Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 26th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Warkentin, your sound is breaking up quite a bit, but I think I understand what you want to say.

Mr. Warkentin wants to be clear that he was asking for a vote on the amendment, not on the main motion, so I will canvass the committee again as to whether there is a desire to go with a vote on the amendment.

No, there is no consensus, so I will move on to Madame Shanahan.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

The reason I want to speak is that I take exception to the comments made earlier by my colleague Mr. Barrett regarding the conversations between the House leaders. We checked with the House leader regarding those comments, and I am sorry, but either someone is telling Mr. Barrett a story, or he is telling us a story, because no calls have gone unanswered.

I think it's very important, in the context of this committee and with the subject that we are discussing, that we understand the importance of having these fulsome discussions.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm not sure it's appropriate—and I look for your guidance on this—for a member to suggest to the committee that I'm lying. I'm prepared to demonstrate evidence that what I've said is factual. Through you, I would ask the member to withdraw the inference.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I didn't get that from Madame Shanahan, but I will give her the opportunity to respond to that comment.

Madame Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Indeed, no inference was intended, but we understand that these types of discussions are ongoing. They're at different levels and maybe they were at cross-purposes, but certainly.... Indeed, that was the letter I read out last week from the government House leader Mr. Rodriguez to the other House leaders, where I think it is clear to my mind.

Don't worry. I'm not going to read it out again. It's in the record and in the public realm. Yes, indeed, on this side we would like to dispense with this as soon as we can, but we would like to make sure that it's on the record that these discussions are happening in good faith and that our government House leader has reached out to the other House leaders and that these discussions are ongoing.

We welcome the amendment on hand as a step in the right direction, as it goes to the point.

We discussed ethical principles. The law defines close relatives and the entourage of an MP. As MPs, we have the opportunity to look at ethical principles in a more theoretical way, but here we have to deal with a real and topical case. My colleague Mr. Fergus said that it will take hours of discussion before we come to understand that we must distinguish between a member of Parliament and his or her family members. It could apply to any one of us. I don't think the original intent of creating an office of the Ethics Commissioner and the Conflict of Interest Act was to target family members.

I am still having difficulty with the main motion because of its broad scope, intent, short time frame and respect for confidentiality, which is extremely important. For the moment, I agree, but I am pleased that Mr. Angus has moved an amendment so that, at the very least, we respect the fact that the brother and mother of a public figure should not be subject to investigation or oversight by our committee.

Nevertheless, it is important that we had these discussions. We cannot take shortcuts. We have to have a good understanding of things when it comes time to vote. For my part, I am in favour of the amendment as it is worded, because it is a step in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Shanahan.

We will now move on to Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, colleagues. It's great to see everyone.

Unfortunately, I wasn't at the last meeting, but fortunately everything went quite well with my daughter's appendix removal. I want to give a shout-out to the folks at SickKids and say thank you so much for the great care and attention we received down there, which folks in Ontario, and for that matter people in Canada receive when they visit SickKids

I do want to say thank you, through you, deputy Green, when you speak to your colleague Mr. Angus, for listening and for working together in the House last week during debate. After one of my speeches during questions and comments, MP Angus asked me about the amendment he had put forward, saying it was a reasonable amendment, namely, to remove the Prime Minister's mother, Madame Trudeau and brother's names from the motion -- something that was supported and spoken about by the leader of the New Democratic Party, deputy Singh.

That was something that my colleagues know I had argued vehemently for as the right thing to do, to have those two individuals' names removed. They're not public office holders. Including them would have set a very bad precedent. Frankly, as I commented, I think we are all elected as public officer holders and it is a privilege to serve our residents first and foremost and to be their local voice in Ottawa. However, it's not something where we need to start going after family members of other members of Parliament.

I would be really happy, deputy Green, that through you, you could pass on my hellos and thank yous to MP Angus, because I thought his moving that amendment was very classy on his part, as acknowledged by the leader of the NDP at one of his press conferences.

With that, Chair, I would like to suggest that we canvass the committee to see if we can move to a vote on Mr. Angus' amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I am looking for faces. No, there is no consent right now.

I think Mr. Barrett is still on the list and he has indicated that he still wants to speak.

Mr. Dong, you were on the list and I see that electronically, your hand has been removed. Do you have anything more to say before I go to Mr. Barrett?

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

I was going to suggest to move to a vote on this amendment without further debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

Mr. Barrett, I think you had put up your hand to say something. Go ahead.

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

Yes, thanks, Chair.

Just in response to MP Shanahan's comment that I was telling a story, I'd invite her to speak to Mr. Louis-François Brodeur, who I believe is with their House leader's office. I have an email chain here that supports what I said. The Liberal Party, the government House leader's office, is being non-co-operative and disingenuous in their comments that they were interested in reaching some kind of consensus.

We heard from Ms. Shanahan's colleagues that the filibusters would end when there was an agreement with the House leaders. Well, an agreement can only be reached if people respond and act in good faith.

I would add that it's not in good faith if someone told her a story that they didn't receive the emails and that there hadn't been an attempt in discussions. This proposal was circulated to all recognized parties—to the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals. I can tell you that conversations have been two ways with both the third and fourth parties, but we get radio silence from the Liberals. That's called “bad faith dealing”, Chair.

To come here today and suggest that what I have said—to put on the record that they're dealing in bad faith—is a story, is unfortunate. I think if Ms. Shanahan would like to see the evidence that her counter-claim was in fact false, I'd be pleased to present it to her. Otherwise I would invite her to correct the record and offer an apology. It is disappointing, to say the least that, when I can offer facts, the conjecture offered by the Liberals is not helpful when we're looking to deal in good faith and the government House leader's office is doing the opposite.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

My speakers list is empty at the moment, but since you mentioned Madame Shanahan, I wonder if she wants to respond to that.

Madame Shanahan, you have no desire to respond to that?

Okay, without any more people on the list, we'll go to a vote on the amendment.

I'll turn it over to the clerk to handle that, unless there's some objection.

Seeing none, the clerk will take over from here.

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

Are we going to a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Absolutely. I would only trust the clerk to make sure that's accurate.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, the amendment has passed, and now we'll move on to debate the amended motion.

Madam Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

As I mentioned, I'm still getting an echo. Is that just me or does someone there have to do something?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We're not getting any echo here, Madame Shanahan. I don't know if there's anything we can do to your system from this end, but the technical people are aware of it now that you've made them aware, and we'll see what we can do.

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

Okay, I'll continue speaking.

As I indicated in my earlier remarks, I am very glad to see that the amendment passed. I am sorry to see that our Conservative colleagues voted against it. However, I think that again shows how important it is to have these fulsome discussions on a motion, where indeed there are a number of issues within it that need to be discussed.

I have two main concerns. They have to do with the timing, the time delay, and that there has been—and we saw that in the last session—perhaps an unrealistic timeline put on it, and the fact that we're dealing with a private firm.

We are in a pandemic, and it seems to be something we need to remind people of. We don't have people working in their normal way, being present in offices, being able to pull documents up and make photocopies and to do that with all the due considerations. Of course, once documents are received, they are to be treated with the utmost care to ensure the privacy...because that is, of course, part of our raison d'être here, that we safeguard the privacy of Canadians. Regardless of what the context is, that is a principle we maintain, and indeed I believe there are a number of measures that could be taken to ensure this is the case.

Chair, could you clarify the speaking order, please, because I take it we're on a new list?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I was thinking you had actually forgotten.

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

The echoing threw me off.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Presently, Madame Shanahan, if you've concluded, the remaining speakers are Mr. Fergus, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Dong and Mr. Angus.

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

All right. I have concluded. I'm very pleased to see that we are able to continue this discussion.

Thank you very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Before I go to Mr. Fergus, I will update you.

Just as I said that, I saw two electronic hands come up. Mr. Warkentin and Madame Lattanzio are after Mr. Dong.

Mr. Fergus.

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

I thank my colleagues for passing this amendment. Now we get to the main motion.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to raise an issue that is important to me, one that I hope you and my colleagues would also agree with. That is on the notion of what Ms. Shanahan just brought up in terms of the timing.

I think this main motion could easily be improved if we were to move away from the unreasonably tight time frame of 24 hours for the production of this material. I don't want anybody's alarm bells going off. I'm not looking to rag the puck on this one or to drag it out. I think it's eminently reasonable if we said, why don't we give them seven days, maximum, to produce these documents? If they can get it done in 24 hours I'll stand corrected and buy everybody a coffee. I would be really surprised if they were able to do it. I don't think any organization that gets caught up in political circles and the political gamesmanship that we have here on the Hill deserves it. I think it would stand to the good sense of the fair play of Canadians if we were to offer them up to seven day to produce this material.

I don't know if we are willing to have another meeting this week, but none is scheduled at this time. So I don't think that will affect the work of this committee. If we were to agree to this time frame, we would be acting reasonably.

I would like to poll my colleagues as to whether I should propose an amendment to this effect, given its entirely reasonable nature. I look forward to hearing from them, especially those who were not in favour of the amendment we just passed.

So I would like to know if my colleagues are in favour of this idea, especially Mr. Angus. It should not interfere with the work of our committee. I'll let the discussion run its course and then I'll come back at the end to propose an amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I don't think my colleague can suggest that we talk about something different if it's not an amendment. I think he needs to move an amendment. Then we can discuss it. Otherwise, someone else could propose something else.

I think he's proposed something very interesting. Seven days would bring us up to next week anyway—our next meeting—so if he would make that an amendment, then we could discuss it. I think that's the proper order of how this goes.

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

Mr. Chair, I would certainly accede to the experience of my colleague Mr. Angus on that front. If it is correct with you, then I would propose an amendment that we permit the speakers bureau to have up to seven days to produce material that this committee has asked for.