Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's important that we look on the other side of the medal and appreciate another perspective in what we have transpiring at this committee. I started with that and I'm going to end with that.
Now let me take a few moments and speak today in reference to the motion that is before us.
To be fair, Chair, after the defeat of this motion last week, I thought we might finally be moving on from this matter into items that Canadians are actually concerned with. There are several topics of study that we could be reviewing at this committee, including looking at the COVID Alert contact tracking application, facial recognition software and reviewing the Conflict of Interest Act, and I can go on and on and on. There have been several study recommendations, all of which merit a serious discussion and a serious review by this committee.
Now we are once again discussing a motion that, while it may be a legitimate topic of study, Mr. Chair, in practice does something vastly different. What I am trying to get to the bottom of, Chair, is that the purpose of this motion needs to be looked at carefully, because on the one side we see MP Gaudreau proposing a study on the procedures in place to prevent conflicts of interest in the PMO, which I think is a fair study, and then at the next moment we see her narrowing her study to only reviewing the current Prime Minister, and in particular the speaking fees he and his wife may have received.
Clearly—and it is apparent to me—this is a backdoor way to try to continue the review into the WE Charity matter, even though, as a committee, we had already decided this matter last week with a vote.
Furthermore, the information being requested in this motion not only goes back well before the time frame of the WE Charity matter, but also beyond the Prime Minister's time in government, back to when he was elected as an MP. I fail to see any relevance to this type of request, Mr. Chair.
In reviewing the motion of Madame Gaudreau, I would say that I can at least understand the purpose of this motion and the study being proposed. It has its merits, and I think there is a lot that could be learned by studying how all governments handled matters of conflict of interest and by reviewing the best practices to prevent them now and in the future.
As I also mentioned, I do find the scope of this motion rather bizarre. On the one hand, we are examining procedures that are in place to prevent conflicts of interest as they relate to the office of the Prime Minister. As I noted, on the face of it, this seems like a legitimate course of action; however, we also have provisions of this motion that have no relevance—and I highlight, no relevance whatsoever—to the stated topic of discussion.
At a minimum, I would challenge the relevance of why a topic that we may want to look into as part of this study is being established as part of the terms of reference of the study when no other matters that we may look into as part of the studies are being given that same consideration and honour.
The opposition is blatantly disguising this fishing expedition, as my colleague Mr. Francesco Sorbara has called it, as it relates to the WE Charity matter. They are pretty much saying, “It's fine. We want to get to the bottom of real issues. Let's take a look at how the PMO prevents conflicts, but by the way, while we are here, let's have the requested details and documentation that have absolutely nothing to do with the study on hand.”
My opposition colleagues know full well that there is no merit whatsoever in this request for documents from Speakers' Spotlight. The very idea that the Prime Minister's past speaking engagements are somehow related to this matter is just simply absurd. That is why we call this a fishing expedition. There is no proof to back up the claims being made by my colleagues on the other side, and therefore they are looking to reach all the way back to 2008 in the hopes that they find something.
There is only one issue with that approach: the information being requested by the members across the way has already been released. We've said this time and time again, as did the Prime Minister himself just a few weeks ago. Furthermore, the information that was released by the Prime Minister was already in the public sphere, as it was released by him when he first became the Liberal leader. Members of the media and the opposition have had over seven years to look at these speaking engagements, and in those seven years, nothing has come to light.
Our Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, followed all the guidelines and requirements as an MP when he took on those speaking engagements, and when he became the leader, he ceased doing them, as we've referenced this morning.
In relation to the Prime Minister's spouse, Madame Grégoire Trudeau, we all know that she has worked with WE in the past. Nobody has denied that. It's well documented and recognized. Furthermore, this work was cleared by the Ethics Commissioner himself. There is no active investigation into her involvement. The Ethics Commissioner has publicly acknowledged that she was cleared to have the involvement she had and to be reimbursed for reasonable expenses, so colleagues, why are we looking into this matter?
I have to say that I am happy my colleagues have come to their senses and dropped the idea of looking into the private and personal lives of Madame Margaret Trudeau and Mr. Alexandre Trudeau. We really would have been sailing into uncharted waters if we as a committee had decided that we were going to start studying the private lives of parliamentarians' family members.
As we all very well know, we at this standing committee of Parliament are not an investigative body. We have an individual who does exactly that. There is no due process in the conduct of a parliamentary committee. There are no lawyers present. There are no judges present. There is no framework in which we can conduct ourselves with judicial fairness. This is non-existent.
This very idea that we would start going down the rabbit hole of investigating members of an MP's family was very concerning. While my opposition colleagues may have wished we were in the United States Congress, where investigations like this are commonplace, we're in Canada. We are not in the U.S. I'm happy we have at least partially moved on with the amendments brought forward by our colleague Mr. Angus.
That being said, here we are again today, and, as our colleagues keep reminding me and others of the many hours that we've been discussing this very motion, we are still looking to have documents produced by Speakers' Spotlight, and now with this motion, going one step further, requesting that representatives of this organization appear.
I think it's reasonable to assume that my opposition colleagues will not keep their questioning of these witnesses to the topic at hand. They have not shown that they are at all proactive at sticking to the facts or central points of discussion.
The Prime Minister has been open and transparent about his past work and speaking engagements. Documents have also been produced. Madame Grégoire Trudeau has also been open and transparent about her work. All documents related to speaking engagements are out in the public domain for everyone to scrutinize. All this motion seeks to do is to further tie up this committee's important work. So who is holding up this committee?
There is absolutely no purpose to the motion at hand. I think it's actually very important that we get down to the real business of Canadians and look at some of these and other very important studies that we have before us, which we have discussed even today—colleagues have made reference to some of the motions that have been put on the table—and over the past several weeks.
We as a committee voted on this matter last week. The matter was decided. We need to move on. We need to turn the page. Now it is time for us to get back to work and focus on the issues that really matter, colleagues. I ask that we move from this and get back to the motion that had been amended by our colleague Mr. Angus previously, that we move on and that we can get to doing the work that we have the responsibility to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.