Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

On a point of order, yes.

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

I'm on the French channel. I see that the interpreter must race to keep up with my colleague. It would be nice if he could slow down. I know that it's usually the role of another member to say this, but he's really speaking too quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you for alerting us to that, Madame Shanahan. I've only known Mr. Sorbara for a couple of weeks and I would never have guessed that he would over-chat the translation services.

Mr. Sorbara, apparently that's the case, so be cautious in the cadence of your voice, please.

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

Thank you for that, Chair, and thank you, Deputy Shanahan, for that most reasonable intervention on the point of order.

I want to say to the interpretation services that, obviously we're in an extraordinary period of time, a unique period of time. Thank you for all you are doing for members of Parliament as we sit here virtually in our ridings. It's a unique time and I know these hours that our committee has been putting in have been very long and your patience and assistance and your service needs to be commended. So I do say a very big thank you for that.

I do wish to say that I will go a little slower. I'm a quite passionate person and tend to have a lot to say on a number of issues including the economics issues and in terms of my prior life and currently and stuff. I tend to like to express my opinion and sometimes when I shouldn't. Actually, I do the same and my colleagues know that, but I think that's what we get elected to do, to express our opinions both when it's popular and unpopular to do so.

I just wish to comment on the four bullet points from Mr. Angus' motion because two of them, I believe, Chair and clerk, we came to an agreement on. We worked together. We compromised with Mr. Angus, and I have a great deal of respect for MP Angus not only for his representation of his constituents in his riding.... And as they say, people vote with their feet, and the citizens of his riding have recognized MP Angus' contributions for being a strong voice of his residents in Ottawa, and that needs to be commended.

Having spent time with Mr. Angus, he's a stand-up Canadian and a stand-up individual.

I'm proud to call him a friend and an acquaintance, if I can call you a friend, Charlie.

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

Sorry, I have a point of order. On a point of order please, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Angus.

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

Yes. I'd like him to repeat all of that please, just so that we have that on the record. I didn't know if the translation got it all.

Yes, and I do consider him a good friend.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I think that Mr. Sorbara slowed down enough that the translation service probably caught that.

Please continue on, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you. I will only add this, and then I will quickly return to the motion at hand. Growing up, I was fortunate enough to get to know—and it piqued my interest in politics—another member of Parliament from the New Democratic Party whom I probably agreed to disagree with on many things. I agreed on a few things with the former member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the beloved Jim Fulton, who is no longer with us. For those of you who knew Jim Fulton or heard of him, he was an MP who really represented his constituents, and an individual with a lot of class and a lot of integrity.

Mr. Angus, I do know well the individuals that you follow in your party.

Going back to the motion at hand, we did reach an agreement. If my memory serves me correctly, we had voted to remove paragraphs (a) and (d) from Mr. Angus' motion. We did that. I think there was a lot of goodwill on all sides. I was actually very happy to do that, because I do think the quicker we can dispense with things and the quicker we can come to an agreement on how to move forward, the better off our constituents are and the better off we are as MPs, and the sooner we can get down to work.

I was really happy that we reached that compromise, because on the first paragraph regarding MCAP and Rob Silver's involvement with the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program, we all know that the CEWS subsidy was a program that was benefiting millions of Canadians and millions of firms. We all know that the current Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program was run via CMHC, to which applications would be submitted, in partnership, I do wish to note, with the provincial governments, like the one here in Ontario, in terms of the signatories on that agreement and how it worked in terms of how rent would be covered in certain portions. A portion was contributed by the Province of Ontario, a portion by the Government of Canada and 25% by the renter, and then a portion was to be forgiven by the landlord. We understand now, and we've moved on from that and brought in a new program.

Going back to that bullet point, we knew that MCAP really did not have any role in that program. The program was set up by CMHC and our government. The uptake of the program was, yes, disappointing but we've learned from that, and I commend the government for taking the initiative to do the new program on its own and to pay renters and tenants directly. I think that speaks to the consultative nature of our government and frankly to the listening component. We've listened to opposition parties, listened to business organizations, and moved forward. It was great to see. We also knew that the Ethics Commissioner had opined—and if I'm wrong on this, somebody please point it out—that Mr. Silver had done nothing wrong. He had recused himself. There was a formal recusal. There was a proper, as we used to call it in investment banking, wall between members of the family. It was great to see that.

Finally, there is:

(d) the 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.

I think, Chair, I was quoted, on that paragraph (d), in the paper, as saying that I was happy to see it removed, because I thought that was, not to overreach, something that did not lend itself to our committee. That could be brought up in other committees if need be. Also, it was something that crossed the line in terms of the privacy angle.

We were left with the two other aspects with regard to Baylis Medical. For full disclosure, I got to know Frank as a member of Parliament when he served. There were a few times when I had dinner with him and we chatted about business, entrepreneurial individuals in Canada, his entrepreneurial spirit and his parents, the fascinating story of his mom and dad. I found him to be a very sincere and very smart individual who had started a business here in Canada. He employs hundreds of people in Ontario pre- and post-COVID in good middle-class jobs and is a global leader in the medical device sector pre- and post-COVID. He's someone I looked up to as a friend and also someone who is a job creator.

I don't mind talking to former MP Baylis. I think his record speaks for him as an individual. He is definitely someone who has a lot of integrity, someone who represented his constituents and so forth. His company is amongst the thousands of companies across Canada helping Canadians and producing the personal protective equipment we need to weather the COVID-19 pandemic. Now we are in the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we know what's happening in Europe with the—from my understanding—mutations in the strain, how it has come back with a vengeance and how we all need to heed the public health officials.

Going back to paragraph (b) in Mr. Angus' motion, I have no problem at all speaking to Mr. Baylis and asking him about his entity, about his company, about how he's operated in Canada and kept all the jobs here in Canada for many, many years and continues to invest in his operations. God bless Mr. Baylis and God bless all of his employees who go to work every day making those medical devices that we need for Canadians. I look at that and I welcome that.

The opposition should be, I think, very happy that in the first part of the session we get to study the Canada student service grant, including the committee's work to review the safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest in government expenditures. I think it's very important that we look at “WE Charity and the Canada Student Service Grant; and the administration of the Canada Student Service Grant”. We know there's been quite a bit of disclosure made, and a number of people have come to present to committees, whether it was during the summer at the finance committee.... We had the Prime Minister come for three or four hours. If we wish to go down that road, we have a lot of the information.

Then there's paragraph (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”. What I say to this is very simple: Mr. MacNaughton's record, at the level of the provincial and the federal government and serving as the Canadian ambassador to the United States at the most extraordinary, unique time in Canadian history is very, very important, and I think his record speaks for itself.

We adopted MP Fergus' amendment to Mr. Angus' motion. Then the next step with the motion was MP Gaudreau's amendment, about which I, not jokingly, but fundamentally, said that a mulligan had taken place.

I know MP Shanahan had read into the record the blues of our prior committee meeting, and I'm not here to question decisions. I do not wish to go down that route, Chair. All I know is a mulligan had taken place where an amendment was put forward with a number of portions of that amendment going into MP Angus' motion. The amendment was then voted on. Much to my—I don't want to say much to my disappointment, because I understand the motive. I just wish that we had continued as a committee to work in the spirit of co-operation. I wish we had continued the path of MP Angus' motion with Mr. Fergus' amendment and that we had begun debating the amended motion, and that was my comment there.

In that light, it just seems to me, Chair, when I look at Madame Gaudreau's amendments.... I just don't agree with them, even to the comment...and I vehemently stated this during the initial part of the first few weeks of the ethics committee. When I was asked to join the ethics committee, I wasn't sure what this meant, but I had some sort of idea. I sure hope we can get to other things that are, in my view, of much more importance.

What I still find concerning is the date of October 14, 2008. This states, “That an Order be issued to Speakers’ Spotlight to obtain a copy of all records related to speeches organized since October 14, 2008”. I believe this part of Madame Gaudreau's motion was voted on, on the amendment—namely, “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”.

Chair, I have no issue at all with the opposition asking questions on the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's wife. Frankly, I cannot say it's something that is wrong. I think it's something that I would expect and anticipate; no problem there. I do have an issue with going back 20 years, 10 years, five years. Going back to 2008 almost reminds me of....

You know, I am a member of Parliament, and I have the privilege of being Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. Let's say somebody asked me, “Who did you work for in 1997? What did you do in 1999? What did you do in 2002, or 13 or 15 years before you decided to enter public service?” I worked. I made a living. I saved for my family. We bought a house. We did things. We filed our taxes. We travelled. It just seems to me that this part of the motion is very, very wide in breadth and somewhat, as I called this before, of a fishing expedition. It raised much concern for me, and it still raises concern for me. That's in large part why, when I look at the amendment, and then now the amended motion, or the amended amendment that we went through once, the second amendment.... We have a motion that's been an amended amended motion, if I understand that correctly. It's like your fourth cousin fifth removed, or third removed, or second removed, or something like that. It's just keeping track of all that wonderful stuff.

I'll go back to my friend Mr. Baylis. I say that proudly. He was a great person and he did a great job, not only for his constituents but also employing hundreds of Canadians across the country in his company.

I put together some notes, Chair, that I'd like to read. It pertains to the motion, the amended amended motion, at hand.

The motion before us is calling for a study on the role of Baylis Medical in regard to a contract that was awarded to a company that engaged Baylis Medical to assist them in providing needed ventilators for the COVID pandemic. I was looking into Baylis Medical, and I found this release regarding the company. I think it might be worthwhile to read it into the record so that we can see what independent groups think of Baylis.

Before we engage in yet another what I would say...not fishing expedition, because I actually welcome interest in looking at companies that invest in Canada, that employ Canadians, that grow our middle class, that create a stronger economy, and that employ engineers and researchers and recent graduates coming out of our great universities here in Ontario and across Canada. Before we engage in yet another what I will call fishing expedition, which seems to be what the opposition I think—I think—wishes to do, I will err on the side of the opposition wishes to act in the spirit of co-operation and compromise. I think MP Angus said it at the beginning, that, you know, we all kind of gave up a little bit when we started.

MP Angus, thank you for commenting on that, because that's the way I feel. I want to move on. I personally would like to move on, move forward, get to where we have to get to and get to the compromise that works for everyone.

We're not always going to be able to have our ice cream and cake, both things, or whatever the saying is, but we want to get to a point where we are studying and we will begin to study the issues at hand, which are related to facial recognition, privacy and all the things that are very pertinent to Canada these days, especially in the technological environment that we find ourselves in.

I just want to do a quick shout-out again to the interpreters.

Thank you for your work.

It is very well appreciated.

To continue, the concern is that another fishing expedition may result in causing this Canadian success story irreparable harm, somewhat akin to what the opposition did to the WE Charity.

Now, I say this because I think we need to be very careful when we bring up Canadian companies and Canadian success stories like—

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

On a point of order—

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

Yes, sir.

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

—the Liberals are blocking our ability to draw witnesses. It's not fair that they're using this filibuster as propaganda for Frank Baylis. If we have a study, they can bring witnesses who can speak of Frank Baylis, but they can't use a filibuster to seed a narrative when we're being denied, as opposition, the chance to actually investigate this.

This is again duplicity on the part of the Liberals, in that we make an agreement, they break that agreement, and then they say, “Well, we really want to talk about Frank Baylis.” That's after their agreeing yesterday to have this as a study, but now we are allowed to study it only through their lens of propaganda. We don't know who this person is they're citing. We don't know where it came from. These are not witnesses; this is filibustering.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Continue, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, MP Angus, for your intervention.

The press release came out on March 5. The headline is “Baylis Medical is honoured to be recognized as one of Canada's Best Managed Companies for the third consecutive year”. It continues: “The prestigious award program, which is run by Deloitte”—not known as being a politically motivated group—“recognizes Canadian companies that invest in technology and sustainable practices, have strategic development processes centered around their core strengths and are committed to building a strong corporate culture.” It states: “Behind Baylis Medical's continued success is a longstanding culture of social interaction and collaboration amongst its employees.”

It continues:

“We are thrilled to have won this award for the third year in a row,” said Deb Douma, Vice President of Human Resources at Baylis Medical. “Personal growth, employee development and continuous improvement are at the forefront of the work we do every day. As a company, it's critical that we give our employees the necessary tools and support they need as they continue to improve the lives of people around the world.

This year, Deloitte deliberately reduced the Best Managed winners list to half (in comparison to the 47 winners in 2019) in order to continually evolve the program and increase [the] competition to showcase the very best across Canada.

Baylis Medical looks forward to further innovation across all areas of the business as it continues to grow its range of products, expand into new and existing markets and add to its workforce.

“The all-encompassing nature of Canada's Best Managed Companies program really speaks to the diverse work we do at Baylis”, said Kris Shah, President of Baylis Medical.

“From the conception and development, to the production and distribution of our innovative devices, every single person plays a role in the success of our company. I want to thank everyone at Baylis for the important work they do every day and for helping us win the Best Managed award.”

[The] 2020 Best Managed award winners will be honoured at the annual Canada's Best Managed Companies gala in Toronto on April 1, 2020.

It goes on to say:

Baylis Medical is a leader in the development and commercialization of innovative medical devices in the field of cardiology, with a focus on left-heart access. Headquartered in Canada, and with offices world-wide, our clinical solutions have been Improving the Lives of People Around the World for over 30 years.

Now, let's take a quick look at the contract that was given for the ventilators. Let's get it clear on the record from the onset that this contract was not with Baylis Medical. The contract was with FTI. Baylis Medical was not brought into the fold until after the contract was awarded. The Government of Canada is acting on the recommendations of an expert panel at the request of the Public Health Agency of Canada. PSPC officials awarded the contract to FTI for 10,000 ventilators. PSPC has no involvement with the agreements reached between FTI and its suppliers.

Let's talk a bit about FTI ventilators for Canadians. V4C, as stated:

is a consortium of entrepreneurs, philanthropists, industrial, technology and engineering businesses that have come together to identify and pursue solutions to help Canadians through the challenging COVID-19 healthcare emergency. Rick Jamieson coined the term “Ventilators for Canadians” and launched this website in March 2020.

The co-founders of the consortium are: Rick Jamieson, president and CEO of FTI Professional—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, go ahead on your point of order.

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

The commercials have been going on for quite some time. It's probably time to move back to the committee and then to a commercial break.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please continue on, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you.

And thank you for the interjection. I think it was—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Madame Shanahan.

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

When we are speaking, are we not to be visible on the camera when we are speaking?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, that is correct, Madame Shanahan.

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

I can repeat that with the video on for certain.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I think that's not quite necessary, Mr. Warkentin, but I appreciate it.

Thank you very—