Evidence of meeting #9 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Mr. Chair, is the translation working? When the last member spoke, it didn't come through for me. I know I have my headset hooked up properly, and I know I have the English on for interpretation, but it didn't come through. Are you able to check to see if it is working?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
The clerk will be checking that right now. The translation came through to me very clearly, but we'll check it to make sure that's the case for all members of the committee.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Chair, I wish to say thank you to the interpreters. There was a lapse there. There was no translation.
I believe I understood Madame Gaudreau's comments. Really, in the motion there is a reference to procurement. There is a reference to government spending. It's my job just to reference that.
Actually, through the number of interventions, I probably would have completed speaking on the ability of our government and the job it has done—the Minister of PSPC, the Prime Minister, Minister Bains and so forth—in securing sufficient doses of the vaccines. I say “vaccines”, because there are a number being developed for Canadians. I think that is important.
As a government, we've ensured that we are well placed to protect Canadians from COVID-19, when the vaccines become available, with the diversity of contracts, which is so important.
Chair, I think this is what constituents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge are focused on. They're not concerned about the motion on the CSSG and matters relating to WE Charity.
We need to continue to keep our eye on the ball and work in the best interests of Canadians. I invite my colleagues on the other side to stand with us and put the focus on what matters to Canadians: combatting COVID-19—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'd love to rally around the flag with Mr. Sorbara, but that has nothing to do with the motion.
The reason for my intervention is the fact that he's almost repeating word for word his colleague. Whenever they seem to run out of road, they start hiding behind the issue of the pandemic, repeating that it's only Liberals who care about fighting the pandemic, which is categorically false. It's an insult to us, who sat through 35 hours of obstruction.
I ask my colleague to stop repeating the same lines he took from his previous colleague and stick to the motion.
Are they going to vote for this motion? Yes or no? That's democracy. Then we can get on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
Mr. Sorbara, do you have many more comments left?
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
I have a few comments left, Chair. One of the first comments I would like to make is about Mr. Angus's comment about democracy. One aspect of democracy in our system is that we have committees that are put in place to serve certain areas, including this ethics committee. As a member of Parliament, I get the right to debate motions put forward by opposition parties or by the government. In that vein, I get to debate and speak to those motions frankly until my thoughts are down. I totally agree with you, Chair, that it shouldn't sound too repetitious. I'm only providing what I feel are substantive comments and comments to aid in the deliberation of facts, and suggestions and opinions that will help me reach a conclusion on whether I can support or oppose a motion.
In reference to Mr. Angus's motion, we've gone through it. Yes, it's been a lot longer than many of us would have liked. I think we're in the 34th or 35th hour of debate, but a number of iterations have caused me to question the motion at hand. This is repetition, I will agree. We've had a mulligan of a second amendment, which I was not pleased to see because I thought we were down a path where we could have seen some unanimity, and when I say “unanimity”, I mean with a majority.
At the same time, unfortunately we got to another place where I'm having real difficulty, Chair. As I said, I was trying to be constructive today in putting forward the motion that I had, and it was defeated. There was no innuendo with my motion. I really want committee members to understand that. It was to reflect the privacy laws that exist both provincially and federally in our country. It was in that vein that I put forward the motion, and I am disappointed that it was not voted on.
It's 4:30 and I believe there are other members of the committee who wish to share their thoughts and opinions, and I'm happy to turn it over to them. I will raise my hand again and again, and in the Canadian way be polite and allow the person next in line to speak and share their thoughts and opinions, and then get back in line myself. I think that's the way our democracy works, and I think that's a healthy way of doing things.
I'm going to stop now, as it's 4:30, and yield the floor to the next speaker, and I will get back into line. I thank my committee members for judiciously and diligently listening to my words. I want to thank Ms. Gaudreau with sincere appreciation for her thoughts, and Deputy Angus whom I'm blessed to know. I'm really appreciative of his friendship more than anything, and I will continue, obviously, to be respectful of all my colleagues,
I will now yield the floor, Chair, to the next speaker.
Thank you for your time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much, colleagues.
I think it's wise for me to say right now that since I introduced the passage on pages 1058-59 of the procedural manual, which I felt was very important to do because of the amount of time this committee's been seized with this issue, I'm going to ask you to be very cognizant of it. I am on the precipice of making some rulings now that would make me feel very uncomfortable, but let's make sure that our comments are to the motion at hand, and not unnecessarily repetitive. I understand that sometimes you need to repeat something in order to show context, etc., but I think to be a responsible chair I need to give you that warning no matter what side of the aisle you're on in the committee, let's make sure that the debate is constructive and to the point.
I'm going to give you the speakers list now: Madame Lattanzio, Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Long, Madame Lambropoulos, and then Mr. Dong.
It's 4:32, Madame Lattanzio.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, colleagues, old and new.
I will tell you right off the bat that I am quite surprised that on a Friday afternoon at 4:30, here we are again on the same motion. I understood from our last meeting, from colleague, MP Gaudreau, that it was important that we come around the table and find some sort of consensus so that we could effectively move forward on this.
I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, to hear—because obviously I wasn't present this morning—that amendments were presented by colleagues and they did not go through, as those might have been a gateway to moving forward with this issue.
I am going to try to not take up too much of this committee's time, but we have colleagues around the table who keep reminding us that we are on the 35th or 36th hour of debate on this motion. I just want to recall and maybe have the new members know that at the midpoint of those hours—I don't know if was 15 hours, 16 hours or whatever—this committee did go to a vote and wanted to move forward and then we found ourselves with this motion that has been amended yet again to bring back issues that had been voted on previously. It is holding up this committee and quite clearly we are at an impasse.
To say that we are at hour 34 or 35, it isn't for lack of trying. This committee did vote on this issue at the midpoint—and I signalled that I wanted to put that amendment in dispute—but I respect the chair's decision that it was not received, so therefore we are yet again back to square one.
To be frank, Mr. Chair, I am really surprised and actually quite disappointed that we are still here and stuck on this very same motion.
When I was first elected, Mr. Chair, I thought I was elected to serve my constituents and that my focus would be on participating, on making policy on priorities, and on continuing to advance the policies that would be in the best interests of all Canadians. I though the work we would undertake collectively would be meaningful and would contribute to the advancement of our country in some way.
I won't go as far as calling it wishful thinking, Mr. Chairman, but our current predicament shows me that perhaps there should have been more wishful thinking in how we conduct our business around here.
It would be great if we could get back to a place where politics—and I would almost say the thirst for that political power—could be set aside for the good of our constituents and for our country, but I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that is only wishful thinking on my part. Maybe that's what a rookie is—someone who comes in and has aspirations and dreams and sees things in the light of everybody working together for the common good. That was wishful thinking on my part and that's what I thought, but I guess we're not there.
Now we are here again, on a Friday afternoon, continuing to debate on a motion that is clearly showing its colours. It's the ultimate example of partisan political gamesmanship. I think that colleagues have been fairly patient over the last few weeks, but you know, Mr. Chair, I am going to say it again: I am disappointed. I am disappointed that time is being wasted again on this politically driven, politically motivated stunt.
I think we can all agree that Mr. Angus's initial proposal—and I've said this before—to study the ethical levers in place—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
On a point of order, the member just called our work a political stunt. I think that's unnecessarily provocative at this 35th hour.
I have tried to negotiate with the Liberals. I've made compromises. We have gotten nowhere. They keep changing the parameters but I'd prefer, if we're going to have to drag on into the evening, that she not use words like “stunt”. They really undermine the work and the seriousness that we bring to this committee.
Conservative
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you.
I think we can all agree—and I've said this before—that the initial proposal brought forward by my colleague, MP Mr. Angus, to study the ethical mechanisms in place to protect against the conflict of interest in the Prime Minister's Office is fair and is a study that could yield some fair and reasonable recommendations from members of this committee. This motion, Mr. Chair, fits the mandate of our committee. It fits the basic functions of our committee to study the key aspects as they relate to our mandate as found in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
However, I would like to point out that what is not found in our Standing Orders is any reference to this committee being an investigative body. As MP Sorbara said a few minutes ago—and it's worth repeating—this committee is not a court of law. There are no rules of judicial fairness. There are no judges—
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I am going to be extremely vigilant. I know that people are saying that they are repeating themselves, but when we say we are repeating ourselves, it's exactly what we must not do, please. There is new content, we know. I have the blues. I have all the details of the recent discussions. As I read them, I see clear redundancies.
Mr. Chair, let me invite you to act. I think we have reached that point.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to reformulate and tell you that I agree with what Mr. Sorbara said. This is not a court of law. There are no rules for judicial fairness. There is no judge here. There are no lawyers and there is no due process, yet in motion after motion, or amendment after amendment, the opposition majority seems to find ways to drag us down this path that we are simply not, in my opinion, suited to travel.
Members from the government side are not unreasonable. I'm certainly not oblivious to how this is playing out. We're in front of cameras. The media are watching. This meeting is being put on display for the public; I would go as far as saying it is feigned indignation in the position of the government, which is in opposition to several parts of this now amended motion. The opposition knows full well that they are on tenuous ground with regard to the motions that have been put forward. In my opinion, I think they understand full well that the very idea of this study serves no other purpose than perhaps to garner political points.
There has been no evidence whatsoever to support the baseless accusations being made by the Conservatives and other opposition parties. Testimony at several committees, including this one, along with over 5,000 pages of documents, proves the exact opposite of what the opposition is trying to forge ahead with.
I don't know if Madame Gaudreau is dancing to my tune, but it pleasantly surprises me.
The evidence supports the testimony of the Prime Minister and relevant ministers that this was a recommendation of the non-partisan public service. Upon review of government, it was determined that this was the best way forward to implement the Canada student service grant: That's it. It's plain and simple.
Mr. Chair, this was a very cut-and-dried matter that has consistently been spun and promulgated to the public by the opposition in such a way that no one can make head or tail of it anymore. The amended motion that we have before us today continues to try to twist the narrative even further, with my opposition colleagues taking several unrelated issues and trying to spin a narrative of corruption that simply does not exist.
Quite frankly, it is quite clear that the only real goal of the opposition at this point and juncture of our debate with regard to the Canada student service grant, it seems to me, is to target only the Prime Minister and his family. They've become the target. It has also been abundantly clear, from the moment our government was elected in 2015 through too our debate on this motion here today, that the opposition has no interest in working in a bipartisan fashion in the best interests of Canadians. It is also very clear to me, and I think to many Canadians, that the opposition—
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
If I am dancing to my colleague's tune, it is because I have been here since 11 o'clock. I am listening carefully and unfortunately, on several occasions, comments have been made to which we cannot even react. I find that difficult, especially when the opposition is blamed for using the Prime Minister and his family.
Actually, we are doing our job. We want to make sure that taxpayers' money is used appropriately. I especially object to the same thing being repeated and, furthermore, to being attacked without being able to react. If I look like I am dancing, that's why.
Conservative
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've been sitting on this committee for many hours, and these are my observations. I think I'm entitled to put forward my observations as we're discussing what has transpired from the beginning of the presentation of this motion, the various attempts that have been made by various colleagues around the table to bring this resolution and move it forward. I think I'm well within my rights to be able to give my opinion on what has transpired to date, and of course, the content of the motion itself.
Going back to what I was saying before, it's very clear to me that at this point, at this juncture, I do not believe there's a will and a consensus to take the various opinions of my colleagues around the table to move forward on this issue, unfortunately. That's my opinion. I think the Prime Minister and his family have been the targets from the onset, and there's no way of moving past that. I find it rather concerning that we keep going in this way.
Mr. Chairman, 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 on some important work, yet it's clear that my colleagues on the other side are once again focused on the political division, on personal attacks and confusion, rather than on what's in the best interests of Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, there was a time when we could have healthy debates about the issues of the day, and when the debate was over, we could all part and move on. In my opinion, efforts have been made. Days are going by and boundaries are being broken. I think, for my part, that when I see this, it is unfortunate and it makes it harder to move on.
I do not think it's appropriate or prudent, Mr. Chair, for this committee to continue to entertain political attacks on the PM, nor do I think it's appropriate that we undertake politically motivated studies against well-respected Canadian companies solely because one of their founders was a member of Parliament in our previous mandate.
It should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that the words used by my opposition colleagues have real effect. Just ask the WE Charity, which was forced to close its doors because of this continued attack on its reputation from the opposition. This foundation was founded and had its head office here in Canada and had various offices across the country. It's gone, Mr. Chairman. It's doing its work now in other countries. It's quite unfortunate. The real losers in all this are, of course, our students across the country.
I am not sure whether and when it became acceptable to tear down Canadian businesses—