Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 19th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Good morning, colleagues.

I'm live here at 035-B but still don't have a gavel, so you'll have to consider my voice as gavelling our meeting in.

We'll continue with the debate at hand on the motion that was before us when we adjourned the other day. I have an electronic list and a live list of speakers.

Mr. Angus is joining me here in this room, and I see that hands are up, so, Mr. Barrett, you go ahead.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

We find ourselves back here meeting on my motion of two weeks ago.

Can you hear me, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Barrett. Sorry, we just didn't have audio in the room, and now we do.

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

We're almost 14 hours into this debate, and we've heard from members around the table again and again. This morning, there were new documents released by the WE organization, and I unfortunately didn't have time to review them. I had announced yesterday that I would be speaking at 9:15 this morning, and at 9:15 those documents were released. I haven't had an opportunity to review them, as I was engaged at that time, though I did receive questions on them during that press conference.

Interestingly, though I haven't made it all the way through them, one of the points that's been highlighted in these documents is that the WE organization identifies Ms. Margaret Trudeau as having spoken at 28 events and being paid for attending 27 events. This contradicts a previous release of theirs in July when they stated that Ms. Margaret Trudeau had been paid for 28 events. This adds more urgency for us to see the documents that were previously ordered by this committee and that we're looking to order again today. The challenge that we've had as a committee, and as parliamentarians who have seen multiple committees initiate hearings on this—including the government operations, official languages and finance committees, as well as our committee—is that we've received multiple answers that differ in the facts that have been provided.

Today's release from the WE organization highlights that again. The information that's requested in these documents would expose the named individuals to no risk or breach of their privacy, and is imperative. Parliamentarians have undertaken inquiries to determine if there is.... We've now been told that half a million dollars in fees were paid to members of the Trudeau family, versus being told initially that no were fees were paid to members of the Trudeau family. That initial contradiction was a very important one. Then that organization received a half a billion dollar contribution agreement to administer, for the government...and it would have benefited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars as an organization for doing so. The proposal they presented to the government was created by them, and we've heard that it's only this organization, the WE organization, that could administer it. Well, they wrote it: of course they were the only ones who could administer it.

The proposal to cabinet included pictures of these very people whom we've named in our motion today. What does the relationship between the Prime Minister's family members and the WE organization, which was paying them huge sums of money, have to do with the awarding of this contribution agreement? Well, it's important that we get all of the details, the full details. We need to verify the information that's been presented. Was there a conflict of interest? Was there pressure? Was there interference? These are the questions that we need to answer. After nearly 13 hours of filibustering at this committee by the Liberal members, it's important to note that the need for the information hasn't changed. In fact, the release of documents this morning by the WE organization only adds to the need for clarity, the need for verification of the sums, the dates and the figures that have been offered to us to this point.

It's true that we 're in the midst of a global pandemic and that the lives and the livelihood of Canadians can be impacted and truly improved by the actions that members of Parliament take, but when we have parliamentary committees.... It's not just the finance committee that's dealing with a question of privilege or the illegal redaction of documents, and it's not just this committee, which previously ordered these documents to committee and was stopped a day short by Parliament's being prorogued.

We're also seeing at other parliamentary committees government members filibustering and blocking and preventing members from doing their work, even on COVID-related matters. It's imperative that we get this information so that we can make a determination on the scope of further work that this committee needs to do. It was at the first meeting of this committee that this motion was raised, and we're in our fourth meeting, nearly 14 hours in, and members of the Liberal Party are unwilling to vote on the motion. I would invite members, all members, to consider that we have an opportunity to put forward business that can address the needs and concerns of Canadians, while concurrently reviewing the information as it relates to the WE scandal. We can do that starting this morning.

Mr. Chair, I would ask you if you could poll the committee to see if there is consensus for us to take a vote.

I see Liberal members shaking their heads already, so the filibuster will continue, Mr. Chair, but I think that with the new documents we've seen this morning, it's very clear that we as members have to review these documents.

Chair, I, along with members of the official opposition, remain ready to vote before we crest the 14th hour of this filibuster.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barrett.

Colleagues, you can't see Mr. Angus on the screen because he is live with me here, but I just want to give you what I have, which is kind of a hybrid list here. Right now I have Ms. Shanahan, Mr. Warkentin, Mr. Dong, Mr. Angus, Mr. Sorbara, Madam Gaudreau, Mr. Fergus, and Ms. Lattanzio. That's the order in which the hands came up on screen or, here, live.

We'll now go to Madame Shanahan.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you as always for clarifying the speakers list for us; that's very helpful.

I do want to revisit some of the points that were raised at our last meeting concerning the redaction process, the privacy process, and the importance of respecting the privacy of individuals. I would also like to address the documents that were just released this morning, which my colleague Mr. Barrett just spoke to.

I would like to read this out for the benefit of the committee members and for anyone who is watching here. Bear with me because age dictates that the glasses come on and the glasses come off.

The letter that was released this morning by the government House leader and was addressed to the other House leaders—Mr. Deltell, Mr. Therrien, and Mr. Julian—reads as follows:

Dear Colleagues,

When Parliament was recalled last month, our government presented a strong plan to support Canadians during this global pandemic. Our main focus has been, and continues to be, how to best help and protect Canadians through these moments. The last few months demonstrated what Parliament can achieve for Canadians when Parliamentarians work together. In that spirit, I was glad to see that we received your unanimous support for our plan to help Canadians who lost their jobs due to COVID-19.

We recognize the financial impact of doing what needs to be done, all while knowing that doing less would end up costing more. That is why I agree that a Special House of Commons Committee, dedicated to studying COVID-19 related investments, should be established. Adopting the reasonable motion I shared with you previously will achieve this. This Special Committee will help ensure that other Standing Committees can do their work and focus on the issue that truly matters: COVID-19. For your convenience, I am also attaching our proposal to this letter.

Unfortunately, the motion for a Special Committee put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition would not accomplish this. Rather than focusing on how the government and Parliament can work together to best support Canadians, Mr. O'Toole put forward a blatantly partisan proposal. Its main objective is to paralyze the government at a time when the entire Government of Canada is focused on keeping Canadians safe and healthy. This proposal, were it to pass, would raise serious questions about whether the House of Commons continues to have confidence in this government.

Similarly, Opposition MPs have claimed that their privileges were breached by the hard-working and non-partisan public service, following certain redactions they made to the more than 5,000 pages provided to the House of Commons Finance Committee in August. In fact, so much information was provided that the Conservative Party launched a website to ask for the public's help to review the exhaustive amount of information. So as to move forward, Liberal Members have offered to have these public servants appear at committee and explain the reasons behind the redactions that were made. Thus far, you have refused this reasonable step, choosing to forego due process.

As explained by the Clerk of the Privy Council and Deputy Ministers in their letters to the committee, redactions were made to protect Cabinet Confidence, following the exact directive of the motion adopted at committee. Though these letters were provided to committee members, Opposition Members seem intent on ignoring them, and so I am sharing another copy of the letters with you. They also redacted items that were completely irrelevant to the Canada Student Service Grant program, as it was not information requested by the committee. Finally, the public service respected their statutory obligations throughout this process. However, rather than permitting public servants to explain this, you have already decided that they are in contempt of the committee for not providing information that the committee never requested. That is why our motion will also give a forum for the public service to further explain the reasons for their redactions. If, after hearing from public servants and the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, the committee remains unsatisfied, the government has made clear it is open to working with the committee to address its concerns.

Furthermore, the House of Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee is debating whether to force private citizens to provide personal financial information to the committee. I believe that the House of Commons would be severely abusing its authority in doing so. No Canadian should have to fear that Parliamentarians may arbitrarily force them to divulge their personal financial information, even more so when they did nothing wrong.

As a demonstration of transparency, the Prime Minister has asked that I proactively share exhaustive information with you about events organized through Speakers' Spotlight, for which the Prime Minister was a guest speaker. Speakers' Spotlight has confirmed the accuracy of the events and fees listed. You will also find this information accompanying this letter. I can also confirm to you, as previously disclosed, the only payment to Ms. Grégoire Trudeau regarding WE Charity and any of its affiliates was the February 2012 event for $1,500. However, we will continue to strongly oppose attempts by committees or the House of Commons to target extended family members of Parliamentarians who are not involved in political life.

Finally, in regards to the numerous forthcoming motions for the production of documents at different committees, the government will do all that it can to provide the information requested by Parliamentarians. In normal times, calling for the vast production of documents across multiple departments places a significant strain on public servants who must physically go to the office to conduct such searches. Now, during the COVID-19 pandemic, I fear that such sweeping document production motions with extremely tight timelines put forward by Conservative MPs are intentionally designed to be impossible to complete. In the midst of rising cases of COVID-19 in the National Capital Region, the government will not put at risk the health and safety of hundreds, if not thousands, of hard-working public servants. We want them to remain focused on delivering supports for Canadians, as should all Parliamentarians.

I sincerely hope we will continue to be able to work together constructively for Canadians. We believe we have put forward an extremely reasonable proposal that will permit Parliamentarians to be focused on the issue that should be occupying most, if not all of our attention: the health and safety of Canadians during this global pandemic.

It's signed, “Sincerely, Hon. Pablo Rodriguez...Leader of the Government in the House of Commons”.

The appendix to this document also includes a list of speaking events that the Prime Minister spoke at when he was not the Prime Minister but, first, a private citizen, and then a member of Parliament, such as events at the University of British Columbia and the Toronto District School Board. I'm naming just a few of them to give a flavour of the types of organizations that, yes, wanted to have a keynote speaker of the reputation of Justin Trudeau at their event.

I challenge my Conservative colleagues to continue in this vein of implying that these charitable organizations, non-profit organizations and esteemed institutions were somehow seeking to influence someone whom they thought might be in a position to help them. We're looking at groups such as the Nova Scotia Nature Trust, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Alberta Teachers' Association and Carleton University. Moreover, there were groups such as the London Convention Centre, Reading for the Love of It—that's a wonderful title for a group—Eventful Times, Blessed Events, the London Interfaith Counselling Centre, the Municipal Finance Officers' Association, York University, and we have a number of universities on the list. We can continue. Furthermore, there was the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, Charity of Hope, the Regional Municipality of Halton, Humber College, the Waterloo Catholic District School Board, Kincardine District Secondary School, Queen's University, Literacy for Life, the Grace Foundation, and I could go on.

I do find it very forthcoming on the part of our Prime Minister and our government House leader to have put forward this information—again, in the interest of all transparency.

I want to return now to the points that were brought up at our last meeting regarding the redaction process, why it is so important that this be done by non-partisan, professional civil servants and the principles they serve in doing so—

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

Sorry, I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Excuse me, Madame Shanahan. We have a point of order by Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus.

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

The issue of the redaction of documents has nothing to do with our committee. If the member wants to speak to the finance committee, she can go to the finance committee. We're talking about a different set of documents. Maybe the member is getting confused, but I think it's not good for the public record to have these kinds of gross errors. We're talking about the Speakers' Spotlight documents, and we should stay focused on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Continue, Ms. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the comments by my experienced colleague, but he did raise at our last meeting the issue of the 5,000 documents and the redaction process. We did speak about them then and I want to return to that, because it is a principle where we need to have this balance between transparency but also for protection. I take my learned colleague's good point, and maybe we'll return to it at another time.

I cede the floor. Thank you, Chair.

I do need to table the documents. Do I email them to the clerk?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes. Go ahead and email them to the clerk. That would be great.

I want to review the speakers list again.

Madame Lattanzio, you were on as the last speaker, just after Mr. Fergus, and I see that your name has now been removed. Did you remove your name or did you wish to stay on the list?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to stay on.

I would like to point out that I've been logged off at least two times during this meeting. I want the clerk to be made aware of the situation. I'm trying my darndest to stay on, but I shall raise my hand again.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. That's why we have a manual list as well as an electronic one. We'll continue trying to learn how to navigate through this as we do these hybrid meetings.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope you can hear me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, we can hear you fine.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Very good.

We do know that the Prime Minister does not want these documents to be released. Everything the Prime Minister has done since there was any indication these documents could be released has been to stop the documents from coming forward and to shut down the investigation into what is now known as the “WE scandal”.

We know these documents had been approved by this committee. They had been called for by this committee, and just hours before they were due to be brought forward to this committee, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, ending not only the session of Parliament but also the investigation and the release of these documents, basically setting all things the committee had done aside and cancelling them until such time as committees would be reconstituted. Of course, at the time he said it was not to kill the investigation and that it was in fact to do some other things. It was to reset the parliamentary calendar.

We have since learned that the Prime Minister had no new ideas. Every piece of legislation he had intended to move forward with before the prorogation he has continued with, so there is no argument that it was anything other than to stop the investigation into himself and his involvement with the WE organization and the awarding of the money. Of course, these documents could prove that, but the Prime Minister did the unprecedented thing of shutting down Parliament so that he could end the investigation and the release of these documents.

Subsequently the Liberal Party has been engaged in an unprecedented filibuster at this committee to ensure that these documents are not called for again. We are now into the 14th or 15th hour of debate on whether or not these documents should be brought forward. Obviously, the committee made the decision in the past that these should come forward, and the Liberals are now trying to have a do-over in a situation where, if they got their way, these documents would never see the light of day.

It is interesting that when the Prime Minister was not yet the Prime Minister but was promising to change the way things work in Ottawa, he said his government would be open by default, that in any and every situation it would provide openness, transparency and accountability to ensure that Canadians would see and render their judgment on what the government was doing, but this government has turned into the most secretive and dismissive government of all time. It is interesting that Liberal MPs suggest that opposition MPs are playing politics simply by demanding what the Prime Minister promised before he was the Prime Minister.

It is unconscionable that Liberal MPs continue to dismiss opposition MPs. We are in a minority Parliament. More Canadians voted for opposition MPs than for Liberal MPs, and the Liberal MPs think they can demand that opposition MPs follow their lead and help limit access to these documents. However, what they seem to forget is that I speak not only for myself, and my colleagues speak not only for themselves, but also that we speak on behalf of our constituents.

A majority of Canadians sent opposition MPs to this Parliament to hold this government to account because they had questions about this government. They didn't trust this government. They wanted accountability and a measure of assurance that when Canadians needed to see what was happening behind the curtain, they would have access to that through their members of Parliament, and these Liberal MPs continue to dismiss opposition MPs as if they were simply a nuisance that should be done away with and ignored.

For my colleagues on the Liberal side, it is not only we who have a responsibility to hold this government to account; you do too. Through the chair to my Liberal colleagues, you are not members of cabinet. You are not the Prime Minister. You have a responsibility to hold your government to account in the same way that we have a responsibility to hold this government to account.

The Prime Minister before he became the Prime Minister said that committees would be independent. As a matter of fact, he went the extra mile to say that parliamentary secretaries would never sit on parliamentary committees, to ensure that the government would dictate to committees what they would and would not do.

The Prime Minister broke that promise. He now allows parliamentary secretaries from the Liberal Party to sit on parliamentary committees. He's already broken that promise, but with the suggestion by Ms. Shanahan today, he has gone a measure further by giving instruction directly from the Liberal House leader to this committee as to how we should conduct our business.

That is a significant distance from the way committees should be operating, which is independent of the government and of Parliament. We are masters of our own destiny. That is the entire foundation by which we can operate to ensure accountability and transparency for Canadians. Today the Liberal Party has gone a significant distance further in eroding accountability and transparency by having the House leader of the Liberal Party of Canada dictating to the ethics committee what we should and should not be doing, having the Prime Minister clearly giving instruction to the Liberal members on this committee as to what they should and should not be doing.

This is unprecedented. There have been suggestions through the years that government MPs were getting direction from their government and from their prime minister's office, but never have I seen a member of the government at a committee, especially an opposition-led accountability committee like the ethics committee, show up with a letter from the Liberal House leader instructing the committee as to how they should engage in their activities. This is unprecedented. I am dumbfounded by this. It's just unbelievable.

They are now telling us, assuring us, that nothing went wrong. The entire Liberal argument is that the Prime Minister promises that having corrected what he originally said, he's now telling the truth—you know, he maybe wasn't telling the truth to begin with, but now he's telling the truth, so just trust the Prime Minister. Well, we can't do that. We've learned that enough times.

The Prime Minister's story always changes. The moment he gets caught, it's always somebody else's fault. We can't take the Prime Minister's word on any of this. The Prime Minister hasn't been transparent. He hasn't been honest. He hasn't been truthful on this and many other things.

Then they say, well, if you can't trust the Prime Minister, trust the WE organization: They have new documents that are different from the last documents; this time it's honest. This time it's true. I wonder if the Liberal members recall that when this whole thing started, the WE organization said they didn't pay, that they'd never paid. We had the chair of the WE organization saying that they'd never paid anybody to speak. Well, all of a sudden she found out that she didn't even know what was going on at the WE organization. She didn't know what deals were being developed behind her back. Still, the Liberal members say to trust the WE organization, whatever that is now—this organization that is now scrambling out of our country because, in the light of day, all of a sudden they don't want to operate in Canada anymore.

I don't think we can trust the WE organization. I don't think we can trust the Prime Minister. I don't think we can trust the Liberal House leader to give instruction to this committee so that we can actually find out what happened. It is left to us, as honourable members representing Canadians, to bring into the light of day what has gone on behind closed doors.

I will quote the words of the guy who is now the Prime Minister. He is clearly a different person from who he was when he was trying to be the Prime Minister. I do think we should be “open by default”. When there's an argument as to whether or not we should have documents, I think we as members of Parliament can be trusted both to protect the privacy of Canadians and to ensure that we do the due diligence that we are sent here to do. If my Liberal colleagues believe that they don't have a job to do in holding their government to account, that they have no responsibility to hold Justin Trudeau to account and have no job to do here, well, they could give up their paycheque or resign their seats and see what Canadians have to say. I think Canadians would send people in their place who would hold this government to account.

Maybe even some Liberal members would do the job of holding their government to account. I've seen that in the past, when even Liberal members, even government members, would hold the government to account.

However, there's been such an erosion, to the extent that we now have members of Parliament who sit on this committee showing up with letters from their Liberal House leader giving instruction as to what we should and should not have access to. That is unprecedented. That is undemocratic. That is not transparent. It's a fundamental failing in our democracy if that's where we are today.

I would suggest that Liberals need to look at themselves in the mirror and find out who sent them to this place and why. Is it just to protect the Prime Minister, or is it to do the good work of protecting the interests of Canadians? I would suggest that the members, upon reflection, would recognize that they have a responsibility to protect the interests of their constituents.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, colleagues. I am just reviewing the list here.

I have right now a different list, again, than I have electronically. I have Mr. Dong, Mr. Angus, Mr. Sorbara, Madam Gaudreau, Mr. Fergus, and Madam Lattanzio, and then I also have Mr. Kusmierczyk, who I guess is going to be subbing in.

Do you intend to speak first, Mr. Sorbara?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I have to exit now. I just want to wish everybody a good afternoon. I have to bring my daughter and wife down to SickKids. My daughter is having her appendix removed later on today. I will be with my family today, but I want to wish everyone a wonderful Monday.

I hope in the spirit of collaboration that the committee continues to work for the good of all Canadians and residents we represent. I want to wish you a good rest of the day.

I apologize. It's unfortunate that I can't be here with you folks as we continue this discussion that is very important for Canadians. I wish everyone a great afternoon. I hope not to see everyone this evening once I sign back on. Let's hope, but nonetheless, if need be, I hope to be able to do so later on today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I wish all the best for your daughter, and I'm certain I speak for everybody here on this committee. There is no need to apologize. You need to look after your family.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Do I have the pronunciation right, Mr. Kusmierczyk?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes. Excellent, Chair.