Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 26th, 2020

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

Mr. Chair, before I go on I want to have a point of clarification.

Did I understand you correctly when you said that the documents could be received rather expeditiously, but that there would be a question of having them in French and in English? If so, would that in itself result in some sort of a delay in obtaining the documents?

I want to have that clarified before I speak to the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No. That wouldn't delay our obtaining the documents. They would be delivered to the clerk, but the clerk would have to make sure they are in an acceptable format, based on the rules of procedure of our committee. That would be the delay; the delay would not be for any organization.

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

Okay.

The motion basically says that we want them ordered and produced. Is the delay then in the production of the bilingual documents, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

The delay would be with us.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We're not demanding the documents in both official languages from them or in any particular format, but we do have the committee's procedural rules that we have to abide by, and that's where the delay would be. It wouldn't be with the organization; they wouldn't be responsible for that.

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

I understand that. You have made that point quite clearly. The delay would not be with the organization, but in making the documents available to us, as it is written in the motion, in both languages.

Having said that then, the words “up to seven days”—and I want to stress the “up to”—do not mean that we need to take the full seven days. All my colleague is saying is that if there should be a delay, whatever the nature of that delay, we just want to be cautious and give them a time limit of seven days, but if the documents and the translation and everything else is done within 24 or 48 hours, then we wouldn't have to have any discussion of any issues, and say it wasn't done within the delays.

I think the amendment by my colleague is a cautious one. It's just a question of “up to” and, therefore, would include that 24-hour window.

I don't see an issue with that. I think it's just a question of being considerate and opening the door should there be a delay for whatever reason.

I will be supporting the amendment, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Madame Lattanzio.

Now we have Ms. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair, for your patience in following this due process, because, as I mentioned earlier, it is very important that we understand what the production of these documents means and what it means for us to be receiving them.

Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, but I'd like to have some clarification from you for further reference. When we say 24 hours or even 7 days, are we talking about business days, calendar days, including holidays or whatever? It is a pet peeve of mine, because sometimes it does come down to the wire, and we know how serious it is if a third party cannot produce documents for us in a timely manner.

Can we have an answer on that question?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

For all the time I've been on committees, traditionally, when you mention days, these are business days.

However, that said, Mr. Fergus did not specify business days in his amendment, but, generally speaking, the chair and the clerk would proceed on the fact that they would be business days, which is the framework in which we function generally.

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

Very good.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Fergus may want to elucidate upon that after Mr. Dong speaks.

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

Very good, thank you for the clarification. I'll leave it at that, but I am certainly in favour of this amendment as worded and very pleased that our clerk and the team have already moved on this piece of business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

Mr. Dong, I'm sorry, my apologies. I messed up on the speakers.

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

I'm happy to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Dong, I'm sorry about that. It is Madame Gaudreau and then you.

I apologize.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I take note of the open-mindedness that has been shown about the need for a time frame, although we have probably had everything we need since August. I just want to mention that I am prepared to vote on this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau.

Mr. Dong, go ahead now. I'm sorry about that, sir.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I spoke on the amendment and explained my position on it. I was ready to listen to other members' comments and perhaps move to a vote on the amendment if there were a consensus to move on.

I was listening carefully to what Mr. Warkentin was talking about. I have to say that as a new member of Parliament, and obviously a new member of this committee, I take what the chair says, the current and previous, to heart. We try to perform or behave as non-partisanly as we can on this committee. I really take that to heart. Repeatedly, though, throughout the discussion of this motion, every time the official opposition members talk, they try to slap the government members by labelling them with the word “cover-up”. There is an assumption that they've already judged or decided what the outcome of the study or the investigation might be.

I want to remind all members that there is an ongoing investigation taking place by the independent officer of the legislature. The reason there is an independent officer of the House of Commons is that we all belong to a certain party. Even if we try to be neutral, our position will lean towards the party that we're with. That's why there's an independent investigation happening.

Simply slapping on these labels and assuming that the government is guilty of whatever accusation the respectful members try to put on the government members, I don't think is helpful to the situation, especially when we are talking about a motion that's not quite the same as the one that passed in the summer. Given that the level of security and access to these documents is completely different, when these things are in place.... Try to frame a picture that it's the same motion and everyone should support it.

By the way, as a permanent member of this committee, I didn't vote for the motion back in August. I understand we're a minority government; we don't hold a majority on this committee. I understand and respect that. Simply trying to frame us as, “Oh, you guys have changed your position on this and have tried to cover up”, I just don't think that's fair and respectful to other members. When we talk about the concerns and the questions, and we have vote on one amendment, at least, obviously the concern has been heard. All this debate is useful in my mind, but simply saying that the government members are just talking nonsense, I don't think is very helpful in this committee.

I just did a little research. Mr. Warkentin said the same thing back in May 2013:

You do know, Mr. Chair, that the Ethics Commissioner is currently reviewing the circumstances and the submission that has been brought forward. We also know that the Senate ethics commissioner is reviewing this. We also know that the Prime Minister has answered questions with regard to this and said that he knew nothing of it.

That's just one quote, and I can read another one that speaks to—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Dong, we have a point of order here in the room.

Mr. Angus.

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

Mr. Dong will have an enormous amount of time to filibuster. We're talking about an amendment, by his colleague, on seven days. I've never actually seen a government member filibuster his own party's amendment. We're speaking about whether seven days is reasonable. That's the question. That's what he needs to be talking about. It has nothing to do with Mr. Warkentin; it has to do with the amendment offered by Mr. Fergus.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Continue on, Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to wrap up very quickly.

I don't mean to drag this on, but when I hear the Conservative members and Mr. Warkentin saying that the concerns we're bringing forward, including this amendment, are nonsense, I cannot accept that. I have these quotes available. I'll certainly share them with the committee members later on, but my point is that we're all trying to work together here to improve this motion.

I understand that we're in the minority position—I get that—but just because we're in a minority position, you can't bully us, saying, “Let's go vote for a motion. What's the point of debating?” I cannot accept that. We were all elected by our constituents, and going forward, if we can keep that in mind when we debate, that would be very, very helpful, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Dong.

Mr. Angus.