Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 13th, 2020

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

Read further above, Mr. Barrett.

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

I'm sorry, Chair; could you have the member repeat his comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No. I think here's what we'll do, colleagues. It looks like the temperature is rising. Let's suspend for 10 minutes. Let's let the temperature go down.

Mr. Barrett, you'll have the floor when we return.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, it's 2 p.m., and we're ready to go back into session.

Colleagues, it's been a long time. There's no question about it. We're all human beings, and it's been a long time because everybody has a good reason for it to be a long time.

I'm not asking you to respect the reasons that your colleagues have—far from it. That's what we do: We argue about policy, we argue about methods and we argue about principles.

However, you are all duly elected by your constituents, you're in one of the most honoured places in Canada and you swore an oath to serve it. That means that although you have no obligation to respect your colleagues' positions, you do have an obligation to respect your colleagues. That would be what is necessary to reflect to your constituents that you're dedicated to them.

As I said, that we're human. I understand why it's a little bit heated at the moment with the many hours that this has gone on, but let's pay each other the respect that is due, continue the debate and see how our debate continues to maybe dispose of this motion.

I'll go back to Mr. Barrett, and I'm going to remind us all of the speaking order again before I give the floor to Mr. Barrett. It is Mr. Barrett, Mr. Angus, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Fergus and Madame Gaudreau.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.

It's unfortunate that the suspension came after the pile-on. I must have hit a nerve there in talking about the connections between the conviction of an Ontario Liberal operative and the subject at hand with respect to destruction of documents.

I would note for my colleagues that there were hours of speaking by them without the interjection of a point of order or a heckle or any of a number of things, and that I didn't get 60 seconds into speaking before the pile-on started. I think it's important to note that while I have disagreed heartily with much of what has been said by my Liberal colleagues, I've restrained my interventions on the relevance or the lack thereof in what has been said today.

Chair, I had concluded my remarks before we slipped into the gong show there, so I would ask that the committee members have the courage of their convictions and vote on the motion at hand.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Are you asking me to canvass the members here to see if there's a willingness to go to a vote?

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

Indeed, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

No, there's no consensus, Mr. Barrett.

We'll go on now to Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank you for those profound words. It is very important to remember that people across this country are watching what is happening here, and I think that little exchange about underwear and who is to blame for saying things about underwear represented a very low point in all the committees I have been on, and I have been on some very fractious and bitter committees.

I think what worries me is that this is the first committee in which the actual work of the committee, I believe, is being deliberately obstructed.

We had two meetings on this issue. Back in the summer we were about to get the Speakers' Spotlight documents. The Prime Minister prorogued the House. That shut the work of this committee down for well over a month. Then we came back, feeling that we were going to simply carry on and finish the report, which, I think, we would have easily been finished by now, but we ran into one obstruction after another from government members.

I have reached out to try to broker a couple of compromises because I believe it is our obligation to get these committees up and running. We don't get everything we want when we come into a committee hearing. We sometimes get compromises. It has been said many times that a camel is a racehorse that was designed by a committee. We all wanted the racehorse, but we end up sometimes with a lopsided camel. That is democracy.

I am feeling now a little regretful that I reached out to make those compromises, because I feel that whenever we agreed to change the motion to bring the Liberals onside, the playing field changed immediately.

We were told again and again by the Liberals that it was outrageous that we wanted to include Madam Margaret Trudeau and Sasha Trudeau and how much money they were paid through their work with WE. We were told that it was over the line, that it was a personal infringement, when the relevance to that issue was the fact that the WE group had started to make huge payments to the Trudeau family after the Prime Minister became elected, and when they were trying to get that $900 million program, they were using photos of the Prime Minister's family. It put the Prime Minister into a conflict of interest under section 5 of the act. This was a very legitimate question.

We told the Liberals we would have very strong processes in place to protect that documentation. The only thing we needed from the documentation was to verify it, because we had been given false statements. We had been told that the Trudeau family was absolutely not paid, and that wasn't true. Michelle Douglas from the WE board testified that she had asked straight up whether the Trudeau family had been paid and was told they weren't. Our committee had no reason not to trust the words we had heard. Those documents should have simply verified that, and we could have moved on, but the Liberals drew a hard line there.

I reached out and said that I was not all that interested in how much the Trudeau family were being paid. We had identified that it was a significant amount of money. Whether it was significantly more or not, we had been told that it didn't really change the matter. However, as soon as we made that agreement, suddenly it became terribly unfair that we were asking about the Prime Minister's wife, even though the Liberals had identified in those negotiations that it was husband and wife, Prime Minister and wife, who were the people who should be looked at. As soon as we shortened the focus, they wanted to change it again. I found that very concerning.

They came back in their negotiations and said they wanted us to look at the Frank Baylis deal, yet we have been hearing nothing from the Liberals about how terrible it is that we're investigating this Frank Baylis deal. They have been using examples of other people from PPE companies who make donations and saying that they shouldn't be dragged in just because they make donations to one party or another.

It's not the fact that Mr. Baylis made donations; it's the fact that he's a former member of Parliament. That's significant. Rahim Jaffer was a former member of Parliament who went back in with a new business deal, and he was charged, I believe, and convicted because he was breaking the rules by using his connections.

We just need to verify that those connections were not improperly used. That's a pretty straightforward thing. A committee study does not presuppose guilt. We're looking into examples.

When the Liberals said that they didn't want us to look at Mr. Silver but they wanted us to look at Mr. Baylis, I agreed. Then, suddenly, we were being told how terrible that was and that we were persecuting Mr. Baylis, so I don't have a lot of trust right now for the Liberals, particularly as I sit and listen to them, hour in and hour out, talk about anything other than getting this thing dealt with.

In terms of the Bloc amendment, I believe that the Bloc amendment was out of order, and I said that at the time. I said that if the Bloc voted to shut down the request for the documents, then that matter was finished. However, the chair ruled that it was in order. I can disagree with the chair, but once a decision has been made, then that's the decision that's been made by the committee, and we move on. We don't get to relitigate it, as the Liberals are doing. We don't get to say, “Well, it's not democratic because we didn't like the result.”

What was democratic was that a vote was taken and the chair ruled it in order, so now we need to move on, but we're not being allowed to move on. The Liberals continue to put up all matter of obstructions, even today, with my colleague claiming that the Liberals are actually concerned about the safety of Canadians—meaning what? Meaning that those of us who are doing our work at this committee are not worried about the safety of Canadians? I find that to be very, very offensive.

The sideshow we just witnessed about whether or not Stanfield's underwear, founded in I don't know what year, was unfair or fair, or a drive-by smear about Liberals who wanted to talk about the underwear thing, shows to me that this is obstruction.

I would give my Liberal colleagues two quotes. One is from March 7, 2011:

It has come to this, Mr. Speaker. In order for members of the House to do our jobs and make informed decisions on behalf of Canadians, we need to pry scraps of relevant information out of the [government's] clenched fists and drag it out of them as they kick and scream at committee.

Who said that? Justin Trudeau said that.

Justin Trudeau also said:

Mr. Speaker, bits of blacked-out documents with key information missing are not disclosure. Non-answers in the House are not disclosure. Rhetorical personal attacks are not disclosure. We need to get at the truth.

What has been hidden from us are the documents that were supposed to be released. Many of those pages were blacked out. That's not acceptable.

As far as the Speakers' Spotlight documents go, I was certainly surprised to learn that they didn't have all the documents, but I don't in any way assume that Speakers' Spotlight was involved in any cover-up. I would like to have them come and explain what happened, but I do know that Speakers' Spotlight has said that there is other information.

Let's just get that information and move on, because now the Liberals again have tried to move an out-of-order motion today—it's something they couldn't do—to limit the documents to 2013, when Speakers' Spotlight said that there is information preceding that. I don't think that this should be that big a deal. I think the documents should exonerate the Prime Minister and his wife. If their words are true, there shouldn't be a problem.

If we can get to this motion, we can bring in Speakers' Spotlight, because it is definitely not the work of our committee to insinuate that someone outside of a government has done something wrong. We just need to verify.

Our role here is to come up with a report for the Canadian people that they can use to make their decision, so I'd ask my colleagues to stop arguing about underwear, to stop telling us about how every single PPE mask and glove has been appropriated right down to the penny, to stop coming up with reasons they don't want to discuss this, and have a vote.

We're 33 hours into the vote. The Liberals are wasting taxpayers' money, they are wasting our time and they are making a mockery of a committee that has often been very fractious, often very partisan and controversial and, at times, very bitter, but that committee has always sat, it has always met, it has always voted, and it has always produced reports, so I'm telling my Liberal colleagues that the time has come.

I'd like to ask, Chair, if we could test the room to see if we're ready for a vote or if we're going to be stuck with more obstruction from the Liberals. Can we vote on this?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus. I'm just looking at the screen here to see if there's a willingness to go to a vote.

No, there's no consent, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I'll cede the floor and I'll let the Liberals continue with their obstruction, now going on 33, almost 34, hours.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Next on the speakers list is Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Fergus, and then Madame Gaudreau.

Mr. Sorbara.

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

I just want to say good afternoon again to everyone. We've had a lot of deliberation today and substantive conversation. I do just want to echo that the conversations do get heated. We sometimes represent different views, but at the end of the day, we represent Canadians. I'm going to do that and I always try to do. Those of you who know me and who have interacted with me over the years know that consider myself not to be a really partisan MP, if I can use that term. I represented the Liberals and am proud to be a Liberal. I was 15 years old when I first bought my membership and became involved in politics. Nonetheless, I was voted here to represent the wonderful constituents of Vaughan—Woodbridge and I represent them all. No matter who they voted for, no matter where they come from, and no matter what their views are, I have time for them all and I love them all, and I try to do the best job that I can as the member of Parliament for Vaughan—Woodbridge here in this wonderful city of Vaughan.

I know the rest of my dear and honourable colleagues do the same in their constituencies. I think that's something that I hold dear to my heart and I know that all my honourable colleagues hold dear to their hearts.

With that, Chair, I do know that my name has been bandied about several times since the beginning of our sitting today at about 11 o'clock. What is sort of surprising is that I never realized I was that popular or that important, but it seems I've become pretty popular today in some testimony to my colleagues.

I thank you for thinking of me. It's always very nice to be thought of and it's always nice to be mentioned. If you wish to comment on my past comments or my past words, feel free to do so. We are in committee. We are allowed to chat and represent our views, and that's great.

Chair, one thing I as a member of the ethics committee promise to do for as long as I get to serve on this committee is to be respectful to my colleagues, and I always try to do that. I haven't been respectful, I'll be the first one to apologize and so forth.

That's my shtick. Those are my comments.

Chair, as we're going here, I do want to back up, because Mr. Angus in his early deliberations this morning was very free flowing and had a lot of commentary, and I always listen intently to Mr. Angus. I do. I find him very wise.

I do want to say, MP Angus, that I know you posted the picture from Ortona, where we were last year during this week. I saw some of your Instagram posts and they were very touching and reminded me of our trip last year. I'm saying this because it was Remembrance Day week, not for any other reason, so don't read into it, please.

But Mr. Angus did comment about finance and a number of proceedings and his interpretation of things. So Mr. Chair, you gave Mr. Angus quite the breadth of room yourself.

I think Mr. Angus mentioned that recently he was disappointed and that he thought that we on the government side didn't live up to perhaps not obligations but certain discussions that may have transpired. I always frame those discussions as private discussions between MPs. We always chat amongst ourselves. A lot of us are friends.

I know on our trip, MP Angus, the Bloc member who was with us was Mr. Desilets, with whom I still keep in contact and who I think of as a friend and someone I just smile with and we chat and so forth. We have those things. I think we need to have respect for those conversations.

I will go back to MP Angus's motion from October 22, from which we had agreed to remove, I believe, Mr. Fergus's amendment, which was passed in good spirit, in co-operation with the honourable member for the New Democratic Party. We removed the bullet point (a) on the examination of MCAP and Rob Silver's involvement with the queues in the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program.

I will slow down for the interpreters.

Pardon me, Ms. Gaudreau.

I apologize if I'm speaking too fast.

We also removed “(d) an examination of the use of partisan resources and processes in the appointment of federal judges that may have constituted violations of the privacy rights of nominees; and that the Committee...”.

MP Angus, on your amended motion, with Mr. Fergus's help, I wish to thank the New Democratic member for what I would say is recognizing the fact that going after someone's mother was wrong. Going after someone's brother was wrong. I want to recognize this. MP Angus recognized that. I thought that on a personal basis, which I argued here in my riding office in Vaughan, it was an incorrect thing to do by the official opposition. I thought that was a huge amount of overreach. I fundamentally argued at that time, Chair, that it was fundamentally wrong, shameful and embarrassing to go after the Prime Minister's mother. I'm glad that MP Angus helped us get to a point where we can move....

I do agree with MP Angus on his interpretation of the amendment that Madame Gaudreau put forward and that was voted on by the committee. Chair, in my procedural understanding, I understood that portion of the amendment that Madame Gaudreau put forward to be substantively if not almost exactly similar in intent to the motion that was voted on and that was defeated. To me, that amendment was out of order.

Now, I'm not the chair. I'm not the clerk. I'm not the entire committee. That was my interpretation. Again, it was as I described it when an individual goes golfing. It was a mulligan. It was a do-over. I also understand and appreciate very much MP Angus's comment, which you mentioned recently....

Mr. Angus, if I've misquoted you, please correct me.

He commented that he believed that Madame Gaudreau's amendment was out of order, but because the ruling was that the amendment was not out of order, ruled on by the chair, then he voted for the amendment to add to his amended motion, where the amended motion was with Mr. Fergus's amendment. We have a motion that was amended once and then amended twice, and that has become a sticking point.

I really feel that we had seen some movement and some goodwill. I would like to move on to doing whichever study the committee adopts under your leadership, Chair, and, Chair, thank you for your patience. It's admirable. You called a 10-minute break to suspend and calm things down, which I thought was very timely, Chair. I thank you for doing that, in your wisdom. Thank you very much, Chair. I think that was appreciated.

Frankly, I'm attacked on Twitter by some of the MPs every time I leave this ethics committee. I see it on Twitter. I see Mr. Warkentin's tweets. I read them, and I say, “Oh, wow, you're attacking me today, Mr. Warkentin.” But what I know is that I'm going to keep doing the great work that my constituents ask of me. I'm going to still visit my seniors when I'm able to, and I'm going to make sure that income supports for people who continue to be impacted by COVID-19 are going to be received. That's what our government is going to do.

If the opposite side wishes to attack me on Twitter.... It's all there, Mr. Chair. If the opposite side wishes to attack me, and that's the bar, the level they're going to stoop to, they can continue doing that—all the power, please do.... Because you know what? My constituents and Canadians know that we are in a pandemic and our government is going to work with the provincial governments across the country to continue to help out Canadians. So wow, if MP Warkentin wishes to attack and play that negativity, I'll allow him to do that. Please, do so.

It's not constructive. Half the things you've put out are false. Actually, it's sort of beneath us, sort of beneath why we're elected as MPs. That's my opinion, Mr. Warkentin. I see that you're chirping in the background, as I would call it, and I'll let you chirp, but at the same time, I'm going to be an MP. I'm going to do the job that my constituents elected me to do, not only the people who voted for me, but what everyone in my riding wants me to do: build a better country for us, make sure we have a good future for our kids and a clean environment and a healthy country, a country that provides equality of opportunity for all Canadians. That's what we're about and what every MP is about. Maybe we differ in the way we get there, but all MPs are about that.

I share MP Angus's passion for helping our indigenous Canadians and the nation-to-nation relationship. Many of the MPs may not know this, but I grew up in northern British Columbia, in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Growing up, I knew too well the issues faced by our indigenous brothers and sisters. I'm glad, so glad, to see our government build this nation-to-nation relationship and continue along that path.

Chair, I do wish to move an amendment. I want to see if it's ruled in order by you and the clerk. Let me read it to the committee.

I move that we add, after section (b):

(c) that in order to comply with Canadian and Provincial privacy laws, that any request for documents be limited to those documents in the organization’s possession, as well as other relevant documents they may have;

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. There's an amendment on the floor.

Yes, Mr. Angus.

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

On a point of order, it seems to me they're trying to do what was done in the previous motion, which was to limit it to seven years. This is another form of that.

You ruled the previous motion out of order, so would this present motion not be out of order as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus. That's what I was trying to clarify, whether Mr. Sorbara misspoke. The actual number of seven years is not in the motion. He misspoke in French.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Would you repeat it in English, Mr. Sorbara, so that we can all hear it once more?

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

Yes. Thank you for that, Chair. I will clarify for MP Angus as well as the entire committee.

I move that we add, after section (b):

(c) that in order to comply with Canadian and Provincial privacy laws, that any request for documents be limited to those documents in the organization’s possession, as well as other relevant documents they may have;

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara. Are you going to send that to the clerk?

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

I'm going to do that as we speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

At first glance, Mr. Sorbara, it appears to be in order. We'll suspend for five minutes while you get a copy to the clerk. If you're able to correct the French version as well, please do, and the clerk can distribute it to all members.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, we're ready to get back in session. The distribution of the amendment to the motion has been circulated. I hope you have all received it.

I'm prepared to rule on this amendment, colleagues. This amendment is in order, coming after section (b). We will now move to debate on the amendment.

Right now, I see that Mr. Fergus has dropped off the speakers list, so I will go to Madame Gaudreau and then to you, Mr. Angus.

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

My name was not on the list, but that's okay. I am going to come back again and again to what we're trying to do at this point. I'd like to take a few moments to assess it.

I see that people want to make sure that they have documents in their possession. If we are requesting documents, let's do it immediately. However, I fear that the documents will up and disappear. We have the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know what is going on right now. When people keep drawing things out, it's because something is fishy, it doesn't smell right. I can't wait to hear what my colleagues have to say. Right now, I want to move on, but I also want to know what documents they are looking to obtain.

I will speak again later. To move the discussion forward, I would like to know what the motivations are behind all of this. Why add this proposal? What does it add or improve, or what does it take away? I don't know the answers, but perhaps my colleagues can help me process my thinking.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau.

Now on the speakers list, I have Mr. Angus, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Warkentin.

Mr. Angus.