Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the intervention, MP Barrett, and for your comments. I will say that all of the information I'm reading into the record today is, of course, public information, and my understanding is that it is the belief and the desire of said opposition members to look at FTI and to look at Baylis Medical because the individual happens to be and happened to be a Liberal. I'm bringing up examples of companies that are undertaking business for the benefit of providing personal protective equipment during one of the most unique and extraordinary periods of time in our modern history, the COVID-19 pandemic.

So, it's very important that we get this on the record. Canadians need to know that we are debating this and they need to know that people representing different walks of life, including different political parties, who contribute to the betterment of Canada, who contribute to our government in many different ways, whether they're chief of staff, former ministers or former members of Parliament, are contributing to fighting COVID-19, to ensuring that our front-line and essential workers receive the equipment they need and that, for people who actually unfortunately get COVID-19 or a COVID strain and need to be hospitalized, ensure that there is equipment on hand to ensure that those people are able to recuperate. These are very serious matters at hand. We know that across the world countries are really scrambling to ensure that they have an appropriate supply of ventilators, and I think we really need to be careful when we start looking at companies producing personal protective equipment.

Of course, I'm all for transparency and accountability. Again, I want to turn everyone's attention to Wazana Clothing and Jacob Wazana, its founder. It made a number of contributions and donations to the CPC in 2013 and 2014. Clearly, he is a supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not sure that is at all relevant during a pandemic. During a pandemic, we wouldn't focus on the political affiliation of businesses. We would focus on made-in-Canada businesses that can deliver. I know a number of businesses in my riding have stepped up to the plate, and I've never said to them, “Are you Liberal or Conservative?”. I've just said, “Thank you”. Wazana has received nearly $100 million in government contracts during this pandemic to supply important personal protective equipment needed throughout this country, yet we do not see the proprietor of this company, Mr. Wazana, on our witness list to testify, because there is simply no valid reason to have him here.

My colleagues in opposition, I'm curious: Why do we not have someone who will receive that contract, much as other individuals or other businesses that may have owners or representatives with a political affiliation, on the list?

Where do we go with that? It just makes me think.

Let's focus now on another entity. Turn your attention to Trudell Healthcare Solutions Inc. George Baran is the executive chairman. What does he have in common with the other individuals and companies that I've mentioned? Well, he's a donor to the Conservative Party of Canada. His company received $18.1 million in pandemic-related spending. Mr. Baran generally supported colleagues across the way with donations in 2015 and 2016. The financial support to the Conservatives isn't limited to Trudell's executive chairman, Mr. Chair. Mr. Gerald Slemko, their CEO and a director on the board, has also donated over $3,500 to the CPC in the past. I wonder if they should be called before us in the coming days and weeks to provide insight in regard to their past political support, and how they think it relates to the recent government contracts they received.

I do wish to make this point, because the members of the opposition have raised this in the House of Commons. They mentioned Baylis Medical and they mentioned it repeatedly, and we may want to check Hansard to see how many times that's been mentioned and how many times—but not once have they mentioned any of these other companies.

It just strikes me as—I don't know if hypocrisy is the right term. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. Maybe “selective referencing” is the right term. I'm not an English scholar, but maybe selective referencing or selective looking at companies or individuals. Breathe Medical Manufacturing is another Canadian company that stepped up during COVID-19 and manufacturers surgical masks. Again, I applaud them. I applaud every company that's stepped up, whether it's the Woodbridge Group here in my riding or any company across Canada that has assisted. Their company president, Warren Jones, donated $500 to the Conservative Party in 2017. I'm not sure how it would be relevant to have him testify, but if we keep up with the logic of my dear opposition colleagues, we should definitely call him to testify before us. The relevance of his appearance really isn't important.

Chair, I want to turn my colleagues' attention to another entity. BOMImed Inc. is based in the beautiful city of Winnipeg, Manitoba. BOMImed produces essential medical equipment and has received $12.5 million in government contracts for much needed medical equipment, which is being used to combat COVID-19. What the public and colleagues may not know, Chair, is that David Olivier, president of BOMImed, donated $1,500 to the Conservative Party in 2015. It's also not just Mr. Oliver. BOMImed's vice-president Brandon Guyot also donated to the Conservatives in 2016. Is any of this relevant to the procurement of needed medical supplies during the pandemic? Absolutely not. Of course not, but the opposition again, Chair, in the motion has referenced Baylis Medical, Frank Baylis.

I'm scratching my head, Chair—no, of course not—but the opposition doesn't mention companies like BOMImed because they cannot score or attempt to score political points instead of offering substantive policy prescriptions to Canadians to assist them to weather the storm and to reinforce the bridge on COVID-19.

We're talking about an individual company producing ventilators, much needed personal protection equipment for Canadians, and the only reason we're referencing that individual company is for one simple reason. An individual had the privilege to serve as a member of Parliament, in the last session of Parliament, from a company that is over 30 years old, employs literally hundreds of Canadians and is one of the best managed companies in Canada. That is what we should be talking about, and that issue would be applauded, independent of who this individual may support politically and what his beliefs are.

NMC Dynaplas is another great example here. NMC is a medical product manufacture company based in Scarborough, Ontario, not too far from where Mr. Dong is and not too far from where I am, and where we have some wonderful colleagues representing the five or six ridings out there.

They received a government contract valued at just over $2.5 million for the production of face masks. Company president Jason Foulds is doing a huge job producing personal protection equipment for Canadians including our frontline workers, the ones we applaud every day, the ones we care about and we purport to care about so much. What Canadians may not know about this individual is that he donated $1,000 to the Conservative Party back in 2010. What does that matter you may ask? Well, it doesn't. But Jason and his company stepped up during the pandemic and are helping to produce much needed medical equipment. Why haven't we heard his name before? Well, because he isn't a Liberal, and it doesn't suit the narrow partisan angle or interest of the opposition. That is why he hasn't been mentioned, Chair.

And Chair, in terms of the motion and the amendment Mr. Fergus put forward, we obviously worked with Mr. Angus, and conversations were had in terms of how we can come to a compromise. I believe we will eventually need to come to a compromise. We'll continue talking and coming up with ideas.

At the same time, I need to make the fair point of why I don't agree with what's in this motion and with the mulligan that was provided to another member of the committee.

It's a similar situation with regard to Ultra Manufacturing Limited, Mr. Chair. Ultra, like NMC Dynaplas, manufactures products with plastics and rubbers.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Waterloo-based company began manufacturing face shields and received just over $1.1 million from the Government of Canada to manufacture this essential PPE. Like for the other companies mentioned above, company president Joe DiAngelo is a past Conservative donor, having donated $1,500 in 2017. However, his past financial support for the CPC and his personal political preference have no bearing on whether or not his company receives, or does not receive, government contracts—and nor should they.

During this pandemic, Canadians, including Canadian businesses in my riding and in almost every single committee member's ridings that they have the privilege of representing, stepped up to the plate. They didn't ask if they were Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic, Bloc, Green or any other political party that may be on the ballot when election time comes. They just stepped up to the plate, and that's what Canada is about.

The last example I want to turn our attention to is that of a great iconic Canadian company called Stanfield's, which manufactures numerous clothing articles. The company can trace its origins back to Nova Scotia in the 1850s. Former company chairman and CEO [Inaudible-Editor]—

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

I have a a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, sir.

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

I don't remember that anybody has had any interest in underwear as part of this pandemic study. If the Liberals are going to continue to drag us down the hole of filibustering, the issue that they agreed to is with regard to Mr. Baylis, because he's a former member of Parliament, which makes it pertinent.

If they're going to start to now talk about underwear, Mr. Chair, they are certainly wasting our time and taxpayers' time.

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

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and actually—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will say to....

I think there's a little bit of echo coming. Is everything back to normal now?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We're all good.

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will say to MP Angus that I will be finishing up in a few minutes so the focus of our attention will not be turned to underwear, or as I commonly refer to them, boxers. I think that boxers are better than underwear, but that's a whole different story.

For the last example, I want to turn our attention to Stanfield's, iconic Canadians who manufacture numerous clothing articles. The company can trace its origins back to Nova Scotia in the 1850s. Former company chairman and CEO, Frank Thomas Stanfield, was a member of Parliament from Nova Scotia in the 1940s and 1950s. The current Stanfield's retooled as part of the effort to combat COVID-19 and began manufacturing essential PPE and, in particular, gowns.

They were awarded a Government of Canada contract for $27.9 million to manufacture gowns for distribution throughout Canada, including to front-line workers. The current CEO of Stanfield's Limited is Jon D.F. Stanfield. Mr. Stanfield, being the son of a former Nova Scotia premier, Conservative MP and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, has done great work at the helm of his company.

Considering his family relation, perhaps we should invite him to testify. Perhaps the simple fact that his father was a Conservative MP is good enough reason to have him here to explain why he received this contract. Of course we wouldn't want to do that, Chair, because that would just be an absurd venture, much like the Conservatives and opposition position in regard to Baylis Medical, which has been in existence for over 30 years.

I could keep going with a few more examples, Chair, because I continue to find it interesting how my opposition colleagues push this narrative in relation to Baylis Medical, particularly in the House of Commons. I think during that hour of every day, the opposition has to keep the government accountable, and I do believe in the question period. I do believe in substantive questions and substantive answers, but sometimes I wish it was more so. They continue to ask questions that really have, in my view, no relevance. Instead of focusing on the issues at hand like making sure that Canadians are protected and we're getting Canadians back to work, which we are arguing for, but we must do so safely while heeding the public health officials, the opposition tends to look at things that I think are not of relevance.

I will bring this full circle for my colleagues and end this discussion by discussing Mr. Rick Jamieson. You cannot simply make this up. Mr. Jamieson, who is a well-known Conservative donor and supporter, has had close ties with the Conservatives for years, not just with the candidacy of Mr. MacKay, but with many other prominent Conservatives.

Chair, we should call Mr. Jamieson to testify. Perhaps he has knowledge or can answer questions on who my colleagues on the other side have close relationships with. I think Mr. Jamieson may have some interesting information about the Conservative Party and their dealings that he can inform us about.

Chair, I have about 40 or 50 words left. It's just absolutely outlandish that we are even contemplating studying that section of the motion, but in compromise with the honourable colleague on the other side of the aisle who represents the riding in northern Ontario.... We compromised, Chair. We were working together. While my colleagues on the other side continue to point fingers and focus on issues that have no relevance to the pandemic, we, including myself and all colleagues, for that matter, will double our efforts and focus on delivering for Canadians and ensuring they have the support they need throughout this pandemic.

I would like to stop at that section and yield the floor to the next speaker, who I believe is my beloved friend from Don Valley North.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

I will let you know that the speakers list is Mr. Dong, Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Warkentin, Madame Shanahan, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Drouin—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, go ahead.

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

Two turns ago, I think you had me on the list after Madame Gaudreau.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I apologize, Mr. Angus. You're absolutely correct. You had waved to me, yes. I apologize for forgetting that. It's the challenge of looking at an electronic screen versus paper, but that's my responsibility and I take full accountability for it.

Colleagues, another place where I will take full responsibility is the role of the committee chair. I just reviewed it in our procedural book.

Look, I think there's never a time when it's fair to limit speech at a committee. However, we do that for studies and routine motions. For the collegiality of the committee and for the spirit of working together, I just want to advise you that there are 15 minutes left in our scheduled meeting, and only three members of the committee have spoken. There are 11 members on the committee, 10 excluding the chair. I am not in any way suggesting that I would limit the speech of individual members, but I would ask individual members to take it into consideration that other members may want to speak. You could limit your comments and get back on the list. That way, you would not be limiting your debate, but you would be yielding, in a spirit of collegiality, to your other colleagues. I would just encourage you to do that.

We'll continue on with Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I heard Mr. Angus ask about the speaking list. He can go before me if there are some new point he wants to bring forward to the committee. I want to offer that option to Mr. Angus. If not, I can start my remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

If you were going to make that offer—again, this is my responsibility, being the referee—I think I would have to yield to Madame Gaudreau first, who was on the list right after you, and then Mr. Angus. If you wanted to file in after that, then that would be acceptable.

I don't know if I could bump Mr. Angus on the request of a....

Well, let me take the names out of it: I couldn't bump one member on the request of another member.

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

All things are possible these days.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's right; it's COVID, so anything is possible. But I have to adjudicate what's fair, so—

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

No, that's fair. I promise I'll bring some new points in my argument.

I want to thank all my colleagues for their patience. I want to take a few moments to speak on the amended motion before us today.

I have to admit that I was pretty surprised that this motion, or some version of it, was before us again. To be fair, I thought after the defeat of the motion last week, and again yesterday, we might finally be moving on from this matter to things that are important to my constituents, and important to average Canadians, given that COVID-19 is on hand and there's quite a bit of stuff we can discuss.

I can talk about anti-Asian racism. That's still at the top of my mind and the mind of many other Canadians across the country. We've seen increased violence and just chaos taking place in different parts of the world. But it is what it is.

Chair, before getting to that, I must say that I have some concerns—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We have a point of order from Monsieur Gourde.

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

Mr. Chair, I didn't want to interrupt my colleague, but he can probably pick up where he left off.

Before I continue, I want to know something. It seems obvious that the Liberals still have a great deal to say. Can you take a few minutes to give us some insight into how the committee will run in the future? Will we be meeting for longer than two hours, or will we be meeting two or three times a week in the hope that we can come to an agreement before Christmas, if that's possible?

For example, will today's meeting end at 5:30 p.m.? Will we reconvene on Thursday? Will we get into the habit of holding two-hour meetings more often, or will we hold seven to eight-hour marathon meetings, as we've done in the past? It's becoming difficult to make decisions and plan our schedules. In the long term, some people may even be deterred from coming to the committee given the lack of predictability. Can you rule on this matter and give us a few minutes to talk about it?

Will we have meetings that last two hours, with one meeting every other day, or will we free up our schedule for a meeting that could last all night or even 24 hours? If that's the decision, then so be it. However, at some point, we must find a solution and come up with something. Today, there will surely be no tangible results. The parliamentary system is such that our Liberal friends can talk all night long if they want to.

I'd like some clarification, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Dong, I'll just respond to that quickly.

To Mr. Gourde and all of my colleagues, we're in an interesting situation right now where we have only had one meeting a week and we are trying to fight for some extra resources. That's why we have the meeting today. It's my hope we'll have two regularly scheduled meetings after the Remembrance Week recess. That will be more consistent and you will be able to plan for it. If we go over time, that's generally the decision of the committee. Even as far as recessing or adjourning is concerned, I can call an adjournment or somebody can move a motion to adjourn, but it can always be challenged.

I'll do the best I can to make sure that you're advised as early as possible and try to keep it on a predictable basis, but because of the nature of the business of the committee, there are aspects that aren't predictable. I will try my best to manage them, but that's not always possible.

Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'll keep the comment of my colleague Mr. Gourde in mind as I go forward. I'll try to be concise with my concerns.

I do have some concerns about the way this motion has been reintroduced and what that means for this committee going forward. I believe I talked about our having a structure here and my opposition to running a parallel investigation or running an investigation before the commissioner has a chance to make a ruling. I still believe that. My stance is consistent on that point.

In this matter, I understand, Chair, you have made a ruling. Although I didn't agree with it, I respect your decision and the will of the majority of the committee in supporting you. I need to ask what that will mean for the motions that will come forward and be voted down in the future. I'm talking about procedures. What's the precedent that we're setting here if the committee votes down a motion and it can simply be reintroduced in the next meeting, or if it's voted down again and it can be moved as an amendment in a new motion? What if it's defeated again, Mr. Chair? Can a motion be brought back for the third, fourth or fifth time? What is the cut-off? We as a committee have to consider that. That's something I'm quite curious about, Mr. Chair, and something that I hope you can speak on at some point today or in the next meeting. I'm going to leave that for a minute.

Mr. Chair, I want to discuss the redo of the redo on this motion. Mr. Barrett spoke yesterday about the will of the committee and the wishes of the majority of its members. He said that this amendment reflects the will of the committee in its current composition. I need to ask Mr. Barrett what merits he is basing that on, because as I go back and look at the results of the votes that took place previously, I see there was a vote on an identical motion taken on October 26 that was defeated by a vote of five to four. Fast forward to a week from yesterday, the same thing was put forward as a motion, again defeated five to four. Now we have this text in front of us a third time as an amendment, and the member opposite is saying that it reflects the wishes of the majority of the committee. The results don't bear that out, Mr. Chair. We've seen the result of the voting twice already, five to four. I wonder what the member means by it bearing out the will of the majority of this committee.

Going back through those votes, I can't help but think about all the work we've done here as a committee over the last year. While we sit here debating a motion on an amendment for the third time, I start to wonder what other motions have been debated at the committee since the last election, since the election in 2019. We've been here for almost a year. All the way back in February at our second meeting, after the election of the chair, Mr. Barrett led things off with a motion “That the Committee commence a study on the Trudeau II Report. That the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner be invited to the first meeting of the study to brief the Committee on his Report and that he be given 30 minutes for a prepared statement”, and so on and so forth.

That motion was defeated.

Next up was Mr. Angus, whom I have a lot of respect for. I was willing to support the amended motion before Madame Gaudreau introduced her amendment. Mr. Angus moved a motion to review judicial appointments. That motion was eventually withdrawn.

Then the chair called Madame Gaudreau. She moved a motion that the committee study the possibility of reforming the identity system and separating the SIN, the social insurance number, by recommending the development of a new solution and that the committee study the solutions deployed in other countries, such as in Europe, with a smart identity card. This motion was passed, I believe, with unanimous consent.

Finally, in a meeting, Mr. Angus moved the following motion:

That...the committee study the use or possible use of facial recognition technology by various levels of government in Canada, law enforcement agencies, private corporations and individuals....

I'm sure that permanent members of this committee would remember that the motion was passed as well with all parties supporting it.

At the next meeting, Mr. Chair, Mr. Barrett was up again, this time moving a motion that the committee commence a study on the report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner entitled “Trudeau II Report” published on August 14, 2019. Mr. Chair, that wasn't a typo, it was just the same motion presented again, but this time with a lengthy filibuster that lasted two meetings.

So while Mr. Barrett chided us on this side that we are filibustering and we are trying to stall the committee proceedings, I can't help but think inside, seriously? This was done. He did this not too long ago when he brought forward that motion.

Now I know you weren't the chair at the time, so I will not hold you responsible for the decision of your predecessor, but the chair did eventually rule that motion in order. After some debate, it was defeated again.

So we can see that's Mr. Barrett twice, Mr. Angus and Madame Gaudreau.

There was quite a bit of time until our next committee business meeting, Mr. Chair, but when we did come back in the summertime, it was Mr. Barrett who led off the meeting with a motion again. No, Mr. Chair, this time it wasn't a study on the “Trudeau II Report”. The motion this time was the following:

That...the committee review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflict of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contributions and other expenditure policies; and that, to provide a case study for this review, an Order of the Committee to issue to Speakers' Spotlight a for a copy of all records....

Next we had a motion from Mr. Kurek, a former member of this committee. He wanted to write letters to all members of the cabinet. This motion eventually was withdrawn.

In the next meeting, we had Mr. Fortin, not a permanent member of this committee, move a motion that the finance minister should resign even before any report came from the Ethics Commissioner. The motion was defeated.

Following that was a motion by Mr. Green—again, not a member of this committee—who moved that we conduct a study on conflict of interest, that we call witnesses from PCO, PMO and ministers. Oddly enough, none of these witnesses included the Ethics Commissioner, whose job is to do these investigations, to hold a standard and be the watcher—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.