Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 13th, 2020

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

As we're moving into the 36th or 37th hour, I've sat and listened to Ms. Lattanzio accuse me of making personal attacks, of destroying businesses, of destroying WE Charity. Our obligation as parliamentarians is to ask political questions. She might not like that, because she's government, but it is our obligation.

If the WE Charity did not meet the standards for that proposal, we have a right to ask about that. The decision they made to shut their charity was their decision, but we should never be told, “Shame on parliamentarians for asking for accountability.” The fact is that the Prime Minister's Office, as well as senior ministers who had obligations to protect Canadians during the pandemic, failed.

For Ms. Lattanzio to lecture us about making personal attacks.... I take my work very seriously. I've been 17 years in Parliament. I've been on this committee for years. I have seen the most wicked and vicious political battering at this committee, but I have always served with the intention of putting the Canadian people first.

If Ms. Lattanzio wants to talk the clock out by attacking us and saying that we're making personal attacks and trying to destroy business, I think that's very unfortunate. It's a question of relevance, because she's repeating the same lines that her colleagues are using. We're getting into repetition, so I would ask you to rule on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Go ahead and proceed, Madam Lattanzio.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These are my observations and my perceptions.

With regard to Baylis Medical, which is also pertinent to the motion, it’s worth noting that the Government of Canada has no contracts with Baylis Medical. We do not control whether another company subcontracts work from their contract to another company. This happens in government procurement all the time. We know that.

Companies like Baylis Medical are recognized as leaders in their field, in particular in manufacturing medical equipment. During COVID-19, they stepped up to ensure that they would assist in any way possible. I'm not sure when we were able to start going against the notion of subcontracting. I mean, there was a need, and they stepped up to the platter.

Chair, what is clear is that now we have an amended motion before us, and the original one from Mr. Angus. As I noted earlier in my remarks, part of it does have some merit, especially if the study is carried out in a fair and equitable manner by studying the substance of the main issue and not the conduct of a fishing expedition.

My concerns continue to be how my Conservative colleagues are going to try to bend what looks like a fair motion and use it to continue in their pursuit of a personal attack on the Prime Minister and his family.

I am also concerned—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Chair, with respect to the member's comments about personal attacks, we hear allegations being levelled. The content of what the member is referring to is an NDP motion that was amended by a Liberal motion and then amended by a Bloc motion. The Conservatives have only voted on the amendments; we haven't put this forward. We continue to hear, almost word for word, the same speech delivered by her colleagues.

However, if we're going to continue and they're going to include these same misfired attacks or confused attacks, I would ask you, Chair, to remind the member about repetition and relevance.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I should tell you that repetition pertains to the individual member, not what may they may be saying from some other member.

However, I will remind the member—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Chair, to be clear—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please let me finish, and then I'll recognize the points of order.

In regard to repetition, it would be whether the person who has the floor is being repetitive in their comments once they have the floor.

Mr. Barrett, did you have a subsequent point on that point?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Yes. Just on your clarification, is it that it is not out of order for two members to read the same statement?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, not from what I see in the procedure manual. I think from what I read, it's pertaining to an individual member being repetitive.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I will certainly look at it again. These procedure manuals are quite arcane and have a number of precedents that you can follow for directions.

Mr. Long, go ahead. You had a point of order. By the way, that's a nice Christmas tree.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to be on the committee here, obviously coming to you from Saint John, New Brunswick. I actually spent time at the ethics committee, which I'll certainly talk about later.

Chair, through you, I want to remind members that they can't use points of order for debate. I think that's what has happened the last two or three times with opposition members. They obviously use points of order, and then they seem to digress into statements in debate.

I'm asking, through you, Chair, to remind members of that, please.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Long. I understand that.

I have given all parties latitude to say their piece when they interrupt on a point of order, and that's been the tradition on this committee. It's not to carry it on but to have it heard, and then obviously I give direction afterward if it's a legitimate point of order.

However, you raise a substantive issue, and we should try to keep our points of order to procedure and not debate.

We will continue with Madam Lattanzio.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to wrap it up.

Mr. Chairman, I'm still very hopeful that as a committee we can get to a place where we can focus on reviewing the ethical safeguards in the PMO and we can study a wide range of considerations that hinge on that particular topic and come up with some real recommendations. Then we'll all be able to be on the same page.

Is that wishful thinking? Absolutely. Maybe it's my hope that we can move on with this. I am still very hopeful. I'm still very wishful. As always, I am willing to work in this committee with colleagues on all sides of the floor to come to some type of compromise that actually achieves some semblance of real outcomes for my constituents and for all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Lattanzio.

Now we'll go to Mr. Long.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's certainly great to be on the committee today. I would like to spend a second reflecting.

When I started in 2015, I actually was on the ethics committee, and it was the first committee that I was appointed to. I certainly remember coming in, in 2015, and being obviously very nervous and not knowing what to expect. I was sitting around the horseshoe and I looked up to see that the chair was MP Calkins. I said, “Oh, how can that be? How can we be the majority government, and we have MP Calkins up chairing? How can that work?” Obviously, I quickly learned that ethics committees have opposition members as chairs. Certainly colleagues and opposition members sat across the room.Pat Kelly was one, and Matt Jeneroux. I sat beside people like Nate Erskine-Smith and Joël Lightbound. One thing that really came through in our committee was that we worked together. We obviously had our differences, and there's obviously a time for partisanship, but there's also a time to work together. Certainly the committee that I was on did work together.

I was asked to come here and fill in today. I think that my record as an MP shows that I'm not afraid to ask questions when questions need to be asked. Obviously, I've been paying attention to what's been unfolding, but what I'm seeing unfold here personally disappoints me.

I spent today, like every day, in my constituency office, and I'm a proud member of Parliament from Saint John—Rothesay. I had a mother come in with two children, and we helped her with the Canada child benefit. I had somebody who lost his job and needed help to fill out the forms for unemployment insurance and deal with the fact that we've reduced the hours of eligibility. We helped him. We've had other people come in and roll off of CERB onto the CRB, and so on and so forth. I'm so proud to work with constituents, with Canadians, and help them through a historic time.

Mr. Chair, I asked the last two constituents I had in today about what we're talking about today and how important, how relevant, they found it. Mr. Chair, I can tell you with 100% certainty that Canadians—certainly people in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay—are dealing with a historic, devastating, once-in-a generation pandemic. That parliamentarians in a committee are trying to investigate the Prime Minister's family and raise questions about an honourable man, an MP and a friend, Frank Baylis, and his company just disappoints me, because I think all of us have shown over the last several months that we can work together and do great things for Canadians.

As a government, we are open to change and ideas, but the fact that this motion wants to try to dig things up for partisan purposes is personally disappointing.

Mr. Angus, I've never sat on a committee with you. I have a lot of respect for you, obviously, across the House, for your advocacy and how you speak. I'm surprised to hear that you've been an MP for 17 years. I tip my hat to you. I don't think I could survive in this world for 17 years.

I just think there are better ways that we, as parliamentarians, can be spending our time on behalf of Canadians.

Before I actually get going with my speech, I just want to thank you for letting me in. It certainly brings back memories of being on the committee.

I certainly also want to also acknowledge it's Veterans Week. Remembrance Day has just passed. I want to take a second to acknowledge all the veterans in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. I am a two-time MP there now, and I am very proud of my riding. Hopefully everybody on this committee has visited Saint John—Rothesay. It's a port city, a wonderful city. They used to call it a Conservative city. It's certainly not a Conservative city anymore, but anyway, you're all welcome to come, and hopefully we can see you there.

We had a beautiful, moving service this year. Typically it's inside. We moved it outside, up to King's Square, and obviously the numbers are limited. I'm always so proud. This is the sixth time now; time flies. I got to lay a wreath on behalf of the government and our country, and it is always a proud time. Certainly with respect to our veterans—

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

On a point of order, go ahead, Madame Gaudreau.

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

I am trying to find a connection with the motion we are going to be voting on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, Madame Gaudreau.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I take the point. I was just getting to that.

I just want to cap that off. Certainly for me and my family, to the veterans and their families, I want to thank you for everything you've done and your sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, which has allowed us to do what we're doing today.

Chair, I'm going to ask for some indulgence just for a few moments, because I think there are some clarifications that need to be made coming out of the last meeting. Since that meeting, I've seen a number of public statements by members of the Conservative opposition that I find really concerning and disappointing.

First and foremost, is there no limit at all what the Conservatives will go to in order to serve their lust for power?

Chair, I understand that you are a member of the Conservative Party, and I know you do a good job as chair of this committee. I don't know you personally. My concern is not at all with you or how you have conducted yourself during these meetings. In fact, I know that to be the chair of something like what you're going through and we're all going through right now is difficult, so my hat is off to you, Chair. I think you've conducted yourself fairly and very well.

My concern, through you, Chair, is with the false statements being made by Mr. Barrett and others on the other side with regard to Speakers' Spotlight. From where I'm sitting—and I've tried to follow this from the outside looking in—it seems to me at times that with Mr. Barrett, there is no limit to what he'll go to to try to bring down the government. There is no consideration for collateral damage. Clearly, they were willing and are willing to bring down a Canadian charity, WE Charity, to advance the goal.

Now it's gone from that to a—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.