Information & Ethics Committee on April 23rd, 2021

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I completely disagree with the subamendment. I think I understand the intent of the subamendment, but I would like to hear from the other members of the committee on this.

What is the purpose of this subamendment? Why do they want to delete the last sentence, which, as my colleague Ms. Lattanzio just said, in no way negates the principle that we must report to the House? All the members of this committee know very well that we have to report to the House on all the work we do. That's the way we operate.

To say that we need to send a separate report on this to the House is contrary to the intent of the motion. I'll read the motion again, which was adopted on November 16, 2020:

That this study continue our work relating to the Canada Student Service Grant, including this committee's work to review the safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest in federal government expenditures; government spending, WE Charity and the Canada Student Service Grant; and the administration of the Canada Student Service Grant… And that this study include…

That's when we started listing the witnesses one after the other. That led to a lot of debate in this committee. I recall that some of the names of witnesses were crossed out because some of our colleagues rightly said that these witnesses were not relevant to the study. We agreed to hear from other witnesses, including Frank Baylis, a former Liberal MP, and Rick Jamieson, on procurement contracts for medical ventilators.

When I hear my colleague suggest that the Liberals are hiding something, I am shocked. Mr. Baylis testified before the committee. So who is hiding what?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Shanahan, I hate to interrupt, but I just want to remind you that the debate we're undertaking right now is with regard to the subamendment.

It seems as though you're looking to debate the original motion. In fact, it is a subamendment. It's the striking of number 3 from the amendment. I'd encourage you to return to the debate with regard to the subamendment.

You will have an opportunity to speak to the amendment or the main motion later on, but right now, it is the subamendment that we're debating.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, I'm talking about witnesses who appeared before the committee and those who did not, and that is precisely the subject of the subamendment. We can see what the purpose of this subamendment is. Mr. Barrett says he wants us to finish the report on this subject. People who are listening can look at the motion and see that the motion was to invite many witnesses, including David MacNaughton, and also—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Shanahan, I think there may be some confusion. The subamendment is with regard to the striking of number 3, so I would encourage you to move to debate the subamendment. Then you'll have an opportunity to debate the other points at the other stages. I would encourage you to move to the debate with regard to the subamendment.

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

A point of order, Mr. chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

On a point of order, Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to better understand what you're saying. It seems to me that the subamendment, which we're talking about right now, deals with exactly the issues raised by Mrs. Shanahan. That is the scope of the amendment—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Fergus, I think that's a point of debate.

I have made it very clear that we are moving to the debate with regard to the subamendment, which is the striking of number 3. This is with regard to reporting back to the House and the form it will take. It is the striking of point number 3 that is the debate on the subamendment.

I will now encourage members to move to a debate with regard to the subamendment. I'm happy to entertain more broad discussion on other points, but with the subamendment, this is very specific. I fear that if we get into the debates on the other points we will have a redundant and repetitive debate when we move to debate on those portions of the amendment and then the main motion.

Right now, we are debating simply the subamendment, which is on the striking of number 3.

Ms. Shanahan.

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

Chair, that's number 3 on Mr. Fergus's amendment. That is what the subamendment is referring to, not number 3 on Mr. Fortin's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Pardon me. Yes, that is right, so as you are aware, you will have plenty of opportunity to debate those larger points down the road, but right now we are on the subamendment.

Thanks, Ms. Shanahan.

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

My understanding is that Mr. Barrett's subamendment wants to delete....

Maybe you should say it. What are the words that Mr. Barrett wants to delete?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

It is number 3 of Mr. Fergus's amendment.

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

I'm sorry. I don't have it numbered in front of me. I have a different version.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

No, it has been circulated by the clerk and it is numbered, Ms. Shanahan. If you'd like to check with your office as to where your copy is, we can move to the next speaker if you're not prepared to debate the subamendment.

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

No, I'll be happy to continue—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

On a point of order, Mr. Barrett.

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

Chair, on that point of order—

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

—if there is confusion about the subamendment, in Mr. Fergus's amendment the points were numbered 1, 2 and 3.

Point 1 began with “That the point 5” and concludes with “March 25, 2021”. Point 2 begins with “And point 6 be deleted” and concludes with “March 25, 2021”.

The nature of my subamendment is to strike point 3, which says:

And the words “That the Committee report these events to the House of Commons in order to express its dissatisfaction” be replaced with “That the non attendance of witnesses be added to an annex to the main report on the study of Questions of Conflict of Interest and Lobbying in Relation to Pandemic Spending.

To be clear, my subamendment is to delete from Mr. Fergus's amendment all of the words after “And the words”, concluding with the end of his amendment, which is “Pandemic Spending”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. That isn't necessarily a point of order, but it might help to clarify Ms. Shanahan's confusion.

We will turn back to Ms. Shanahan.

We are specifically debating the subamendment. I'll ask the clerk to recirculate that to members so that there is no confusion henceforth.

Ms. Shanahan, are you prepared to debate the subamendment?

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

Yes, I am indeed, and I do thank Mr. Barrett for his reading of it, because exactly the point I am making is that the subamendment, by deleting that text from Mr. Fergus's amendment completely confounds the whole sense of the work we are trying to do here, as cobbled together as it is.

I certainly object to this subamendment. It shows Mr. Barrett's intention not to do the work. Basically, it's taking a small portion, out of context, and sending it to the House, in a context that is completely devoid of all the work and analysis that is normally included in reports.

That's why Mr. Fergus—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm just looking for your guidance on whether it is, in fact, parliamentary for a member to impugn the motives of another member. Ms. Shanahan made comments specifically to do with what she believes my motives are, and I'm not sure if they would fall within the realm of acceptable parliamentary language or behaviour.

I'm just looking for your guidance, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I wouldn't encourage it. Obviously, it isn't for me to, probably, rule one way or another, but it's encouragement to Ms. Shanahan, maybe, to reconsider things that will bring the committee into disorder.

Ms. Shanahan.

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

Mr. Chair, we've actually already discussed possible solutions to the situation we're in. We suggested that we include a reference to the fact that the three witnesses in question did not appear before the committee, and you've heard me talk at length about why it was appropriate for them not to appear.

Making an observation is one thing, but mentioning the context surrounding that observation is another.

Our committee has the ability to include an analysis, discussion or description of why these three political staff witnesses were told not to appear before the committee. It was only logical that the ministers would be the ones to give us the details and explain the situation with respect to the issues that gave rise to our motion, namely expenditures made during the pandemic.

We have been hearing witnesses since November. In other committees, we have seen 5,000 pages of documentation and heard hours and hours of testimony. With all of that, would we not be able to complete our report?

We can't do that when there's no will to actually wrap up the work.

If we send some of the information to the House, what will that mean? It will mean that we will go fishing to find more. That's what I've already heard this morning: the Liberals have something to hide.

Mr. Chair, I don't mind not having—

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

I have a point of order.

If I'm looking at the subamendment, it's to just report to the House. It has no references to fishing expeditions or conspiracy theories. I know that conspiracy theories are very popular in the public right now and maybe with Ms. Shanahan, but they're not in the subamendment as far as I read it.

Can we move to a vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I have, again and again, asked Ms. Shanahan to return to the debate with regard to the subamendment. I would strongly encourage her to do so.

I will move to the next speaker, Ms. Shanahan, if you're unable to return to the debate at hand.

Ms. Shanahan.