Evidence of meeting #8 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you very much, Chair.
Indeed I want to continue, really, with the purpose of this intervention, which is to look at specific Canadian businesses. I think, in my reading of this article, you can see that I'm very much concerned with those businesses that have stepped up to the plate to help with pandemic relief. Indeed, the mobilization of Canadian business, large and small, I think is equivalent to the war effort of World Wars I and II, of World War II specifically, when that was a key factor in the Allies' winning of the war.
We are all keenly aware of the effect COVID-19 is having on our businesses. They are on the front lines, as is everyone else, with regard to the effects of the pandemic.
I speak to residents, business owners and employees of businesses in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle every day. I wish I could be speaking to more of them today. Many of them have come to me. Some who have never ever had occasion to call upon their federal MP in the past have done so over the last eight months, as much to offer a hand as to ask for a hand up, depending on their situation. I know that we're all very much aware of how some sectors have, in a way, benefited from the pandemic while others have been completely demolished. I will leave it to other colleagues to speak more specifically to the kinds of macroeconomic effects of COVID.
It is germane and it is important to these business owners, whether or not they are personally affected, that we as a government continue to focus, to provide the leadership in combatting the pandemic and in planning remedies to assist with the economic recovery to follow. I think that we need to focus on that work. That is what it's all about now. Everything we do must be contributing to advancing that work.
It certainly does not mean that the work of the government goes unchallenged or without review. I think that the reviewing of pandemic spending and the decisions around how the funds are spent is a good use of our time.
When we adjourned on March 13, back in the early days of the lockdown, we certainly did not take that decision lightly. We recognized that, as a country, we were embarking on a national battle, the likes of which we had not experienced since the Second World War. In terms of death and destruction there is no comparison, but the overwhelming national response that was required from the people of Canada during this pandemic is said to be similar.
I'm very proud, especially during this week of remembrance of our veterans, that Canadians are stepping up to the plate. We are being tested, and not without.... There have been ups and downs. There have been challenges to that response, but I dare say that every Canadian wants to do their part.
The emergency spending in response to the pandemic will definitely be under review, not just by Parliament but by the Auditor General and all relevant officers of Parliament. This is essential. I was proud to have served on the public accounts committee as one of my first roles back in 2015. I think we can rely on the good work of our parliamentary officers to do that investigation, to do those reviews and to bring them in front of parliamentarians so that we have that transparency, especially during this difficult time. I think Canadians, and certainly my constituents, while they may not refer directly to the steps that we know are in Parliament, expect that there would be accountability for the spending.
When we look at Mr. Angus's motion, I think the initial thrust of it is relevant, although normally it would be the finance committee, I would think, that would focus on the spending aspects as they're currently unfolding, such as how and where the money is to be spent. In passing, I do hope the finance committee is able to get to its very important work of looking at pre-budget consultations.
As to the relevant control mechanisms about who got a particular contract and the process of its awarding, well, that could be studied by government operations and estimates. That's another committee that I also had the privilege of serving on. These are good experiences for new members. It's good to serve on the different financial committees. I would think that for this committee, it's perfectly fair for us to undertake a study into the safeguards put in place to ensure that no conflicts of interest were present during the spending of pandemic funds. I also think it's appropriate for us to review spending from a privacy angle to ensure privacy laws were respected, and from a lobbying front to ensure that lobbying regulations were followed.
As an overall focus and area of study, we could really get some good work done by looking at the pandemic from this angle. I am having a tough time with the singling out of the Canada student service grant and the matter of Baylis Medical in particular. It would be my opinion that to group all these matters together, including Palantir, would be to presuppose an outcome. I am gathering that my opposition colleagues are trying to build a narrative around each of the items listed in the motion, trying to surmise that something irregular occurred, that somehow rules were broken.
That's their prerogative, Chair. I can understand that questions can be asked, but I do resist and wonder.... When we listen to Mr. Barrett, for example—he hasn't really been speaking out too much today, but we certainly have heard him at past meetings—one would assume that corruption has run rampant and unchecked. We know that this is simply not the case.
I also contend that there is a relevance matter, as these are all very separate items. They're just loosely tied together via this motion. It's sort of like a grocery list.
In my opinion, this is being done simply to sow confusion with the public.
This brings me back to this idea, the presupposition of guilt, because it's so obvious that the opposition—
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I have a point of order.
We listened to Mr. Fergus talk for I don't know how many hours about how good the motion was and how much the Liberals want to work with us, and now we've listened to Ms. Shanahan for most of the afternoon and she's attacking the motion.
Perhaps the Liberals could actually have a side meeting to decide whether they're going to be openly opposing this motion or they're going to pretend that they like the motion and that they want to work with us. Because what we're hearing from Ms. Shanahan and what we've heard from Mr. Sorbara is that as much as they say they want to work, they are opposing everything that's been voted on.
I think this is something they need to work out amongst themselves and stop wasting our time. As a committee, we have work to do that is much more important than these internal nicker-nack battles within the Liberal membership. If Ms. Shanahan speaks for them and they hate this motion and they think it's not right, fine. Then Mr. Fergus shouldn't have taken up the last two hours in saying how much he wanted to work with us. They're wasting our time.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I find “hate” is a very strong word, because that is not where I'm going with this. It's the composing of the motion that I am commenting on, and I think, as I said at the very top of my remarks here, that can happen. That is the very nature of the committee's looking at a text that's in front of us, as Mr. Fergus so ably pointed out, and being able to say, well, I may not be happy with this or I don't see why this is important, but we are able to come to a compromise and we are able to work forward. It does not take away from any member the fact that they may not agree with the way a motion is put together.
Again, it's the way that these elements have been put together and the fact that we are not an investigative committee in the sense that a court of law would be. We're not the police. We don't have a team of investigators at our disposal, nor do we have those kinds of procedures in place, and nor do we want that. That was never the intention of Parliament when, over the course of time, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was established, as well as the offices of the other very important, very independent and very competent commissioners.
I want to say something about Baylis Medical. Indeed, I think there are very few members here who did not know Frank Baylis in some way, the former member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. Yes, he is involved with this company. I think that is something he certainly declared. This was public knowledge. This was not in any way kept from the House. I just want to talk about—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Okay. Very good.
I just want to say that I had the occasion.... I don't know Frank well. I didn't know him before he was a member of Parliament. I have not had the occasion to meet with him since then. I remember getting the notice, during the last Parliament, about the death of his mother and about when the funeral would be taking place. That was at a time when, of course, we could go to funerals. I was very pleased that I was able to go. It was there that I heard that the Baylis Medical company was her company. She founded that company. How she founded that company is really a Canadian and Quebec success story.
Mr. Baylis and his family immigrated from Barbados when he was young. It was Gloria Baylis, his mother, whom I believe was a nurse, who started the company as an import business to help bring much-needed medical devices to Canada, which were not previously available. She was an entrepreneur and a proud Quebecker. She built this company from the ground up. From what Frank told us, his father was nominally involved but it was really his mother, at a time when there were very few black women, I can just imagine, starting companies in Quebec and Canada.
Frank eventually did join her, and together they built the company into a force in the medical device industry in Canada. It's that selfsame company that Mr. Jamieson, in the article I read out before, was delighted to find and to work with to develop his ventilator, to subcontract with him for his ventilator. Baylis is the type of business we should all be promoting. When Frank got the call from Mr. Jamieson, he stepped up.
Instead, because he happened to be a former Liberal MP, something that was not.... I don't know if he was ever a parliamentary secretary, but he certainly was never a minister. He was just an ordinary member of Parliament, like so many of us here. Because of that, he and his company were demonized.
I just don't understand. I think members were made aware very quickly that the contract for ventilators was in fact a subcontract to Baylis, that it was another company that had the contract. That didn't stop the muckraking and smears that were going on.
This is why I say that we must be careful. Yes, there could be questions about how a contract is awarded. Yes, there could be questions, as the article pointed out, about whether indeed the numbers were correct. Were the volumes adequately gauged and put forward? At the end of the day, it is the Canadian taxpayer who pays the bill.
However, to just smear a company, a company owner, a businessman or partners who are working together just because of what their background is, I would take objection to our paying special attention to that when we study this in this committee. There are no open investigations, to my knowledge, in regard to the Ethics Commissioner, or the Privacy Commissioner or the Commissioner of Lobbying in this matter. The contract to the primary contractor is public and was disclosed transparently.
I could go on, Chair, to talk about businesses that happen to be Conservative donors or affiliated with the Conservative Party. I imagine there are a few businesses that are affiliated with the NDP, or the Bloc or the Green Party. I mean, business is not something that is reserved for just one political stripe.
We celebrate the work and creativity and ingenuity of business owners. It's a sad day when members of this Parliament would disparage the work of business owners and their goodwill in stepping up to fight the pandemic.
Chair, as I say, I could go on, but I am mindful of the time. I will leave you with just the final point that we are still in the middle of a second wave of COVID-19. We've had some good news, but who knows? Will it hold true? Let us be hopeful. However, as of today, most of Quebec is in the red zone. Ontario is in a modified stage two. We need to get all hands on deck fighting this pandemic. That's the work we need to be doing.
Thank you very much, Chair, for your patience.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Madam Shanahan. I appreciate it.
Madam Gaudreau, it's 5:16 p.m. We have a hard stop at 5:30.
Mr. Barrett inquired as to why. Both IT and room allocation need our facility in order to do some upgrades. As I said, there's always a challenge these days in regard to resources. We need to have that hard stop at 5:30, and I need about three minutes in order to address some issues with the committee.
That leaves you about 10 minutes, Madam Gaudreau. I didn't want to interrupt you without warning you that we have that limited amount of time.
Please go ahead, Madam Gaudreau.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I just love this way of doing things!
I salute you, Mr. Chair.
It's not easy to pursue a discussion that should technically be followed by questions and answers. This is a one-way conversation and we are listening to ourselves talk a lot. I have taken notes and I want to use the next few minutes to say what I have to say.
First of all, my dear members of the governing party, my hat is off to you and I salute you. You deserve a medal. I am amazed at your ability to keep talking for so long. I will know whom to ask for help when I have no time limit.
I also understood your heartfelt appeals. I have also come a long way. You may not have headaches, but it is now 5:18 p.m. and this meeting started at 11:00 a.m. In my view, it could easily have lasted only two hours. Indeed, one speaking round, when one has time to reflect, to present the content and reasonable grounds to ultimately end up democratically... We hear the word “consensus” a lot. We're part of a democratic federation, so democracy must prevail.
I'd like to take a moment to dismiss some comments made by members of the government party; I didn't hear what other members had to say. Then I will present my conclusions.
I heard someone say that we have a right to the truth and that accountability is important. I have heard a lot about transparency. I will not say all of your names, because you know who you are. I also heard someone else say that they wanted facts. I heard that we need to move forward and that we can let this go. I heard the words “consensus” and “democracy”. Consensus, which comes from the heart and via a majority, and democracy, which must decide. It was quite impressive.
First of all, despite your rhetorical skills, I noticed that you were walking on eggshells. I also had to give speeches in my line of work. Maybe it's because we have been here for several hours. We keep saying that it is now 5:00 p.m., but we have actually been talking about this for 31 hours.
We heard the words “victory”, “facts”, “accountability”, “truth”. In our lives, when we know something or we feel we smell a rat, we can react in either of two ways: we can dare to face it down, or we can avoid it at all costs. We must not avoid it in this case. I commend all the work, energy, money and time we have devoted to this issue to bring us to this point today.
I'd also like to clarify some comments that will be reported in the “blues”.
People are saying that we need to move on and deal with the things that matter, and I could not agree with them more. We like to say that we heard this or that, but some beg to differ. The riding of Hull—Aylmer is my second home, and my neighbours are asking me to explain to them what is going on, and at least to finish what we started. These are Quebeckers, people I see in the street. I may see you in the street, Mr. Fergus.
I'm often told that parliamentarians play partisan politics. If anyone here is focused on one interest only, and it's clearly not power, it's the members of the Bloc Québécois. We look out for Quebeckers' interests. I represent Quebeckers, I cannot hide that. Every time I hear that people are playing politics, I don't feel it's directed at me. Anyway, it goes around in circles. We blame things on others, we obstruct, we find ways, we try to find a rule that has been around for so many years that, technically, it should have an expiry date. It's hard to keep up with it all.
Given everything that has been said, including that politics is the art of the possible, I offer what is possible. With everything I have said so far, the facts, the traps we set and the things we try to hide, I have to see this through to the end. In any case, the proposal has been accepted. We have to pass the motion as amended and proceed democratically.
Mr. Chair, it is 5:24 p.m. and you have three minutes left. We can wrap this up, now that the sun has set.
Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Yes, the sun has surely set here in Ontario as well, Madam Gaudreau. It is 5:25.
Colleagues, I'll keep my words very short. We will reconvene on Friday at 11:00 a.m. I would encourage you to read the procedure book, pages 1057 and 1058, and see the challenge that I have. We'll begin the next meeting with some discussion around that before we return to our motion at hand.
Colleagues, enjoy the rest of your evening. We now are adjourned.