Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 19th, 2020

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

I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There we go. Now we can hear you.

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

Subsequent to the amendment of MP Angus, I'm going to make some very brief comments. They are as follows.

As I mentioned last week, being a new member of this committee, I think it was incumbent on me to get as much information and ask as many questions as possible to be able to understand the essence of the motion that MP Barrett put before us.

I think we've debated this and we've obtained information and, I would say, not all the information and not all the answers to the questions that were put before members of this committee. I think the interventions made by my colleagues last week perhaps led to Mr. Angus's amendment this morning, and I think what that shows is an understanding of wanting to work collaboratively on this committee to be able to do our work and to fulfill the mandate we have, both collectively and individually.

I commend my colleague for having put forward the amendment and considering the removal of Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau. You will recall also that last week we referred to various passages of information and various documents that were made available to this committee, and I believe that everything that had been put forward, as well as our interventions, may have led us to reconsider and to put the amendment that we have before us.

As a new member of this committee, I'm hopeful that we will be able to continue discussions and continue the exchange of information, which we owe to ourselves and to the mandate of this committee, so that we can continue our work and fulfill our respective obligations on this committee. I welcome the amendment. I think I've made it very clear that I will be in favour of this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Lattanzio.

I should review the speakers list once more.

So far, we have Mr. Kusmierczyk, Madam Shanahan, Monsieur Gourde and Mr. Dong. Members can look at this electronically too, and see that it also matches up with my electronic list.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, welcome.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First I want to say that I feel privileged to be joining this committee for the first time. I very much respect the important work this committee and its members have been engaged in during this Parliament.

I also welcome this amendment that my colleague has brought forward, and I will be supporting it. It represents an approach that I firmly believe my colleagues on this side of the aisle support. It is one that I believe characterizes our work to date—that is, seeking common ground, being open to dialogue, fostering collaboration and working together in a responsible fashion.

Looking back, I think we see those characteristics in, for example, the over 5,000 pages of documentation that we've submitted to committee, with the Prime Minister and the chief of staff appearing in front of committee to answer questions for hours, along with numerous officials. Canadians want to see that. Canadians want to see us working together.

At the same time, I believe we also have a responsibility to stand up to what is a bad motion. I think we have a responsibility as committee members to stand up and signal when we feel that the committee is veering towards the shoals. The original motion put forward by my Conservative colleague was a bad motion. It almost felt as if a fever had set in, in subsequent conversations. It represented overreach. It was concerning, I think, to many Canadians that unelected family members could be the subject of arbitrary probing of their finances and personal information by this committee.

That's why, again, I welcome Mr. Angus's motion. I think that's why Mr. Angus's motion is very much welcome. It is reasonable, it is responsible, and it brings the work of this committee off the rocks and focuses on the real work that Canadians expect us to do together. I think we are ready to have those tough discussions. We're prepared to answer those challenging questions. I strongly believe that Mr. Angus's amendment is reasonable and responsible. For that reason, I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Now we will go to Madam Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think that the exercise we're going through is positive. This amendment is a step in the right direction. Mr. Angus took into consideration all the interventions we made in the last few meetings on the problem of the net, which was very broad. I am thinking in particular of statements made by my colleague Mr. Housefather, who gave a very good description of the difference between close family members, that is, a spouse and dependent children, and relatives, which include brothers and sisters, cousins, and so on. This demonstrates the quality of our discussion.

I am pleased that the principles of confidentiality and the Conflict of Interest Act are mentioned and considered. We are in the process of looking at the situation of a person who holds public office. It could be a minister or a member of the government, of course, but it could also be a person who has an important position in one of our public institutions. Indeed, Canadians have a right to know whether spouses and dependent children may be included in an investigation of a person who has placed himself or herself in a conflict of interest. We now know that this is the case. I return to the importance of the commissioner being able to examine all the facts before him and to obtain the necessary documents.

I will also support the amendment because it is a step in the right direction. It is a good thing that we have excluded Mr. Trudeau's brother and mother from this search for documents. I still have some questions in that regard, but I will save them for the debate on the motion itself. For the time being, I am in favour of the amendment that Mr. Angus has presented to us today in good faith. We appreciate all the experience he brings to the committee.

That sums up one of the main concerns I had about the motion, and that concern has been allayed. Nevertheless, as I said, I still have some reservations, but I think this amendment is a step in the right direction.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Shanahan.

We'll now go to Monsieur Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me well?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, the sound is excellent.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

As Ms. Shanahan just said, it's a step, but it's a step in another direction. Is it in the right or the wrong direction? History will tell us.

There is something I find unfortunate about this debate on the amendment to the motion. It is rare that I take the time to speak philosophically. We are changing the essence of the motion and why we want to go in one direction rather than another. It was really important to include the brother and mother of our Prime Minister in the motion.

We took the time this summer to work on the whole famous story of the WE Charity when the ethics committee had the right to work and before everything was stopped. We were beginning to get somewhere and to understand some things. Some people, through our committee, had revealed some interesting things.

The advantage of having witnesses come to committee is that when we ask them questions, they answer us. They are not necessarily redacted documents. If you take the trouble to ask the right questions, you get very interesting answers that can shed some light on what happened with the student program and the WE Charity.

I will open a parenthesis here. In all the measures that were put in place last spring to help Canadians, this program was misunderstood and difficult to understand. That's why we asked questions of some of the witnesses who appeared before this committee last summer. We wanted to know where this initiative came from. The students were already protected. Those who had already worked were entitled to the CERB. We know that in Canada, there were many—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Did you have a point of order, Mr. Fergus?

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

Mr. Chair, you are on mute.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I will continue while he is adjusting the sound.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

My mike is live.

Mr. Fergus, did you have a point of order?

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm trying to recognize Mr. Fergus right now for a point of order. Can you hear me, Madam Shanahan?

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

Madam Clerk, are we to take it for granted that—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus, on a point of order.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to apologize to Mr. Gourde. I do not dispute the substance of what he is saying. I just want to point out that there was a phone call to allow our assistants to listen to the testimony, but unfortunately the call was cut off. I don't know if it's a technical problem, but unfortunately the line used by our assistants to listen to the testimony was down. Can this be fixed before Mr. Gourde continues?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus. We'll suspend for a minute and check into that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

All right, colleagues, I've canvassed the room, and we'll adjourn until next Monday.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Sorry, Chair; did any members show that they were not ready to vote for the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes.