Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 13th, 2020

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Chair, I know that I have the floor, and that wasn't a point of order. It was debate. I would just simply state—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Actually, Mr. Dong, it was a point of order. That's why I sent around page 1059 from the procedure book. Let me read it to you:

In addition, the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee. If the member in question persists in making repetitive or off-topic comments, the Chair can give the floor to another member.

Again, I will absolutely do everything I can to avoid that kind of ruling, but members should try to at least be a little bit creative in how they speak to the particular motion and not be repetitive.

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I'll definitely keep that in mind. I respect that.

My remarks today have everything to do with the situation we're facing right now with COVID and some of the stuff that the government has done in terms of procurement, and this does speak to the motion itself.

Like I said, I would love it if we worked work on the original motion put forth by Mr. Angus and amended by Mr. Fergus and just go on with that, but unfortunately we're stuck debating accepting an amendment that, in my view, was brought forward to the committee for the third time.

With that, I'll conclude. I'll yield the floor to my colleagues, but I will probably chime in later on.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Dong.

Madame Gaudreau, you are next.

In fact, we have Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Angus, Mr. Sorbara and then Mr. Fergus.

I know that you've been waiting for a while, Madame Gaudreau, so I won't do this before you speak unless you're okay with it. It's 1:20. I just thought it would be good to have a five-minute suspension for what nature drives us to.

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

I will be very open as long as you are too.

We will be back in five minutes. I will be next to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll suspend for five minutes, colleagues. I have 1:22 on my screen. It will be 1:27 when we reconvene.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, we'll return from suspension.

Again, I'll review our speakers list. We have Madame Gaudreau, and then Mr. Barrett, Mr. Angus, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Fergus.

Madame Gaudreau, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for that break, because it helped me get my emotions back under control. The many accounts, values and words put forward in the past 33 hours and a few minutes lead me to believe that we have reached the end of the line.

I will explain why I am telling you that. I will take less than five minutes, as I usually do, but what I have to say is important. As I was saying earlier, we have gone over what happened several times and tried to change what we have right now.

I see that Mr. Samson is here. For those who were not here, it's important that you know we had a request to revoke an erroneous vote. A few minutes later, in front of the national media, they explained why. All the details are there to justify it. We will not come back to it. I will not take 30 minutes to tell you about it.

We voted on the motion to revoke. Had it passed, the vote would have been changed and we would not be here right now. How can I agree to try to draw things out as much as possible when we should be dealing with what has just been voted on? You have just shown us.

With all due respect, colleagues—I hear the word “respect”, I hear that it's important, that we need to show that we are accountable, that we take our responsibilities seriously. With all due respect, my government colleagues, show us some, because, in broad daylight, you are clearly doing the opposite.

It's 1:30 p.m. on Friday the thirteenth. After 33 hours during which you have had time to say everything you wanted to say—not to mention everything you keep repeating—I believe we will even be able to finish before 5:30 p.m.

I'm going to refer back to those words, because I always come back to our fundamental objective, which is to represent all the people of Quebec and Canada. I know that the list of speakers has many names on it. So, please, it's not that hard to say: “let's go for it, we're ready”.

I salute your work, Mr. Chair, because I am full of compassion. I have seen a lot in my life, but this situation is clearly out of the ordinary. I will say it again: I'm ashamed of us.

I hope the message gets through. Over and above our game—because we have to recognize that a game is being played here and I am quite capable of seeing that—I hope that, together, we can manage to get it over with, to do what needs to be done and to fulfill our responsibilities.

I will put my name on the list again, I will say it again and again, until I'm blue in the face. I think you have just demonstrated that we have talked this through.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gaudreau.

Now we'll move to Mr. Barrett.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

We find ourselves back here again, 33 hours in, and hearing a recounting from the Liberals of their previous testimony. Early in the meeting, Mr. Angus laid out what brought us here. We heard from Madame Gaudreau the plain reason that this motion ought to come to vote. Everyone has had their say.

I'd like to speak briefly to and address the comments made by Mr. Dong. He made comments with respect to the Speakers' Spotlight documents. He read into the record a tweet from that organization.

The comments that I made in committee were the information that was provided to us. The situation is that some of the information is still there, while some of it has been purged. There are no lies that have been spoken by me.

I find it really interesting to hear Mr. Dong talk about the offence of having Ms. Gladu come to committee and address the motion that was ruled out of order and for Mr. Dong to interject on points of order and say they weren't points of order when one of the Liberal substitutes who came to the committee, Mr. Drouin, interjected a few times and attempted to take control of the meeting in a pretty high-pitched way.

It's interesting, because the connections to the Ontario Liberal Party that the federal Liberals have are pertinent to the question of destroyed documents. The chief of staff to former Ontario Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty, David Livingston, was found guilty and ultimately sent to jail for mischief in relation to data and attempted misuse of a computer system to commit mischief. The ruling stated, “Mr. Livingston's plan to eliminate sensitive and confidential work-related data, in my view”—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

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

Mr. Chair, you've commented several times today on relevance. I have no idea how Mr. Barrett's train of thought and commentary are relevant to the motion, the information at hand and the conversation we're having as a committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, Mr. Sorbara.

Mr. Barrett, I believe you were speaking about Mr. Dong's comments in regard to a tweet you had in this committee. Is that correct?

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

Correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. Continue on. Just make sure the members know your relevance.

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting to hear that comment from Mr. Sorbara, who decided to offend the sensibilities of Canadians at this committee by spending time talking about his preference in what kind of underwear he would wear instead of addressing the motion at hand.

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

On a point of order, Chair, that's completely unnecessary banter and talk. It's actually quite offensive that Mr. Barrett would go there on a personal basis. We were speaking about a company called Stanfield's in Canada. It had nothing to do with undergarments.

I'm not sure where the CPC is going in this committee with this diatribe they're having, but it's quite obvious that they're not concerned about the well-being of Canadians and the direction in which this committee is going.

MP Barrett, please, we can do better than that. Raise the bar on your conversation, please.

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

I've a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Angus.

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

I ask you to ask Mr. Sorbara to read the rules of order, because I feel that now he's actually trying to deliberately interfere and be provocative. We need to get on with this. Mr. Sorbara will have all afternoon to talk about Stanfield's underwear if he wants, as long as it pertains to the motion, but we need to get back to the issue at hand so that we can try to get to a vote today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please continue on, Mr. Barrett.

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

Right, and as I said, Mr. Chair, it was Mr. Sorbara's decision to discuss his preference regarding the type of underwear he would wear when he spoke to this committee, so when we talk about offensive, these are choices that Mr. Sorbara made.

To continue where I left off with respect to the relation between the Ontario Liberal Party and the federal Liberals and the chief of staff to former Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, David Livingston, who was found guilty and ultimately—

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I understand that you asked Mr. Barrett to show the relevance of this debate—

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

You have to let me finish my sentence.