committee within 24 hours of the adoption of this motion; and...the documents be reviewed in camera.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak on two very important elements. Why are we going back to October 14, 2008? As a new member of this committee, I have no idea why October 14, 2008 is a chosen target date. We are talking about going back 12 years. As well, why are we making it so general as to name the company, organization, person or entity booking it?

I have colleagues Barrett and Angus, who have, time and time again, said—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

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

I'm sorry. Let me finish and then I'll let you—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There's a point of order. Hang on for a second, Madame Lattanzio.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Mr. Chair, for the information of members of the committee, my first name is Michael, so if they want to address me by my first name, it's Michael, not just Barrett. It's a bit unconventional to call me by my last name with no prefix or suffix.

We haven't had a chance to get to know each other, Ms. Lattanzio, so that's generally how I'll address you. If you want to abbreviate it, Michael is just fine with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Go ahead, Madame Lattanzio.

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

Okay, MP Barrett, Michael.

Both colleagues, MPs Angus and Michael, have stated time and time again that the basis of this motion is the release of documents of the WE scandal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing in this motion that pertains to the WE organization. It's very broad and general in its scope. Basically, all I can conclude from this is that it's purely a fishing expedition into any company, organization or person. The scope of this motion is way too large.

One, again, the question of the date; two, the scope of the motion; and three, of course, the individuals who are specifically named within the motion.... One can only question.... If we are to go back to October 14, 2008, we have had many, both past and present, sitting members who have had exchanges with companies, organizations and persons or entities booking events. Why were they excluded?

Really, I don't understand why we would include the mother and the brother of the Prime Minister. I'm going to go back to the Conflict of Interest Act, because I know that MP Angus made a point with regard to who was included and who was not after my colleague Shanahan read out the act. I'd like us to look at it again, because MP Angus made a very interesting remark in saying that colleague Shanahan had read only one part of the act.

If we go to the act, we have definitions as to who it includes. The following definitions are in this act: the commissioner, the common-law partner, common-law partnership, dependent child, former reporting public office holder—we can go back to former office holders—gift or other advantage, ministerial staff, private interest, public officer holder, public sector entity, public service, reporting public officer holder, spouse and family members.

If we go to the definition of dependent child, again, we're talking about “a child of a public office holder, or a child of the public office holder's spouse or common-law partner, who has not reached the age of 18 years or who has reached that age but is primarily dependent on the public office holder or public office holder's spouse or common-law partner for financial support”—also known as enfant à charge.

When we go down to the definition of family members and relatives, we read, under family members, that “The following are the members of a public office holder's family for the purposes of this Act: his or her spouse or common-law partner; and his or her dependent children and the dependent children of his or her spouse or common-law partner.”

Subsection 3, in regard to relatives, states that “Persons who are related to a public office holder by birth, marriage, common-law partnership, adoption or affinity are the public office holder's relatives for the purposes of this Act unless the Commissioner”. Here we're talking about the Ethics Commissioner, who “determines, either generally or in relation to a particular public office holder, that it is not necessary for the purposes of this Act that a person or a class of persons be considered a relative of a public office holder.”

That said, we are asking this committee to determine that the mother and the brother of the Prime Minister be considered relatives when the Ethics Commissioner has the power to do that. He can decide which class of....

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

Sorry, just to clarify, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Angus.

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

I have heard many things from my Liberal colleagues.

Are they telling us that the definition of the Prime Minister's mother can only be done by the Ethics Commissioner, that she would not be so clearly understood under the Conflict of Interest Act as a relative, as someone related by birth?

If the Liberals are having to go down that road, I think there must be something in those documents they are desperate to avoid our getting if they are trying tell us and tell the Canadian people that only the Ethics Commissioner could figure out something as complex as the Prime Minister's family. The Prime Minister has has a mother and a brother, and they were paid half a million dollars, but the Liberals are saying that we can't call them “relatives” until the Ethics Commissioner has ruled on that. If they are going down that road, then there's got to be something juicy in those documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

That's not a point of order.

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

It wasn't?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Madame Lattanzio.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it almost appalling how our colleagues are using terms like filibustering and saying that we are going in a certain direction, and making all kinds of innuendos and casting aspersions about our wanting to do our work and to try to understand the matters are on hand.

All I'm saying to colleague Angus is that there are definitions within this act. I think we owe it to ourselves to be able to look at these definitions in light of the nature of the motion.

Do we really have the authority to be able to accept this motion as is?

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I'm going to turn to you and ask you to render a judgment call based on the interventions that were made. We have yet to get answers to the questions raised by most of our colleagues since last Thursday. Colleagues around this table have been quick to call this filibustering and to use sound bites. I get that, but, Mr. Chair, I think the time has come for me to ask you to consider if this motion before us, for all the questions that my colleagues and I have raised up until now, is receivable.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Lattanzio.

If you're asking the chair to judge whether the motion is in order, it absolutely is. Whether we like the wording or not is another story. That's why we've continued to debate it for hours.

I take it that you are ceding the floor.

Is that correct, Ms. Lattanzio?