Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 13th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Monsieur Gourde, go ahead on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, in the face of the systematic obstruction by the Liberals, who at the moment are playing a really very partisan game, and before this whole business deteriorates even more, I am asking for the committee's unanimous consent to move to a vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde. It's not really a point of order, but anytime anybody wants to ask for unanimous consent to vote....

There's no consent, Mr. Gourde. I see heads shaking.

Go ahead, Mr. Long. I also want to caution you about something I said about five meetings ago. I think we should all be careful about disparaging individual members. I think you can make comments through the chair in regard to some concerns about behaviour, but let's try to operate as professionally as we can toward each other and be tough on issues but respectful to people.

Go ahead, sir.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Barrett.

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

With respect to what you mentioned in ascribing motives to other members, I listened carefully to Mr. Long. I haven't had the opportunity to work with him before. When he first arrived at committee, he did talk about looking to collaborate with folks. I've never used the gentleman's name before, but I found that in his first appearance at this committee, he ascribed some pretty nasty things to me.

I do think your intervention on that point, Chair, is important. I would ask you to just remind the member, should he need to be reminded, about the collaborative relationship he longed for at the start of his remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's been done, Mr. Barrett. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Long.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I take that point from MP Barrett, but as I said, I observe. I see it, and I just think there's certainly a better way than what I've seen, obviously, with respect to this motion and what the intent of the motion is. Again, the intent of the motion is to take down the charity that has done so much good in this country, and now the focus has switched to going after businesses—

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

On a point of order—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Angus, go ahead on a point of order.

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

I was really moved by Mr. Long telling us what a great committee it is and how he wanted us to come together, yet he's saying that the reason I brought this motion forward was to destroy a children's charity and that I am now intent on destroying Canadian businesses.

I know we're now in the 36th hour and the Liberals are getting desperate, but this is attacking my reputation. I take my work very seriously. I don't have a clue who Mr. Long is. I believe he's been elected. I'm sure he does great work with his people, but I don't know this man. He's never been on my committee before. He comes in and says I set this motion up to destroy a children's charity. He missed all the work, perhaps, when I explained about the problems we have to deal with.

I take this stuff very seriously. I come and I back it up with facts. I back it up with documentation. I stay focused on the issue at hand. If I'm going to have to sit and listen to the Liberals descend further and further, from talking about vaccines to talking about underwear and talking about the 1980s up until now, and have them challenge me and say that I'm doing all of this to destroy a charity....

I think Mr. Long is way out of line. I would ask you to keep us focused so that we don't end up disgracing this committee even further than it's been disgraced by the ongoing obstruction by the Liberals.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Long, continue.

I want to let you know that we have on the speakers list Mr. Dong and Mr. Fergus, and I have only 19 minutes before we lose IT support.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly the comments I just heard are personally disappointing to me too: “I don't have a clue about this man. I think he was elected.” Well, I can tell you that I was certainly elected. I was elected in 2015, and I was elected last year also. I was the first back-to-back Liberal elected in my riding, so I have—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Angus, go ahead on a point of order.

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

I would like to retract that. I should never have said that I think he was elected. I don't really know this man. I've never dealt with him. I know he's making personal attacks about me, but I would never want to suggest that he wasn't duly elected by his representatives. Maybe he was elected twice, so I want to retract any comments I made about not thinking he was elected, but I would ask him to refrain from making personal attacks on me and on the reason I bring motions to committee, because I do my work with great seriousness.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Long.

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

Thanks, Chair.

When MP Angus said he didn't know if I was elected, I kind of did a double take. Jeez, maybe I have more to learn. Maybe unelected people can be on these committees speaking too.

Anyway, Chair, thank you for the clarification. I'm going to move on.

Chair, I have not had any personal dealings with Speakers' Spotlight. I don't think there's anyone who would pay to hear me speak, except once. In a past life, I was president and part owner of the Saint John Sea Dogs, a major junior hockey team. Those of you who know me know that I talk often about the Saint John Sea Dogs and how we won a Memorial Cup and had a very, very successful franchise in major junior hockey. It was the first Memorial Cup that went to Atlantic Canada. I did lots of speeches across the country then. I received a coffee mug once. It was a nice mug, and I still have it, but typically, Chair, in all seriousness, I'm not paid to speak.

However, there are many people who are. They have inspirational stories and offer their services as professional public speakers. Speakers' Spotlight maintains a roster of these individuals and acts as their agent, linking them with relevant professional organizations, community groups and corporations that wish to pay for their services. That's what happens with these entities. This company was a start-up by a husband-and-wife team that still runs the organization today. Until the Conservatives and other opposition spun this tale regarding the Prime Minister and WE Charity, most Canadians had likely never heard about Speakers' Spotlight.

Chair, in our constituency office today in Saint John—Rothesay, we probably had 10 or maybe 15 people in, all needing help. All of us certainly can speak to the fact that as members, we're there to serve. I'm honoured to have people come in my office for help. I help them fill out forms, advocate for them and what have you.

Chair, because I knew I was going to speak on the committee tonight—we are an hour ahead of you, just for the record; it's 6:15 here—I did a poll of the 15 people who came in my office today. None of them cared about WE Charity, the Canada student service grant—none of them, zero—so this is something that's been created in the Ottawa circle.

I certainly have nothing but respect for an MP who's been an MP for 17 years, but there are things that are more important to Canadians, Chair.

Chair, one thing I find very interesting is that the Conservative members are trying to paint Speakers' Spotlight as some Liberal-affiliated organization, much like they did with WE Charity. You would think they would learn their lesson and follow the evidence, because, as with WE, this is clearly not the case. Speakers' Spotlight deals with talent from all political parties. Conservative ministers and even prime ministers count themselves among the talent listed on the Speakers' Spotlight website. Who knows—maybe one day I can get my name in there. It's doubtful, but you never know.

Chair, this crazy idea that Speakers' Spotlight colluded with government to destroy documents is absolutely ludicrous. Since day one, the Conservatives have tried to advance the obscene theory that the Prime Minister personally advanced the Canada student service grant because his family had spoken at WE Charity events.

Let's think about that. Again, if you ask Canadians whether they believe that the Prime Minister of Canada, in plain sight, wanted to give this contract to WE because his family had some speaking engagements.... Chair, that is not reality. That is not what Canadians are consumed with. We all see what's going on around us. I thank God that I'm in New Brunswick, that I'm in the Atlantic Canada bubble. Canadians aren't consumed with this; only we are consumed with this.

The theme of ridiculousness continues, Chair. After the last meeting, obviously we've seen things that have been posted on Twitter. I think it's been personal. I just think that as parliamentarians we owe it to Canadians to give them facts, plain and simple—facts without spin. I think they'd find it refreshing. I think they're tired of this. They want to move on, but no—

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

On a point of order, Chair, I do want to reach out to my colleague, who may have felt hurt that I said earlier—and I apologize—that I didn't know how he'd been elected.

I agree with him and I want to reach out to him. He says he's tired; I'm tired. He says Canadians want us to move on; I want us to move on. I'm asking him now, at 5:20, seven hours into this, to just call the vote and stop with the dramatics.

We're all tired of this. We're tired of the obstruction, so I'm asking him, as a sign of goodwill, to just move us to the vote so we can carry on and get our work done.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Long, if you want to, you can take that option up, or you can continue on.

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

I'm going to continue, Chair. I have some things, through you of course.... Again, it's great to be back on this committee, but there are some things I still want to say.

Again, I want to go back. The contention that Speakers' Spotlight completely ignored a legal order of this committee is clearly false. I think that other members on this committee know it as well. Again, I think members know full well that when the House was prorogued back in August to allow for the preparation of a throne speech for COVID-19 recovery, all orders for the production of documents died, including the request from this committee to Speakers' Spotlight for documentation. Furthermore, Chair, a new request was never passed by this committee in this session. In fact, this committee held a vote on whether to request further documentation for Speakers' Spotlight, and it failed. I find it really concerning that a member is out there giving false information. Let's call it what it is. The accusation that Speakers' Spotlight has violated an order of this committee is a complete and utter fabrication levied to help further the political interests of the Conservatives.

Chair, in closing, I am very disappointed that my colleagues would spread this misinformation to the detriment of a Canadian business without evidence to support this claim. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to help Canadians and Canadian businesses. We want them to succeed. We want them to grow. We don't want to tear them down.

What is even more concerning is that my Conservative colleagues would try to chastise a business for simply following regular business practices as regulated by the Canada Revenue Agency and relevant privacy legislation. In what has become the norm, another group has had to publicly defend itself from Conservative attacks after being caught in the crosshairs of their war against the Prime Minister.

I think it's important to read a quote directly from Speakers' Spotlight, Chair. This won't be long, but it's important. It's of the utmost importance that we deal with facts here. Let me quote. The owners of Speakers' Spotlight noted:

It is standard practice for companies to purge documents after 7 years, and we have always followed this practice. Furthermore, under Canadian privacy law we are required to destroy all personal information as soon as it is no longer necessary. Therefore, it is not just good practice, but a legal requirement that we have been following.

Furthermore, the Canada Revenue Agency's guidance on the retention of corporate documents is also clear in this matter, noting that under the Income Tax Act, records must be maintained for a minimum of six years. You need to retain your records for six years. When I had my own businesses—previous to the Sea Dogs, I was in the aquaculture business and I was out on my own—we had to retain records for six years. I had a baby barn out back full of boxes. I had so much paperwork.

In any case, Speakers' Spotlight was well within the law in regard to regular business practices.

As well, Mr. Chair, there are other members who would have the public believe that this was some elaborately orchestrated conspiracy between the government and Speakers' Spotlight to disappear documents, to get rid of documents. Again, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Let's step back. I challenge anybody on this committee or any member to say if they really believe it was orchestrated that way. Again, I've asked people who came into my office, Mr. Chair. I talked to a couple who came in who were in the tourism industry, and we all know what this pandemic has done to the tourism industry. We talked about how they were on CERB, and now they've transitioned on to EI or the CRB. I asked them point-blank whether they really believed there was this orchestrated, concocted alliance between this company and the Prime Minister. People look at me as if I had four heads.

We looked at it. We made our decision months back, Mr. Chair. Lt's be clear: It was months back. They're looking at me wondering why we are even talking about this now. Why is this taking parliamentarians' time right now, when we are dealing with a threat to our country? I have profound disappointment that we are going down this road. We are continuing to try to dig at something that just doesn't really exist.

I had a guy come into my office yesterday, Mr. Chair, and tell me straight up that he's disillusioned with politics and politicians. I was disappointed. I think we've all heard that, and I said—

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

I have a point of order. It's now 5:28. We have a minute and a half left.

Mr. Long has certainly talked a lot. I learned about his junior hockey career and about all the people coming to his office, but it has nothing to do with the motion. They've talked the clock out for this meeting. I guess they will continue to talk the clock out on Monday.

Can we wrap this up? If we're going to have stuff that has nothing to do with the motion, we should just move to close out this very dismal meeting, in which the Liberals have blocked and obstructed us and talked about everything from vaccines, which aren't part of the motion, to junior hockey in New Brunswick, which is not part of the motion, to underwear and who spoke about underwear first, which of course has nothing do with it.

If they're not going to talk about the motion, then I think we pretty much have talked the clock out.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, I'm going to move to adjourn the meeting right now, simply because in one minute we'll be adjourned technically, without any support for our meeting.

Upon Mr. Barrett's intervention, I've learned new information in regard to repetition and being on subject as well. I'm going to also elucidate on those judgments in the next meeting.

I will see all of you either on screen or in person on Monday.

The meeting is adjourned.