Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 9th, 2020

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The honourable member just said that the committee is the master of its own domain. Mr. Chair, I have not attended dozens upon dozens of committee meetings. Just so things are clearer in my mind, I would like to know whether he means that the committee is also the master of its own procedure for the sake of efficiency.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Gaudreau.

Every member, from my experience in committees over the years, has a different understanding of what efficiency is. Some usually see efficiency as saving time. Some see efficiency as making sure they dispose of everything they need to as far as their ideas and verbally relating them goes. I appreciate the point of order. I would just encourage members to own their own efficiency in the proceedings so that the committee can do its work.

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, Ms. Gaudreau, thank you for your comment.

I do look forward to working together on the ethics committee in the weeks and months ahead as we continue in this fall session of Parliament and into the winter, and then as we continue on into the spring session.

I go back to MP Angus's comments at the beginning. The original motion that he put forward on October 22, 2020, would actually allow Mr. Angus to potentially call witnesses with regard to some of the questions he had this morning. He could potentially ask the questions that he put forward today and put forward his thoughts, which are very important. I found Mr. Angus's comments this morning quite interesting and compelling, if I can use that term, Deputy Angus.

At the same time, I thought we were making very good headway in coming to an agreement in terms of what we wanted to focus on in our study, to narrow our study and put forward a motion that we could all work with and that would be constructive, not only for the committee but for Canadians, so that we could move on to other issues at hand.

Mr. Chair, it is now 2:57 p.m. I believe I've laid out.... I was able to speak and, for the first part of the committee, my thoughts have been stated. I believe there's a speakers list behind me, with members waiting to share their thoughts.

With that, I do wish to cede the floor and finish my thoughts for now. I'll put myself back on the list after my other dignified and honourable members share their thoughts on this very important topic that we're speaking to today and that has occupied a lot of the committee's time.

I wish to say thank you, Chair, for your deliberations and, Chair, if I can say this from a very sincere angle, thank you for your patience and for your direction on this committee.

I will cede to the next speaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

We have Mr. Fergus, Madam Shanahan, Madam Gladu, Madam Gaudreau, Mr. Dong, Mr. Angus and Madam Lattanzio.

We'll go now to Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, honourable members. I'm glad to see you, even during this break week, when we are all busy at work in our ridings.

As you know, we are in our ridings just about every day during this pandemic, so I have an opportunity to see, and talk with, my constituents in Hull—Aylmer. Their situation is unique in Canada in that many of them work for the federal public service or have family members who do. They keep a close eye on what Parliament is doing.

Over the summer, I spoke with people in my riding, and they expressed concern over the situation involving the WE Organization. They were eager to hear the testimony of the Prime Minister, his chief of staff, the Clerk of the Privy Council and other high-ranking government officials. After hearing what the Prime Minister, his chief of staff, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the other officials had to say, the people in my riding told me again and again that nothing serious had transpired.

Truth be told, I stand behind my constituents and I think they are right. The official opposition, in particular, insists on keeping alive a version of events that is baseless. Every time the members of the official opposition try to establish a threshold that must be met before they will move on to other matters, the non-partisan public service rises to the occasion. When the result does not fit with their version of events, they move the goalpost yet again, and we must respond.

It has gotten so bad that, in recent weeks, my constituents have said to me, “turn the page because there are other issues you need to deal with.” I wholeheartedly agree with them. If we can't agree on a matter, let's move on to something else.

Despite my opinion and the reasoned views of my constituents, I do not question the good faith of the honourable members at this table, especially those on the other side. They may very well be sincere in their belief that we need to dig even deeper to see whether there is anything there.

The Prime Minister and Mrs. Grégoire Trudeau made public all of the income they earned as speakers. Those documents do not reveal anything unexpected, given the circumstances.

This motion is an amalgamation of two motions. The first is Mr. Angus's, which deals with not only the WE Organization matter, but also other issues. Not to worry, I won't go through them all. That said, the intent is to ensure that we continue our work on the Canada student service grant. The motion calls on the committee to examine the situation involving the WE Organization, the Canada student service grant and so on.

Mr. Angus would also like the committee to address four other matters related to government expenditures since the pandemic began. He wants us to discuss the events involving the Baylis Medical Company, and the relationship between Palantir Canada and the Canadian government. The study would also cover the firm MCAP and its involvement in two programs. Lastly, the study would address issues related to the appointment of judges.

Far be it from me not to give the devil his due, as they say, so I wish to recognize Mr. Angus's desire to reach a consensus. That is why he withdrew the two components of his motion relating to the MCAP firm and the appointment of judges. That was positive. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner already issued his decision on the matter. There again, nothing untoward happened and no rules were broken. As for the appointment of judges, Mr. Angus seems to be convinced that the Standing Committee on Justice could deal with the matter. Well done. I was prepared to support those amendments. In its infinite wisdom, the committee agreed to them, as well. We were ready to tackle the studies straightaway.

Thanks to Mr. Angus, the members of the committee realized that it was possible to reach a consensus on certain issues and not others. It took time to get there, but rather than focus on issues we don't agree on, we are going to concentrate on those where we do agree. That way, we can move forward. I commend those efforts.

We were fully prepared to do that work. I hope the committee can see the tremendous amount of work ahead and focus on areas of consensus. As Mr. Barrett has repeatedly mentioned, it is time for action. That is where we are.

However, the committee focused on other issues. As I explained when I first took the floor, the allegations are baseless. We, as a committee, voted not to spend time on the matter.

The committee said no once, but some were concerned that the decision did not reflect the interests of all the committee members, so they asked that the motion be reconsidered.

Mr. Chair, you are a man of experience—much more than I. I believe you and Mr. Angus are the two with the most experience on the committee. Perhaps you were both newcomers to Parliament at the same time, I'm not sure. Very wisely, you determined that a do-over was not possible; the reset button was not an option because if the committee went down that rabbit hole, it would never come out. It would be anything goes. The committee can't revisit a decision every time a member wants to do something or does not agree.

For a second time, then, the committee decided not to have this discussion.

This is the third time members have tried to make a motion do the same thing. The first two times, the committee said no, but this is the third attempt.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I want to make clear that the motion is very different, with equally different objectives and outcomes. I think the member should retract his remarks that we are bringing back the same motion. That is not true.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Gaudreau.

Mr. Fergus, please continue.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My intent is not to offend anyone unnecessarily, but the least I can say is that the motion contains basically the same elements that the committee rejected, that the chair rejected. I will choose my words carefully. I believe I was right and that my comments were justified.

Mr. Chair, it's unfortunate that the committee has succumbed to this temptation, because we are moving away from consensus. My fellow member Mr. Barrett regularly brings up the importance of seeking consensus, working in a manner that has unanimous support and not wasting time. I completely agree with him. We must never waste the committee's time.

It is equally important to abide by established principles. When the committee voted against going down this road once, a second attempt to do the same thing was made. It, too, was voted down. It defies logic to keep at this and to allow a third attempt. This is truly unfortunate, because it is preventing the committee from addressing issues that have unanimous support. On top of that, this is setting a precedent that makes no sense.

I find myself in the frustrating position of prevailing upon my fellow members to be reasonable and not to persist in what is unreasonable. It is essential that we work together. I must stress that.

Mr. Chair, although I do not have as much experience as you and the NDP member, I think that everyone at this table wants to make sure the decisions we make strengthen the good procedure of the House of Commons. I am certain, however, that the motion as it currently stands puts us on the wrong path.

I am using this opportunity to voice my concerns to you and to all Canadians. I hope I can rely on good old Canadian common sense to set us on the right path, by which I mean getting down to work and tackling issues that reflect a consensus, instead of spinning our wheels.

I had high hopes when I was assigned to this committee. I can remember the fruitful discussions we had, in the beginning, when Ms. Harder was chair.

In February, we talked about studies that were very important to the committee. Motions were defeated. My fellow members who were dissatisfied with the motions spoke for two or three meetings until the committee finally decided to put the motion to a vote. It was defeated.

I clearly recall Mr. Barrett's displeasure, and that was okay. He exercised his right to tell the committee members that he felt they had gone down the wrong road. I didn't agree with him, like most of the members. Nevertheless, he had the right to continue voicing his views. I would have never dared to say that he did not have that right, because I respect parliamentary tradition.

I am appealing to you and to all the members. We can spend weeks, even months, trying to convince one another of why we are right or we can recognize that this will not work because there is no consensus on the issue. A consensus is not a majority.

Mr. Chair, I don't want to put you in the awkward position of conducting a vote that would determine the committee's work. You do not interfere in debate. You make decisions to ensure the proper conduct of the discussion. You do a fine job, even when I disagree with your reasoning. I have the utmost respect for you and I consider you a good friend. We disagree from time to time, but in no way does that diminish the regard I have for you. I hope you feel the same.

We have a golden opportunity here. I have no doubt that there is consensus on certain parts of Mr. Angus's initial motion, if not unanimous support.

Why not focus our efforts on the parts everyone agrees on?

Mr. Chair, through you, I have a question for my fellow parliamentarians at this virtual table. Why not focus our efforts on areas where there is broad consensus, if not unanimous support?

If we did that, Mr. Chair, we could adopt a motion immediately. We could get down to work and examine other issues Canadians care deeply about as well.

I have repeatedly brought up the importance of facial recognition based on artificial intelligence or similar software.

As I have explained numerous times, Mr. Chair, this is an extremely important issue, mainly because of the flaws in these types of programs. I would wager $100 that everyone sitting at this virtual table is supportive of that study; after all, everyone knows how unfair it is that these programs cannot identify non-whites properly. It's not just a small percentage, either.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I have been listening attentively for 11 hours, day in, day out. I wish everyone would speak specifically to the motion before us. Then, we can discuss the others and vote on them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Gaudreau.

Mr. Fergus, please continue.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My intention is not to abuse my privilege or the speaking time you have given me, but I would like to respond to Ms. Gaudreau. Since she cannot see how my comments are relevant, she should know that they relate to point (c) of the motion being debated. It reads as follows:

and, that this study include: (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.

Mr. Chair, Palantir Technologies is currently pitching facial recognition software, so that is why I brought it up. That is why I think—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would like to apologize to the honourable member. I realize that the subject has come up a lot and that it is relevant. We recognize the benefit, so I wanted to apologize and say that we are ready to move on.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

May I say something, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Carry on, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gaudreau. Don't worry about excuses. I know it's a long process, but I'm doing my best to include relevant points in this debate.

I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd wager a hundred dollars on the following fact. I'm sure that all my honourable colleagues would support what needs to be supported in order for this very important issue to be addressed. It is not just for me personally, but for many of my fellow citizens who want a level playing field. We don't want software that is devoid of tags that are going to lead to huge errors.

Ms. Gaudreau, Ms. Shanahan and I—all three of us are Quebeckers—saw a Radio-Canada survey last year during the holidays in which they applied these software programs to members of the National Assembly. It was quickly concluded that the number of errors affecting non-white members of the National Assembly was truly enormous. You can imagine, in this world where personal security is often at stake in airports and public infrastructures, that the intelligence services could use this software in good faith, unaware that there are major shortcomings. This could create problems for many people who have to fly, apply for jobs or undergo background checks for security purposes. That's really important. The risk is enormous, and that's why I think there's a broad consensus, if not unanimity, in the committee on these issues.

This is one of the crucial reasons why we must devote our efforts and limited time to these issues. We can do it. It's easy. Just remove the parts that don't have consensus in the committee. These are items that were added at the last minute, despite the fact that we had rejected them.

I beg your pardon, Ms. Gaudreau, but I will point out that these are elements that, in substance, resemble the motion that was in fact rejected twice by this committee.

So I think it's better that we put our energy into this.

I think there's another very important element, and we should put all our energy into it. In the main motion, we were asked to examine the relationship between the government and Baylis Medical. This is important for two reasons.

Personally, I sincerely believe that there is nothing wrong with it. However, we need to get this clear because we don't want to sully the good reputation of an excellent private company that has been around for more than a generation. It has created a lot of good jobs in my province and across Canada. I think it's important to say that.

There is a consensus among the honourable members that we should look into this and invite key players to appear. I imagine we will be inviting officials and others when we look at this. I hope we will find that there's nothing wrong with it and that everything was done according to the rules, as the Ethics Commissioner found out when he investigated the chief of staff and her husband.

I'm prepared to support that, and I think the honourable members around the table agree with me on that—I see people nodding.

We are ready to start with that. However, there seems to be an insistence on dealing with elements on which there is no consensus. Why is this being done? Is it because of partisanship? One of my colleagues talked about efficiency in our committee, and I agree with her. However, is it politically efficient? I don't think so.

My constituents are following these issues closely. They are ordinary people from Hull—Aylmer. Frankly, I think that, in my riding, no one is ordinary, everyone is extraordinary. They are closely following what is happening here in Ottawa, in the House and in committee. They are people who work inside the system, whether they are public servants or employees of the House of Commons, such as analysts, clerks, interpreters or support teams for MPs.

Many of these people come from my area, from my riding, Hull-Aylmer. These people follow what's going on. Often, when I talk to them, they say that they have questioned things they heard during the testimonies of good people. They say they were worried when they didn't have the right information, but now that they have it, they wonder where the problem is.

Is this really politically efficient, or are we giving Canadians the impression that we are committing the great sin of partisanship?

You know, people accept to a certain extent those who defend their interests. However, they expect us as parliamentarians to work hard for them on issues that matter to them. That's why the popularity of politicians—it's not just one political party—rose dramatically in the early days of the pandemic. Canadians saw that all parliamentarians were working together for the well-being of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation or their desire to create an independent state or a united Canada. Congratulations! We didn't get carried away by the temptation to play political games.

We have a golden opportunity before us to do the same thing again, here and now. We can set aside largely political initiatives and focus all our efforts on issues that are important to Canadians. This is our duty, this is what will make a difference and it will be of great benefit to all parliamentarians. That's the most important thing.

We have seen this in several jurisdictions in Canada. There's a reason why there's a consensus among several premiers. They have dedicated themselves and worked for all citizens, not just their constituents. I'm asking all my colleagues to follow in their footsteps and work for Canadians by focusing on what is considered by Canadians to be common sense, in the spirit of the great Quebec and Canadian consensus that exists to that effect. In this way, I think we'll be able to accomplish great things.

We have a motion before us. One part of it deeply divides the committee, while another unifies all the political parties. I hope we'll make a decision. It may be difficult because we are used to looking for partisan interests. We have to go against our nature in order to continue our work for the benefit of all Canadians. I think the motion we are debating gives us the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Chair, you know the objectives of our committee better than I do. You know that part of our mandate is to support the work of certain officers of Parliament, including the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We should leave the other part to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, so that he can do his work independently and selflessly as to the outcome. That way, we will do our job better. For instance—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Fergus, I'm sorry to interrupt you.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

That's okay, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I don't like to interrupt a member. Will your comments be much longer?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I actually don't know, Mr. Chair. I am expressing.... I'm hoping that I'm advancing some arguments. I'm not certain how long I have been speaking for, so forgive me for.... Oh, I see. It will be a little while longer, but it won't be unduly longer, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It's 3:45 p.m. It's been a while since we've had a break. We will return to you, Mr. Fergus, but we'll just suspend now for 20 minutes and let everybody deal with what they need to deal with.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

On a point of order, Chair, before we suspend, I thought you said that we had parliamentary resources until five o'clock. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I believe 5:30 p.m. is the time, yes.

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

We're suspending for 20 minutes...?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes. I don't know where all the facilities are for everybody, so I want to make sure that everybody is able to do that and get back to the screen.