Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 13th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

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

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

I respect Mr. Sorbara's ability to keep walking the clock and wasting a lot of our time, but if he is serious.... They have made many promises and they have made many commitments, and they walk away. They have made many statements about working with us, and then they don't, but I will ask him, if he's serious about agreeing to disagree, to let's just go to a vote, and he can stop wasting our time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Angus, in full goodwill I put forward an amendment about half an hour ago. I thought it was a reasonable amendment. I'm not someone who's here to strategically try to do this or that. When I thought about it and discussed it with our team, I said that we need to make sure that , if we're going down this path.... Frankly, it would just been the third amendment to Mr. Angus's original motion, which I think would have been very constructive. It would not have taken away anything from the amendment. I'm trying to do my part to move it down the football field. If you want, call it “crossing some sort of line”, but I thought it was constructive.

In going back to some remarks I had jotted down before the committee meeting today, the evidence supports the testimony of the Prime Minister and the relevant ministers at hand. This was a recommendation of the non-partisan public service. I'm speaking to the Canada student service grant. Upon review by cabinet afterwards, it was determined it was the best way to move forward to implement this CSSG, the acronym for the Canada student service grant. That is it, plain and simple. This is a very cut-and-dry matter. It's consistently been spun, ginned up or regurgitated to the public by the opposition in such a way that no one can make heads nor tails of it anymore.

This motion before us today continues. This amended amended motion before us continues to try to pull and stretch the narrative even further, as my opposition colleagues are taking several unrelated issues, trying to spin a narrative that something wrong was done, or innuendo, or any sort of comment or connotation. In my frank opinion, it simply does not exist.

Frankly, Chair, it's clear that the only real goal of some of the committee members, in regard to the Canada student service grant, is a targeted smear campaign, from the beginning, of the Prime Minister and his family. What has been abundantly clear, from the moment our government was elected in 2015 and through our debate on this motion here today is that the opposition has no interest in working in a bipartisan fashion in the best interests of Canadians. What is very clear to me, and I think to many Canadians, is that the opposition dislikes the Prime Minister on a very deep level. That is very much seen from some of the opposition members. Some of them may be on this committee as well, at certain times. These are meant to be very personal attacks against the Prime Minister. That's very unfortunate.

Maybe these lines or this innuendo may be cooked up in the back rooms, the war rooms of the opposition party. These are all meant to tarnish the Prime Minister personally in the eyes of Canadians. During this time. I find that concerning. I find it concerning that my opposition colleagues think they can obtain a role in forming government by going low, when in fact my party and I will go high. We'll make sure that we're doing the right things for Canadians at all times during this unique and extraordinary period of time in our history and the world's history.

You know, Chair, I thought that after the defeat of the motion from Mr. Barrett the other week, we were finally going to move past this charade and finally focus back on some important work here on the ethics committee. Yet it's clear that my colleagues on the other side once again focus on what I would call the “politics of division and confusion” rather than focus on what's in the best interest of Canadians.

I think we saw that earlier today, when we were speaking about a company that was founded in Nova Scotia, called Stanfield's, and the path that was taken and some of the comments offered by the opposition. I don't think they were constructive. I didn't want to participate in any of that debate or chatter. I left it to some of my opposition colleagues to chirp away. You know what? If that's where you want to go and that's how you think the committee's time should be spent, so be it, all the power to you.

Chair, there was a time when we could have a healthy debate in this committee about the issues of the day. Then, when that debate was over we could all part, be friends and chat. I think I've tried to maintain those relationships with all of my colleagues. We can grab a beverage or two. What we understood was that no matter what, we all knew that at the end of the day, we were working with the best interests of Canadians in mind.

I think what is clear with the bigger picture regarding WE and the organization of this program that was to be implemented and produced is that there was definitely, what I would call, a “fishing expedition” and also the scoring of political points.

As I said to Mr. Angus and all committee members, I am not here to defend any organization. Those of you who know me know I do not in any way support organizations, and I will be very clear when I criticize folks or organizations that are doing the wrong thing. I think we saw that last week with Whole Foods, on their poppy issue. A number of Canadians, of course, commented that they don't support organizations doing the wrong thing and never will. I'll speak up for that.

It's the same thing here; I'm not going to defend anyone in any organization to do that. Everyone makes personal choices, and they should be held accountable and responsible, including the government and opposition parties. That's always been my train of thought.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

On a point of order, Madame Gaudreau.

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

As I said a few moments ago, I am appointing myself to be the watchdog against redundancy. In that context, I focused closely on my colleague's remarks and, apart from one small item, he said nothing new.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Madame Gaudreau.

Colleagues, again, try to stay succinct and to the motion and not be repetitive.

Mr. Sorbara.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've been referencing a number of companies in this country and know how organizations have stepped up across the board in helping with PPE. We are working very cooperatively with the provinces. The Prime Minister made another announcement today to support workers across this country with training. We know that companies like Baylis Medical, which is referenced in Mr. Angus's first motion, has stepped up, particularly in to manufacturing medical equipment and during COVID-19. We need them to continue to do that.

I'm not sure when it became the job of the opposition to attack well-respected Canadian businesses because they were given a subcontract.

I'll put on record that recently we've seen corporate concentration in Canada, especially in the retail sector. We've seen companies, such as Sobeys, do the right thing. Its CEO said they're going to ensure they work with the farmers in Canada, with agri-food processors in Canada. They're going to work with them to ensure that their livelihoods are not impacted by COVID-19 and to strengthen the supply chain. I applaud Sobeys for—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I at least appreciate that my colleague is not talking about the underwear industry, but to talk about the grocery store industry, after what, seven hours of wasting our time today, I think is insulting our intelligence. We have a motion to speak to.

I ask you to remind him about page 1059 of the procedures book, though maybe he's not read it.... He is continually attempting to throw mud at the opposition, attacking our reason for doing this study, saying that we don't have a mandate to do this study. However, to be talking about grocery stores at this point, I think is reaching another low mark.

I ask you to keep him focused if he's going to talk the clock out until 5:30 today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I'll just remind everybody that Mr. Sorbara has the floor right now, and then Madame Lattanzio, Madame Gaudreau and Mr. Long are on the list.

Mr. Sorbara, please do keep your comments to the motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I respect Mr. Angus's and all committee members' interventions when I am speaking.

Thank you for pointing out page 1059.

Mr. Angus, I'm trying to come up to speed on all procedural mechanisms and the procedures in place to respect because many of us today are back home in our ridings. We are not in our committee room, though I'll be back in Ottawa next week for the sitting. I'll be in the committee room for the ethics meeting.

We are not in the House of Commons, but we always need to remember to respect the rules and our colleagues. I will try my best to continue to do that and I hope not to stray, and if I do stray, people should point that out, and I'll obviously try to be respectful and understand if I have erred in any sort of manner.

So, Chair, what is clear for us in the motion.... For Mr. Angus, the reason I brought up the grocery business was that they are good corporate citizens and Baylis Medical is a good corporate citizen. That was just an analogy.

As I noted earlier, part of it does deserve some merit, especially as it was carried out in a fair and equitable manner where we study the substance of the issues at hand and do not conduct a fishing expedition.

In looking at the motion at hand, I specifically cite the second paragraph:

that this study continue our work relating to the Canada student service grant, including this committee's work to review the safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest in federal government expenditures; government spending, WE Charity and the Canada student service grant....

I zero in on that section where we talk about government spending.

We talk about what the government has spent in protecting Canadians, and here we are approaching.... Although this week the weather has been strangely mild here in Ontario, I think we are going back to normal temperatures and may have snow next week.

We zero in on the government spending, and we think about what announcements we've made to protect Canadians, and if we finally do get to study the government's spending at this committee, or the COVID-19 app or facial recognition, I ask myself what the government has done to protect Canadians with potential vaccine candidates per se, and we look at those, and we look at this study, and we say that the terms or envelope of the study is okay, and we see what we have done.

Today there is an article in The Economist about how Canada is so uniquely positioned in having come to agreements with a number of entities, organizations and companies for vaccines. For example, we see that we have come to an agreement with AstraZeneca to supply of up to 20 million doses of its viral vaccine candidate AZD1222. Medicago will supply up to 76 million doses of its virus-like particle vaccine candidate, and obviously the Pfizer—

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I don't think I'm sitting on the health committee. I don't know why discussion of vaccine numbers has anything to do with the issue at hand.

Now we are 35-plus hours into the Liberal filibuster. They have talked about every possible thing under the sun, including the great days of the 1980s, but the vaccine is not something we are talking about.

Can we keep this relevant so they stop wasting our time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus. It is a point of order.

Mr. Sorbara, please stick to the facts of the motion with as little repetition as possible, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'll continue and hopefully will be ceding the floor in due time to the next individual, the next committee member who has their hand raised.

As I previously said, Chair, and in these notes I've been writing down as the days have gone by and we've been sitting on this committee—I think this is the second Friday in a row that we've spent much time together—it has been a learning process. I am learning quite a bit from my colleagues.

While I can appreciate the merit of the motion that Mr. Angus has put forward, I do not agree that now is the right time for us to be reviewing it. This entire debate as it relates to the Canada student service grant is not what is on the minds of Canadians, nor is digging into the reputation of Canadian companies like Baylis Medical.

Residents of my riding, and I think all Canadians, are squarely focused on getting through the COVID-19 pandemic. We're right in the middle of the second wave.

I believe that today the Premier of Ontario announced changes in certain regions, including my region of the province, that will impact people's ability to go to the gym or potentially to dine indoors. I will review these changes this evening. He is being very conscientious and diligent for his citizens, and it is ensuring—

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Gaudreau, you have a point of order.

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

Yes.

We have already heard about why we have to be concerned with the pandemic and my colleague is in fact repeating the comments he has already made. I actually have the blues in front of me. We need another subject so that we can then come to a decision. I think we have come full circle.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau.

Mr. Sorbara, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau, for your intervention.

I don't want to repeat myself. I just want to make sure that I have clearly laid out my thoughts on where we are in the debate regarding Mr. Angus's motion and the amended motion to Mr. Angus...and then the second amendment to Mr. Angus...and then, unfortunately, the defeat of the amendment I put forward today, which I thought was quite reasonable.

As provinces continue to modify social norms and containment procedures, we must look at ways that Parliament and government can support the provinces to continue to battle this virus. The provinces and Canadians don't need more debate on WE Charity; they need Canada's political parties and committee members to work together.

We see good news coming from Pfizer, as I said, with the announcement that their vaccine candidate appears to be 90% effective. This is a very important day. It could very well prove to be a turning point in the coming weeks, as Pfizer continues to validate its clinical trials.

I, for one, am pleased that the government was ahead of the curve and smartly entered an agreement to purchase this vaccine candidate and others over the past several months. Our government has secured a minimum of 20 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and we are currently in negotiations to ensure that we have—

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

On a point of order, Madame Gaudreau.

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

I am really sorry.

We are talking about vaccine again.

I am going to be more and more tiresome, Mr. Chair. The clock is ticking and I am going to do my duty, which is to do everything I can to try and have us follow proper procedure. Let's move to something new, please.

Thank you.

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

Chair, I just wish to point out—

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.