Evidence of meeting #30 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fortin's.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Okay, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the way you repeated what I said.
from the debate.
Mr. Chair, what I wanted to say is that I think Mr. Fortin's motion is not working. The conclusion it comes to is a hasty one.
I will end my comments there. I hope I managed to convince my colleagues of the validity of my objection to Mr. Fortin's motion.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is Friday afternoon and we've covered off some ground, but not all of the ground.
I want to bring attention in my remarks to the continual letters we've been receiving from WE Charity's lawyers that, I believe, is turning into a form of harassment and intimidation of our committee. We've had a number of letters wherein they've questioned what we've asked. They've claimed we've made false statements.
The latest one—and I have to bring it forward now because I couldn't bring it forward earlier—was an April 12 letter about comments that certain members of this committee made while explaining the committee's work to ABC7 San Francisco News. It reported that a "non-profit involved with 1,400 schools [was] being investigated by Canadian parliamentary committee".
I was one of those people interviewed. I think my remarks were very straightforward. I was asked about their huge holdings. I asked why a charity needed all of this property. The problem with the group is that we don't see transparency by it. We're told it has to do with helping children, but tracking and figuring this out has pretty much stumped a parliamentary committee, and we haven't got a picture of who owns what and how money actually flows. Without that, how can you say you have trust?
That's a pretty straightforward thing to say, and it's also within the right of committee members to talk about committee work.
We're getting letters from WE's lawyers almost daily. On April 12 they wrote to our committee about ABC7's news coverage and wanted the chair to instruct the committee on what we should be doing, saying they'd be grateful if the chair advised members of the committee that WE was in the process of preparing its information.
We don't need to be told by our committee chair through the lawyers for WE what WE is doing and what we should be saying in public. I think that is a form of harassment.
Mr. Chair, we see a pattern. For example, this morning we got another letter from WE lawyers attacking one of our witnesses, and that letter sent to our committee was coordinated with Guy Giorno, the high-priced, very famous Conservative lawyer who's written an article attacking that witness and our committee.
I have been involved in Parliament for 17 years. We have taken on some big issues, some big players. I have never seen a committee continually harassed by these kinds of legal intimidations. I've been around, so I've got a pretty strong back, but I think that a new MP continually who was receiving legal threats telling us what we should and shouldn't be saying at committee.... This is the privilege, the right, of committee members to do our work, to get answers.
I'm speaking for myself, but I am sure for all of my colleagues, that after eight months, we don't know how WE spends its money. We don't know how they're structured. That's a fair comment. The question in the California investigation was that WE seemed unable to answer how many schools it actually built with money raised from California donors. If you're a children's charity, you should be able to answer that.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
With all due respect to my colleague Mr. Angus, I think his speech is important and we need to hear it—it is not a filibuster in my opinion—but I don't think it's relevant to the motion we are considering right now.
Can we finish this motion and then deal with another motion or debate?
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm certainly willing, Mr. Fortin, to start a different debate by raising it as a question of privilege. I'm using my right. You are certainly going to be looking to get some support for your motion, so I think if you want to undermine the few minutes I've taken to speak to an issue on whether or not we're being intimidated by the legal letters from WE lawyers, I think it's very serious. The fact that WE has sent letters about one of our witnesses today while coordinating an article with Guy Giorno attacking our committee is not something that we as parliamentarians, regardless of the issues and our political stripes, should be saying is a precedent and that we support it.
I'm not going to bring it forward at this time as a question of privilege because I don't think we're done with this kind of harassment that we've seen from them. But I want to put my colleagues on notice that I think we have to be aware of this, because if this becomes the standard tactic, it will be used by others and it could intimidate other members of Parliament getting the work done.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
We have Mr. Dong, Mr. Sorbara, Monsieur Fortin, Madame Lattanzio and Madame Shanahan on the list.
We'll go to Mr. —
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it is three o'clock. Do we need a motion to continue? Some of us do have other work that we need to do as well.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We don't need a motion to continue. If somebody moved to adjourn the committee, then that would be a non-debatable motion. We would move to a vote on that.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. Angus moves to adjourn.
I'm getting a mixed signal of where committee members are at, so I will ask the clerk to assist me with a roll call on that vote.
I should just clarify, Mr. Angus, that I did recognize a point of order. I know that you'd been speaking most recently, but it wasn't a point of order. Of course, I should have remembered that you're not able to move a motion on a point of order. I do apologize. That isn't in the protocols. Mr. Fergus talked extensively about the traditions of this place and the necessity of maintaining the rules, so I'll maintain the rules.
3 p.m.
Conservative
3 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I do have a lot to say about this motion, but with respect to Mr. Angus's suggestion, I agree. I do have a full schedule this afternoon.
I move that the meeting now be adjourned.
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
That's not a debatable motion, so we'll move to the vote. That was not raised on a point of order, so we will proceed.
Madam Clerk, please go through the roll call on the motion to adjourn.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)
Colleagues, that passes. The meeting is adjourned.