Thank you, Chair. I just want to take a moment to thank you for your leadership on this committee. As we can see, it's pretty obvious that it's not an easy job. On this side, we certainly appreciate the leadership and stewardship you've demonstrated as a very able parliamentarian. I respect that. I believe that if you canvas the membership, you will find that at least we can all agree on this, which is something that I hope we can model this after.
I was going to ask for the rationale of the amendment we just voted on, but Mr. Sorbara addressed that. I actually saw the relevance and also the rationale of the amendment. I was hoping that opposition members would see that as well. I found that Mr. Warkentin's comment was contradictory. On the one hand, he said that the amendment is totally unnecessary, that these are obvious and we wouldn't ask anyone to do anything illegal. On the other hand, towards the end of his remarks, he said that this was another attempt by the Liberals to water down the original motion. I find that very contradictory. If it's a given and not necessary, meaning that it doesn't do anything to the motion, how can it be used to water down the main motion?
I don't want to go back and forth on these nitty-gritties. I think we still have the motion in front of us. We obviously have different views of the motion and of what has happened to the motion since it was first introduced. We have a different view of that, and that's why we are debating this.
It's a fact that it's the same motion that has been before us for several days now, and I know the members are eager to get to vote on it. However, I think all my opposition colleagues would agree that through thoughtful debate—and they probably would agree that debate is essential in our parliamentary system—we do what it takes to make sure we get the motion right to the best of our ability. I think all members can agree, Chair, that getting it right is essential.
We have already seen the adverse effect of committee studies going too far. Just look at WE Charity, for example. They have had to shutter their operations in Canada. We can agree to disagree about the merits of the WE Charity being selected to oversee the Canada student services grant. However, prior to the CSSG matter, WE Charity was a well-respected charity. Tens of thousands of Canadian students worked with them. I've heard that in the past my colleague's daughter, Mr. Angus's daughter, participated as well, and some of the biggest names in philanthropy supported them. Now they're no longer functioning in Canada. That's a fact.
I can only think of who is suffering and that is the tens of thousands of young people who otherwise would have had a chance to advance their leadership and their work network and to do something that they're really inspired to do. I'm not taking a position on the WE Charity one way or the other. I'm just stating the facts. As committee members, we have to remember that these are all real, tangible outcomes of our actions on this committee.
For every action we take here there is often an equal reaction, so as we look to undertake the study being recommended by Mr. Angus, I believe it is incumbent on us to pause and ensure that the work we are going to embark on will have no adverse effects.
I believe first and foremost, Chair, that if we're going to be studying matters that relate to specific Canadians' business, we need to ensure that we have the necessary evidence to back up such a study.
We are all keenly aware of the effects that COVID-19 has had on businesses in our ridings. I speak with residents and businesses in Don Valley North almost every day, Chair, and what I can tell you for certain is that their focus is not on some study at the ethics committee. I have actually brought this up to my constituents, and Their focus is on the pandemic and its effect on their families and businesses. These constituents tell me repeatedly that they are expecting this government—as a matter of fact, all governments—to focus on combatting the pandemic and on planning remedies to assist with the economic recovery to follow.
We have to be very careful to focus our work very precisely in a way that does not have an adverse effects on Canadian businesses and Canadian industries. I have heard that the outcome of the WE Charity put a chill on the industry, but having said that, at the same time we can achieve some of the stated goals Mr. Angus has put forward.
On balance, the review of the pandemic spending and the decisions around how these funds were spent is a good use of our time. When we, as the House of Commons, adjourned on March 13 we did not take these decisions lightly. We recognized that, as a country, we were embarking on a national battle the likes of which we have not experienced since the Second World War. In terms of death and destruction, there is no comparison. However, the overwhelming national response required from the people of Canada during this pandemic has to be similar.
Now before Mr. Angus attacks me on relevance—and I've been interrupted quite a few times today and previously, which I don't mind because it is a function of this committee and I've taken your advice, Mr. Chair, to heart—I do want to make a point on where I'm going here.
My point is that when we suspended, we passed a unanimous consent motion. The current thrust of that emergency motion was that all emergency spending in response to the pandemic would be under review, not just by Parliament but also by the Auditor General and other relevant independent officers of Parliament. This was essential. We need to have transparency, especially when asking parliamentarians to allow the government to function freely in an emergency in the way we did.
It has always been expected that we would see the relevant parliamentary committee conduct a review of the spending that took place during the pandemic. Many Canadians expected that this review would take place after the pandemic has ended, and not in the middle of a raging second wave. However, it's good that we get a head start on some of the review work.
As I look at Mr. Angus's motion, I think the initial thrust of it is relevant. While the finance committee will naturally focus on the spending aspect itself, such as how and where the money is spent, the relevant control mechanism about who got a particular contract and the process of its awarding may be studied by the government operations and estimates committee.
I believe that it would be perfectly fair for us as a committee to undertake a study of the safeguards put in place to ensure that no conflicts of interest were present during the spending of the pandemic funds. I also think it's appropriate for us as a committee to review spending from a privacy angle to ensure that privacy laws were respected and followed and, from a lobbying front, to ensure that lobbying regulations were followed as well. I think an overall focus and area of the study.... We could really get some good work done looking at the pandemic from these angles.
However, what I'm having a tough time with, Chair, are the specifics in the motion, mainly the singling out of just the Canada student service grant and then the matter of Baylis Medical and Palantir. It would be my opinion that to group all of these matters together would presuppose an outcome.
My opposition colleagues continue to try to build a narrative around each of the items listed in this motion, trying to surmise that something irregular occurred and that somehow the rules were broken, to a point that one of the proponents had to respond through social media, which I read earlier. If we were to listen to critics like Mr. Barrett, we would assume that corruption has run rampant and unchecked, when we know this is simply not the case. It's not true.
I also contend that there is a relevance matter, as these are all separate items only loosely tied together via this motion. In my humble opinion, this is being done simply to confuse the public.
This brings me back to the presupposition of guilt. I talked about this earlier. It's so obvious that the opposition is only fixated on finding guilt. I fear that, once we find that nothing occurred and that each organization is innocent, the outcome will not matter, but the reputations of those involved will be badly harmed. I talked about the WE Charity and the outcome of that. They and Canadian businesses will be so badly harmed by the impact, as Canadians have noted with WE.
Our goal here should not be to find guilt for guilt's sake, to find harm for harm's sake, or to tear down simply for the sake of political advancement. Our goal here should be to do no harm if no harm needs to be done.
I also think it bears noting that we're not a court of law here. We're not the police. We don't have a team of investigators at our disposal, nor do we have the procedural rules that allow for fairness and due process.
It has always been inherently clear that committees are a political place. There is nothing wrong with that. I have accepted that, as shown by my observations over the last short while. The necessary tug of war between government and opposition members is what makes our parliamentary system so effective. It leads to better decisions and better policy. I understand that.
However, we also have to recognize the scope of our limitations, that we are not a court or tribunal. When we undertake a study that gives the illusion that we are, it has tangible consequences for others. This is the point I keep coming back to today, the negative effects on these organizations or businesses, even if we find afterwards that there is nothing wrong in their practices.
I think we need to take a moment to think about the adverse effect of an unfettered study of a private company.... For example, Chair, take the section about Baylis Medical. I am not defending a certain organization or a certain company, but if we step back for a moment from the fact that Mr. Frank Baylis, a former member of the Liberal caucus, is involved with the company....
Chair, now I am going to talk for a moment about the history of this company, and I believe it is important for the context.
I understand that in our past meeting, Mr. Angus felt that free advertisement was being provided for Baylis Medical. It's not what's happening here right now. A quick historic overview would provide the necessary context of why we need to be careful with the effect that our study could have on this business.
The truth is that Baylis Medical is a made-in-Quebec success story, the type of business that opposition colleagues would usually talk to. Mr. Baylis and his family immigrated from Barbados when he was young. He was in fact—
