Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, I call the meeting to order. Good morning.

We have a very short period of time today because we have votes in an hour. I have three live bodies in the room, as well as lots of live bodies outside of the room.

Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Angus and Mr. Barrett have already made their intentions known by their hands.

Go ahead, Madame Gaudreau.

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

Good morning. I hope that you're doing well in this chilly weather.

Mr. Chair, I first want us to negative the vote that took place at the previous meeting. Is that possible? How should we proceed?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I've consulted with the clerk extensively on this point. This was not the first time I've heard of this. There would be a process, but it's quite sophisticated.

There would have to be a motion that would have to be voted on in regard to negativing the previous vote. It would be possible, but let's put it this way: We'd prefer not to set a precedent in that regard. It's a slippery slope once you negative one vote; it then calls into question the consistency of our voting regimen.

That's where I would rule, Madame Gaudreau.

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

I believe that, since I have the floor, I can move a motion. Is that right, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, certainly.

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

You received this motion in the digital file. I'll read it in French as slowly as possible. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h):

(a) the Committee examine the measures in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in the federal government policies with regard to contracts and grants or contributions and other expenses;

(b) that in carrying out this study, the Committee study mainly, but not limited to, contracts with regards to speeches of Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau within the framework of activities organized by Speakers' Spotlight since October 14, 2008;

(c) that the Committee invite Speakers' Spotlight representatives to testify about all files related to speeches organized since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau;

(d) that an Order be issued to Speakers' Spotlight to obtain a copy of all records related to speeches organized since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau—including, for each speech, the amounts paid, any expenses reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity that organized it;

(e) that the documents listed in (d) be delivered to the Clerk of the Committee within 7 days of the adoption of this motion and that their consideration be in camera;

(f) that, for the consideration of documents studied during closed meetings:

i. only Committee members be allowed to participate;

ii. no mobile or electronic device be allowed in the room during these meetings;

iii. numbered hard copies of documents be given to Committee members by the Clerk at the beginning of each meeting scheduled for that purpose and that these copies be given to the Clerk at the end of each meeting;

iv. copies of documents be kept in the Clerk's office and that outside of meetings Committee members can only view them by going to the Clerk's office, and no mobile or electronic device be in the room during the consultation of documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I assume that all members have a copy, so I won't need to redistribute it. I know I had a copy of this motion on my P9 account.

With the motion being moved, we will move forward with debate on this motion. Madam Shanahan is online. I want to let you know that our speaking order is as follows: Mr. Angus, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Warkentin, Madam Shanahan, Mr. Fergus and Mr. Sorbara.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was surprised at your opening statement about how it is possible to change a motion. We are sent here representing our parties. Each of us is appointed because our party sends us, and so we are representing our party.

If a party votes one way on a motion, and then gets political heat from that vote, they don't get to come back and then insist that we redo it. I say that, Mr. Chair, with great respect. I have been 16 years in Parliament, and I have never seen a motion voted down by a party that they get to bring back at the next meeting and say, “Let's do another one.” This is the same motion that the Bloc voted down.

Regardless of its merits, to me this is completely out of order with standing practice of the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Angus, on your first point, I want to commend the clerk for the hours and hours of work that she did.

I reviewed some options over the past three days because we had heard from members about some concerns. We combed through literally.... I think if I remember, the earliest ruling was about 30 years old. I might be off by 10 years, but there have been precedents set.

However, I agree with you, Mr. Angus, and that's why I said that although a vote has been negatived in the past, I don't think it's a good practice of the committee.

As far as the motion on the floor today goes, again, after studying a number of precedents, I see enough variance in this motion that it is in order. It does call on a study rather than just a submission of documents, and there are several other points in it that are substantially different, so it is in order, and now we're debating that motion.

We will move on to Mr. Barrett.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

Having had the opportunity this morning to review the motion from Madame Gaudreau, I'm pleased that we're considering a study of the safeguards that are in place with respect to preventing conflicts of interest in the government.

I think in our examination, should this motion pass, we'd look very closely at the safeguards in and around the Prime Minister's Office, specifically as we have seen with respect to the awarding of the Canada student service grant contribution agreement.

I was very disappointed with the outcome of our vote a week ago. Like many others, I reviewed the footage after the fact on that question. Of course, I was eager today to hear if there would be a request for the motion to be reconsidered and how the chair would rule, but I see that while the issue was raised, the committee was not asked to reconsider that specific motion.

While there are elements of the motion in front of us today that would effect some of the same ends that I sought with the motion that we spent 17 hours debating in this session of Parliament, there are many more elements of it that the committee will have to consider, and specifically, as you rightly point out, Chair, that we undertake a study.

Members of the committee will recall that this summer, when we undertook a study similar to this, the demand for witnesses placed on the committee was substantial from all parties, particularly from the government. I think there has since then been more information made available through the document released to members of the finance committee, but we also—

I'm getting an echo. I can imagine that it's tough for other folks to listen to me. I don't like to hear myself either.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We have it dealt with now.

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

Thank you very much.

We do have more information, and perhaps that would narrow the scope and shorten the length of time required to address some of these issues. It's the second of November, and the House adjourns the second week of December, I believe, and so we really have a limited amount of time, and then the House resumes in the last week of January.

We don't have a tremendous amount of time. The 17 hours is water under the bridge at this point, but we do have information that we received that we can build on.

The intent and the public interest with respect to this matter, I think, are very high. I will note also that with regard to the motion I presented at our first meeting with respect to documents, government members and other opposition members who advocated safeguards or enhanced measures will see that this type of language is included here. I hope that it will hasten the debate, so that while everyone has the opportunity to have their say, we don't venture into the multiple-meeting, multiple-week scenario we did with the other motion.

That said, Chair, I'm pleased to say that I will be supporting the motion introduced by Madame Gaudreau and look forward to having the opportunity to vote on the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

The speakers list hasn't changed, so we'll go to Mr. Warkentin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hopefully you can hear me here. I'm having a little bit of delay on my Internet connection.

I just would like to amplify that this motion is a compromise. It is a compromise that addresses the concerns that have been brought forward by the Liberals after hours and hours of filibuster. I think that this includes all of the provisions to secure the documents, to ensure that they aren't distributed and to ensure that only members see them only without electronic devices. I think it also addresses some of the concerns that have been brought forward about the inclusion of other family members.

This is a compromise. I believe that it is far and away.... It makes significant concessions to the Liberals, so I'm hoping that in the effort to provide and ensure transparency and accountability for every Canadian, we can expeditiously move on this motion and ensure that it passes today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

Just to review, Madam Shanahan, you're coming up next, and then we have Mr. Fergus, Mr. Sorbara and then Madame Gaudreau.

Go ahead, Ms. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I would like to call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, is everybody prepared to vote on the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Could I request a recorded vote, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, the vote will be recorded by our very capable clerk, and it looks like there's consensus to go ahead.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Miriam Burke]

On the motion of Madame Gaudreau, please say “yea” when your name is called if you are for the motion or “nay” when your name is called if you oppose the motion.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

The motion is defeated.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On October 22, I brought forward a motion for study. It reads as follows:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this Committee undertake a study into issues of conflict of interest and the Lobbying Act in relation to pandemic spending;

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 WE Charity;

and, that this study include:

(a) an examination into MCAP and Rob Silver's involvement with the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance program;

(b) the consideration of all aspects of the government's involvement with Baylis Medical Company Inc., as well as former Liberal Member of Parliament Frank Baylis, including the awarding of a procurement contract for medical devices;

(c) an examination into Palantir Canada's relationship with the government including the breach of the Conflict of Interest Act by its president and former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. David MacNaughton;

(d) an examination of the use of partisan resources and processes in the appointment of federal judges that may have constituted violations of the privacy rights of nominees; and

that the Committee, report its findings to the House with recommendations to better permit the government to conduct the business of government with public confidence in its integrity.

I hope I get the support of my colleagues for this motion. We have been over a month debating how we're going to get to work and we haven't actually gotten to work. I think that we need to clear up a number of outstanding issues. Particularly, we had begun the WE Charity study; and we never finished it, and we have an obligation. I'm a stickler that when we put resources into a study, we finish that study and report it to Parliament.

We had talked with the government about a committee to address pandemic spending issues, and that had not come forward. I believe if my colleagues are willing to work with me, we can get this motion passed and get down to business and get a report to Parliament as soon as we can get this report finished.

I'm hoping to get support for this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Angus, is this a motion you've tabled before? Is it on notice, I mean?

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

This has been on notice, yes.