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.