EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics NUMBER 003 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Thursday, October 15, 2020 Le jeudi 15 octobre 2020 Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE October 15, 2020 Committee NUMBER 003 NUMBER 003 NUMÉRO 003 03 15 10 2020 2020/10/15 14:40:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de l'accès à l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'éthique Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics ETHI Chair Mr. David Sweet 2 43

(1440) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. David Sweet (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC)) :

Hello, colleagues. I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving. I've often said publicly that no matter how much or how little we agree with the present government, we still live in the greatest country in the world. I hope you gave thanks in that regard over the past weekend. I have just a few reminders in regard to

interpretation. At the bottom of your screen there is a button for

interpretation, so make sure you've put it in your preferred language, either English or French. Also, more importantly, remember that if you are switching from English to French, you'll need to switch that button as well for

interpretation to work properly. Colleagues, please make sure that you address your comments through the chair. That's not just to help me guide the meeting successfully, but also to make sure there's accuracy in the blues afterwards. I'll also remind you that when you're speaking, speak slowly. We always have that challenge with

interpretation, but doing this over broadband makes it that much more difficult. If any technical problems arise, please put your hand up if we can't hear you and you're muted so we can make sure to pause the meeting to look after whatever the technical problem is with your system. In our last meeting, Madame Gaudreau moved to adjourn the meeting. I wanted to specify whether it was the meeting or the debate. It was the meeting. In preparation for this meeting, I advised both vice-chairs, as well as Mr.

Angus, because he does not have the luxury of having a vice-chair represent him, that we'll be continuing with the attempt to dispose of Mr. Barrett's motion at this meeting. I'll now open the floor for comments in that regard.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.) :

Chair, I'm sorry, but could you clarify what we are opening with now?

The Chair :

We're continuing the debate from the last meeting, which was adjourned. Mr. Barrett's motion was on the table at the time. I'm just waiting for folks to put their hands up. I have a picture of all those who have their hand up. Madam Shanahan, you're the first one up.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

I take it that the speakers list is a new one that we have before us now. As always, thank you, Chair, for your instructions at the beginning of the meeting, and thank you for allowing us to remember what a privilege it is for us to be here in this hybrid setting. It's the staff, interpreters, clerks and all of the wonderful IT staff who allow us to be here to exercise our parliamentary duties, and indeed to continue on, even under these most difficult circumstances. Earlier this summer, in the previous session, the committee sat. It was actually in person, under somewhat similar but equally stressful conditions.

I'd like to take this opportunity, since we have some new members who have joined us, to talk about some of the issues concerning the spirit and intent of the motion we have before us. Indeed, I'd like to bring the committee's attention to the mandate. I think I will switch to French here because that gives me a chance to practise my French. [ Translation ] It is important to understand how this committee has evolved. I consulted the website to get an idea of the history of the studies it has undertaken. Initially, the approach was to bring witnesses before parliamentarians during investigations.

That meant that parliamentarians were investigating the behaviour of their colleagues. Later on, legislation was rightly enacted and a code of ethics was established to govern the conduct of parliamentarians with respect to conflicts of interest. At the same time, a commissioner position, at arm's length from Parliament, was created to enforce the code, receive complaints, explain members' responsibilities and, of course, render judgments following investigations. I emphasize that the commissioner is independent of Parliament. I believe we will have an opportunity to talk more about this.

This is a key principle of ethics in the institutional environment. If parliamentarians investigate other parliamentarians, the conflict of interest is clear. In addition, Parliament gave this committee a very important mandate, and it is always helpful for us to review it: (1445) [ English ]

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics reviews, among other matters, the effectiveness, management and operations as well as the operational and expenditure plans relating to four Officers of Parliament: the Information Commissioner; the Privacy Commissioner; the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; and the Commissioner of Lobbying. It also reviews their reports, although in the case of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the reports concerned relate to the Commissioner’s responsibilities under the Parliament of Canada Act regarding public office holders and reports tabled pursuant to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

I think those are two important elements that we will need to discuss in view of the motion before us today. The mandate continues:

In cooperation with other standing committees, the Committee also reviews any bill, federal regulation or Standing Order which impacts upon its main areas of responsibility: access to information, privacy and the ethical standards of public office holders. It may also propose initiatives in these areas and promote, monitor and assess such initiatives.

[ Translation ] It's very important that we discuss the last two sentences of the mandate. Actually, you might think that this means the committee can study anything in any manner, but it does not. My

interpretation is that the committee can look into any legislation or any issue related to access to information, privacy, or the establishment of ethical standards or criteria. The last sentence talks about proposing initiatives in these areas, and it is here that something is clearly missing. No one would have believed just five years, let alone 10 or 15 years ago, that devices like our telephones would be used to not only do extraordinary things in our day-to-day work, but also collect personal data. Who would have imagined that we could do so many things with computers?

I've been in the workplace for a long time. When I started in the banking sector, nobody had a computer. Only one teller had a small computer, with a green screen, and we could use it to get customer account balances. Who would have thought that all the personal, financial and confidential data in our smartphones and computers would ever be available, but more importantly, that people we don't know would have access to it? This is an example of an issue that perhaps those who wrote the mandate perhaps did not foresee about 15 years ago.

Thank goodness they included that sentence in the mandate, because that is how this committee was able to form a supercommittee of sorts in the last Parliament with our colleagues in Great Britain. I believe some of my colleagues took

part in that. It was truly a source of pride to see Canada able to take the lead on the issue of the tech giants controlling people's personal data. Again, that was really not foreseeable five or 10 years ago, in my opinion. So that is what I have to say about the mandate itself. (1450) [ English ] As we discussed this summer, the committee is studying these matters, which are very sensitive to Canadians, and studying them, in a large sense, to make recommendations to different government ministers.

We are working in conjunction with our four commissioners: the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner. This is the work we are doing, I submit to you, Mr. Chair, not studying the private business of individuals who are in no way connected to the work we do here in Parliament other than they happen to be related to a member of Parliament who either happens to be a minister or the Prime Minister .

The fact that we have chosen a public life is one thing, but I think we can agree as parliamentarians, as we all have families here, that this is not something we would have expected our families to be subjected to. I would like to refer the committee to the part of the Conflict of Interest Code, where we have the definition of who is considered a family member for the purposes of this code. It is in the

section for

definitions. It states:

(4) The following are the members of a member’s family for the purposes of this code:

(

a) the member’s spouse or common-law partner; and

(

b) a son or daughter of the member, or a son or daughter of the member’s spouse or common-law partner, who has not reached the age of 18 years or who has reached that age but is primarily dependent on the member or the member’s spouse or common-law partner for financial support.

That is the definition we have in our code, and members will recognize that. It's in an appendix of our Standing Orders. I'd also like to point out that any information obtained by members of Parliament should not be used in a way to further their own interests. I take you to “Rules of Conduct”, subsection 10(1), which states:

(1) A member shall not use information obtained in his or her position as a member that is not generally available to the public to further the member’s private interests or those of a member of his or her family, or to improperly further another person’s or entity’s private interests.

(1455) Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

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

Mr. Charlie Angus :

I'm sure Madam Shanahan has read the Conflict of Interest Act, so she wouldn't want to misrepresent the facts. I think she overlooked the definition of “Relatives” in the act, under subsection 2(3):

(3) Persons who are related to a public office holder by birth, marriage, common-law partnership, adoption or affinity are the public office holder’s relatives for the purposes of this Act

I think the attempt to deny the fact that the Prime Minister 's mother is his relative and his brother is his relative is very spurious. If we're going to be here all night, I would ask the member to at least tell the truth when she—

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

Chair, this is debate.

The Chair :

It is debate. Thank you very much, Mr. Angus. Go ahead, Madam Shanahan.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

I will continue, and I would look forward to other members speaking about the definition, but it's clear to me that it is not intended to be a mother or a brother or a sister or any member outside the immediate family. To continue here, under the “Rules of Conduct”, 10(2), it says:

A member shall not communicate information referred to in subsection (1) to another person if the member knows, or reasonably ought to know, that the information may be used to further the member's private interests or those of a member of his or her family, or to improperly further another person's or entity's private interests.

Where I'm going there, Chair, is that if in this role here, this privileged role on the ethics committee, we were to learn of private and confidential information about a person that would help our own interests, I would find that very serious indeed. I would want to have full legal counsel in that case, which I think is another issue we encountered this summer and was something that was very much welcomed by the members of this committee. I would like to continue speaking about the role of the commissioner. It's almost as if it's protecting us from ourselves.

There has been some very colourful history in this committee, and I know that my good colleague Mr. Angus was present for many of those sessions, and others may have been as well. Thank goodness that we have a commissioner of ethics, again so that the propriety of what is discussed when we're discussing the conduct of individual members is maintained in a professional and a productive way, shall I say. It's not for political or partisan gain, but indeed looking at the behaviour at hand and how it affects the course of Parliamentary business.

What I'm wondering about what we're debating here is that, when we have a motion like this before us, are we expressing a lack of confidence in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who is well within his powers to order any documents that he sees fit and where we have full confidence that he will handle those documents in a proper manner? I would like to share with the committee some notes I made regarding this rule, because I think it is important, as we are back here again, for this to be on the record.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner administers the Conflict of Interest Act by establishing compliance measures, investigating possible contraventions of the act and providing advice to public office holders on their obligations. The commissioner is an officer of Parliament. Being an officer of Parliament is no small thing. That means that he is responsible.... He reports to Parliament. Officers of Parliament are independent of the government and report directly to Parliament.

The Conflict of Interest Act came into force on July 9, 2007—so it was not all that long ago—and created, for the first time, a legislative regime governing the ethical conduct of public office holders. Prior to this date, public office holders were subject to non-statutory codes of conduct that could be changed on a whim.

(1500) At the time, I was a member of the Canadian public. We could see that it was quite under control at that time with the various things that were going on.

Some additional information on the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is that this person “is appointed by the Governor in Council by commission under the Great Seal, after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the House of Commons and after approval of the appointment by resolution of the House.” That is very important, that there is consultation among all of the parties, because any one of us and any one of the parties in the House can find themselves in a situation where they would be glad to know that we have an independent commissioner looking at our affairs.

He or she holds the office for a seven-year term. Moreover, “under the Conflict of Interest Act, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner must be a former judge of a superior court in Canada or of a provincial court; or a former member of a federal or provincial board, commission or tribunal who has demonstrated expertise in at least one of the following areas: conflict of interest, financial arrangements, professional regulation and discipline or ethics”. I daresay that is an evolving field.

I think we are seeing situations on a regular basis in every sector of our economy and in administrative and institutional life, and I think this committee can contribute to reform and that evolution so that we get to a place where it's more about prevention rather than about hitting people on the head. The Ethics Commissioner can be “a former Senate Ethics Officer or former Ethics Commissioner.

The position was created in 2007 and replaced the Office of the Ethics Commissioner [under the] (Parliament of Canada Act, s.81).” The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner also “provides confidential advice to the prime minister and to public office holders on all matters pertaining to the implementation of the Conflict of Interest Act. In addition, the Commissioner may, at the request of a parliamentarian or on their own initiative, investigate any alleged breach of the Act by a public office holder.” Again, that's very important, and we know that is indeed what has happened.

Members of Parliament have written to the Ethics Commissioner with their complaint as they saw it and have asked for the commissioner to do an investigation. Sometimes he does the investigation and sometimes he does not, but we have the satisfaction that he has looked at it impartially, at all of the facts before him and has made that determination, unless we're going to say that we don't have confidence in that officer of Parliament, which would be a very serious thing to say, although it could happen.

Furthermore, “The Commissioner may, in the course of investigation, consider information provided by the public” —by the public as well, and not just by other members of Parliament—“that is conveyed to the Commissioner by a parliamentarian.” I think this information, which is publicly available, is important for the Canadian public to understand. The role of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is to undertake any investigation of alleged violations of the Conflict of Interest Act.

If the intention is to usurp their role or to carry on a parallel investigation or to somehow override what the commissioner is doing, then I must voice my serious objection to this committee's participating in such an action.

(1505) It's clear to me, and I think to other members of this committee, that this is the work of this committee in fulfilling its mandate, in reviewing the work of the four officers of Parliament who report to us, and ensuring that any current or evolving issues.... And I can think of one right now, and that's the COVID application. It's being downloaded. I think it has downloaded over four million times, but there are questions about it. Is it efficacious? Is it doing its job?

I'm going to switch into French here now. [ Translation ] People in my constituency still had concerns about privacy and how the application collected data. I am so glad that Quebec not only accepted the application, but also studied its effectiveness. It even came up on the TV show Tout le monde en parle . People are talking about the application and right now, we can see that, with the measures—

[ English ]

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Sorry, I have a point of order, Chair.

The Chair :

Mr. Angus, on a point of order.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Chair, out of respect for our committee, which is actually discussing the refusal of the Liberals to work with us on the WE documents, there has to be a point to the member's comments. The fact that she's trying to talk about a COVID app in Quebec has nothing to do with our committee. If we're going to be here all night, let's stay focused on the issues at hand. I'd ask the member to keep her remarks focused on the issue, which is the blocking by the Liberals of our access to these WE documents.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Angus. Relevance is really a point of order; however, as is the custom in the chamber, we treat that broadly. I would ask all members to try to keep their comments to the motion on the table, so that we can dispose of it as quickly as possible.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

Thank you very much for your patience, Mr. Chair. I only wanted to point out that a study like this falls under our purview. It's a highly relevant and timely subject that is important to people where I am from and across Canada. I could go on, but I will stop there. (1510) [ English ] I yield the floor.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Madam Shanahan. Now we move on to Mr. Angus.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a very disturbing situation we're in. It's been one week since the ethics committee met to get re-formed after Prime Minister Trudeau prorogued and shut down our investigation. We had a number of motions to get to in order to get on with business, because we have an obligation to the Canadian people to finish the work that was begun on the WE scandal. Part of that was a simple motion to follow through on the documents that our committee agreed to ask for last July.

There should have been a very straightforward process of reintroducing the motion, having the documents presented, and then our moving on to many of the other things that all of us would like to talk about. Ms. Shanahan wants to talk about a COVID app. Well, I don't think it's actually under our purview—it's probably health—but rather than waste our time in an endless filibuster, she could just agree to turn over the documents and then could bring forward a motion. That's how Parliament is supposed to work. We have an obligation to Canadians to get answers.

I find this situation very frustrating, because last week we attempted to work with the Liberals on the documents. On the documents they had agreed to in July, we agreed to put very specific provisions to protect the privacy of individuals. The privacy of individuals is an important principle. We're not here to do naming and shaming. We're here to verify facts. Yet when we responded to the Liberals' demand for all manner of protections in this new motion, and we offered that, then the Liberals changed and wanted to fight about something else.

The reality is that we are going to get those documents, because they're pertinent. Why are they pertinent? One of the unfortunate things we've seen in the WE scandal is that we have been told, time and time again, very conflicting stories about the Trudeau family's very close financial relationship with the Kielburger group. Why does this matter? Well, the Liberals are trying to tell us that family does not include mother and brother.

I don't know what kind of family they envision, but in the Conflict of Interest Act, “Persons who are related to a public office holder by birth, marriage, common-law partnership, adoption or affinity are the public office holder’s relatives for the purposes of [the] Act”. The reason the issue of family is included in the Conflict of Interest Act is to ensure that family, whether knowingly or unknowingly, cannot be used as a conduit to exert influence on a public office holder.

When that public office holder is the Prime Minister of the nation, and when we're talking about a decision by key Liberal ministers to support what would have ended up being a $900-million plan to transfer money to this organization that has close financial ties, that requires a good deal of scrutiny. It relies on answers being given very clearly. I would also suggest that under

section 5 of the Conflict of Interest Act, which I notice Ms. Shanahan.... All the relevant parts she seemed to be missing.

Section 5 is key, because it says, “Every public office holder shall arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest.” So when she's talking about the private affairs of the family and how it's none of our business, well, it actually is our business, because under the Conflict of Interest Act, it is the obligation of the public office holder to protect themselves from being found in a conflict of interest. That's not something that's academic.

This is what the Prime Minister of our nation was found guilty of in the very first findings by the Ethics Commissioner, under the first “Trudeau Report”, namely, that he breached

section 5. It wasn't over illegal lobbying by the Aga Khan. It wasn't about his agreeing to take a trip and then setting up meetings. It was about the connection between his family and his family's decision to go to the island that put the Prime Minister in a conflict of interest. These documents should simply verify the latest claim we've had from government and from the Kielburger group about the payments that were made to the Trudeau family.

(1515) We know that when questions were raised in the beginning, the Prime Minister said he'd never received any money from WE. We do know that the Prime Minister, after becoming the youth critic for the Liberal Party, carried on quite an extensive side business doing public speaking while being a parliamentarian. Was he paid by WE? He said he never was. Those documents will simply verify that. If they verify that, we move on, but what if they don't? What if the Prime Minister was paid? That's a legitimate question and a very serious question.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why the Liberals would be filibustering and trying to block access to documents if those documents conform to the Liberal line, which is that the Prime Minister never received payments from the WE group. Fine. Show us the documents. In terms of his family, what struck us from the beginning was that we were told that Margaret Trudeau and Sacha Trudeau received no payment because they were volunteers, but we've learned that wasn't true and that upwards of half a million dollars was transferred for their work.

We also learned the WE charity board was told explicitly that the Trudeau family was not being paid. What kind of deal is going down when a charity board asks a specific question—whether the Prime Minister's close personal family are being paid—and are told, “Don't worry; they're not being paid” when payments were made? This isn't to suggest that Mrs. Trudeau or Sacha did anything wrong. That's not the issue here. The issue is that this relationship that the Kielburgers developed with the Prime Minister put the Prime Minister in a very clear prima facie conflict of interest.

These payments were affecting him, because at the end of the day, he was the one who signed off on this deal with WE. We know from the documents we received that the WE group was using photos of his family to show key ministries and key ministers who were going to sign off on this $900-million deal. That is an obvious conflict of interest, and yet in the 5,000 pages of documents, no one from the Prime Minister's Office raised a red flag and said, “Hey, you cannot use my family to promote your ability to get this $900-million contract. That cannot be done.” Nobody said that.

If the $500,000 in payments to the Trudeau family was as the WE group finally admitted, then the documents will simply verify that. When we pushed the Kielburgers at the finance committee about how these payments were made and why the Trudeau family was being paid while other illustrious public speakers were doing it for free, what I found really surprising was that they said these payments were not made for public presence. Margaret Trudeau was not paid by WE because of her extraordinary and, I think, very exceptional public presence as a mental health spokesperson. They didn't pay her for that.

They paid her to work the after-events. Those after-events were the major corporate sponsorship events. They were paying the Prime Minister 's family to do work for them. That's an issue and a conflict of interest. Those documents will either verify what those payments were or show us that there were other payments or other services rendered. We need to know that. If everything's as straight up as the Liberals say, they don't need to have us go all night. They don't need to derail our work at committee. They need to say that we will set up a process.... We're all professionals here.

We understand how these documents have to be treated. We will look at those documents, and if they verify what the Liberal government says and what Mr. Trudeau says about his financial relations with the Kielburger group, then we can move on, but if those documents contradict those statements, then I think this scandal will move into a whole different turf. I'm only raising that because I cannot understand this obstruction of a motion that had already been passed by committee in July and that we had support for.

The only thing that stopped us from getting those reports was the prorogation, the forced shutdown of Parliament by the Prime Minister when we began to get close to getting answers. I said at the last meeting, and I will repeat it again, that we are trying to work with the other parties to move to a new committee through which we can actually look at all the issues from finance, government operations and official languages to deal with this and to deal with the larger issues of the pandemic spending.

(1520) Those issues include, for example, David MacNaughton, a close insider friend of the Prime Minister who got an all-access pass, right up to the Deputy Prime Minister and General Vance's chief of staff, while promoting, I think, a very dubious company. He got it because he's an inside Liberal. We need to look at the issue of Mr. Rob Silver and the fact that I've had many, many calls from businesses in my region that are barely hanging on because the rent subsidy program was such a debacle, yet a company that was tied closely to the Prime Minister's inner circle was given the mandate.

Was that done right, or were there friends involved? We need answers. Canadians deserve answers because we are in the biggest medical and economic catastrophe in a century. We need to be able to show them that Parliament is focused on making sure that we're getting help out the door in a timely manner and that money is going to people who need it.

At the end of the day, I think the biggest scandal in this deal to help the Kielburger group was that the Prime Minister made a promise to university students—who are suffering massive levels of student debt and massive levels of insecurity—that there would be a billion dollars to help them. Not a dime of that money rolled out the door. As soon as the Kielburger group couldn't get the money, the Prime Minister walked away on the university students of Canada. He left them high and dry. That is the fundamental scandal. We need to report to Parliament. We need to get this report done.

I'm saying if it takes all night, if it takes all week, we will be here until the Liberals stop obstructing and stop interfering with the work of Parliament. Allow us to do our jobs as parliamentarians so we can get on with dealing with the many, many other issues facing Canadians. Our COVID numbers are spiking again. There's more economic insecurity. We see cities like Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto possibly being hit with more lockdown measures. We really need to get focused here, but to do that, we need to clear up the stench of corruption that's been raised around this scandal. We need to get answers.

We need to be able to say to the Canadian people that your parliamentarians went to get you answers and got answers, and this is what the answers tell us. Whatever those answers are, good or bad, we have an obligation to get them. That is why I'm calling on the Liberals to stop the obstruction. Stop the interference. Stop the game-playing. You have an obligation to Parliament, just as we have. Let's get this job done. This is the role of our committee. We will continue to push until we get these documents. I will now cede the floor, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Angus. Madam Shanahan, what is your point of order?

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

Yes, I'd just like to clarify the speaking list. Is it possible that it's actually in the order that we see on our participants list—the raised hands—or do you perhaps still need to tell us from time to time what the speaking order is?

The Chair :

You read my mind, Madam Shanahan. I was just about to do that. What I have in front of me right now is Mr. Barrett, Mr. Warkentin, Mr. Dong, Madame Gaudreau, Ms. Lattanzio, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Fergus. Now I'll move on to Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Chair. It's incredibly frustrating to find ourselves in the third day of a Liberal filibuster to stop the release of documents that deal with the corruption scandal involving Justin Trudeau . There's been a theme since 2015, and it's not openness by default; it's that every time Justin Trudeau needs to cover up his actions, he makes Liberal members pay the price. We saw that with all-night voting to block Daniel Jean from testifying. We saw that with all-night voting when the Liberals didn't want Jody Wilson-Raybould to be able to talk about the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Now we're back, and we see the Liberals filibustering to stop Canadians from getting answers in the Prime Minister's latest scandal. He's under investigation for a third time, twice having been found guilty of breaking ethics laws. Here we are debating a motion that was approved by this committee. The committee debated and voted on receiving these documents, and we were to receive them. However, the Prime Minister shut down Parliament. On that same day, he released illegally redacted documents and then blamed the parliamentary law clerk for having redacted them, which we now know was not true.

At the time, the Prime Minister said, “Well, we're proroguing, but there will be lots of time for questions.” It seems that was as disingenuous as a lot of things that we hear from the Prime Minister. Now, across multiple committees.... We had a shutdown of a committee at PROC. We had the finance committee shut down. It was suspended for a week, and it's being filibustered concurrently with this committee. At the immigration committee, the meeting was adjourned—while they were dealing with a motion on COVID, I might add. They adjourned the meeting. The same thing happened at the health committee.

We heard from the Prime Minister this week. He got very upset that the opposition would dare to exercise their constitutional obligation to hold the government to account and said that we need to talk about COVID. The only people stopping parliamentarians from talking about COVID are the Liberals. That's it. This could have been resolved in 10 minutes at the first meeting, and this is true of multiple meetings. That they filibustered the health committee is I think the supreme irony. It's the biggest tell that the Liberals have no interest in accountability.

They have no interest in actually doing for Canadians what they claim they want to do, because if they did, the hours we're pouring into these filibusters could be devoted to all kinds of other things. This was a choice made by them. Reading newspapers into the record, reading PCO memos into the record, reading the committee mandate and asking for the committee mandate in meeting after meeting does not get results for Canadians. That's being complicit in a cover-up into corruption in Justin Trudeau 's government and around his cabinet table.

I've heard from members of the committee that this isn't Main Street, that this is the Ottawa bubble, and this isn't what people want us to focus on. Well, I can tell you that folks of any political stripe don't like corruption and they don't like cover-ups, and that's what this is. The Ethics Commissioner is investigating the Prime Minister for breaking the law for a third time, but we have the ability, we have the power, to order these documents. This motion is in order; it is consistent with the mandate of this committee.

(1525) The individuals involved who are named in the motion are relevant to the matter at hand, and to try to skate around this and say it's some kind of a game that is just meant to delay getting results for Canadians.... We've shown as members and the official opposition and all opposition parties have shown that when the rubber hits the road, we're there. We're there to improve the programs that the government proposes and to pass them into law quickly when it is necessary to do so.

To say that is just a shield to try to protect against the scrutiny—the rightful and lawful scrutiny—of what has gone on with this government. When you talk about the pandemic and about measures to help Canadians, that's how this happened. That's how we got here. When given the opportunity to help students, when given the ability by parliamentarians, by Parliament, to create these programs and to help students, what did the government do? They found friends of the Liberal Party. They found insiders and tried to shovel some cash out the door to them. That's why we're here.

This is specifically about COVID, because instead of doing the right thing, the Liberals did what they always do, just as they did in Adscam. We saw it before under the guise of an altruistic purpose. They were helping out insiders and giving cash to their friends. While I'm sure we are going to be here for a very long time, that choice is one that's being made exclusively by the Liberals. For my part, I'm being consistent with exactly what we said we're going to do when the Prime Minister shut down Parliament, and that's to get these answers for Canadians.

It's surprising to me that the Liberals are taking it in such great stride across many committees with the coordinated cover-up efforts, and I'm certain that I'm going to hear I'm being partisan, that the Liberal members on the committee would never do such a thing and that this is about doing what's right. I have to say that if the shoe were on the other foot, I can guarantee you that Liberal members would be looking for accountability.

I guarantee you that if across the border members of the President's family received half a million dollars in payments and then the company that paid them was asked to administer an agreement worth half a billion dollars, we would hear a lot of commentary. Those same members would be saying that we're certainly not like that. They'd say we have moral superiority, and never would that happen here, but it is happening here. It's happening inside the Liberal cabinet room. Now it's spreading into the Liberal caucus room and into the committee rooms.

The power to stop it is with the people who are sitting in on this call right now. I will cede the floor, Mr. Chair, and let all of the members of the committee make their contributions. Then, I'm sure, we'll hear supplementary contributions and then tertiary contributions. We're here to get results for Canadians. Once this matter is disposed of, we can move on to other business, but the decision to travel this circular path is one that has been made by the Liberal members.

(1530) Like many people, I'm here in search of answers and accountability. We find ourselves here because of one person, and that person has twice been found guilty of breaking ethics laws and is under investigation for a third time. That person is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau . In the same way that he had members vote for hours and hours and days and days to stop accountability in the past, it seems that history is repeating itself. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Now we will go on to Mr. Warkentin.

(1535) Mr. Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think some history is important here, because it is important for Canadians to understand that this motion was passed. A decision by this committee was made to request these documents. There had been a considerable amount of discussion at that point and there was a considerable amount of filibustering by the Liberals to try to delay the release of those documents. In the end, the ethics committee voted to have these documents brought to committee.

It was just hours before those documents would have been available to committee members that the Prime Minister shut down Parliament, shutting down all investigations into the Prime Minister with regard to these documents and this scandal. The national media are now reporting that Liberal members, Liberal MPs, are afraid of what these documents will show. They have been quoted as saying that they are afraid of what's included in these documents.

As a matter of fact, I think it's telling that we have members of this committee who, I would say, are respected members of the Liberal Party and who would rather humiliate themselves than allow these documents to see the light of day. I think that says something about the severity of the contents of these documents. If these documents were going to exonerate the Prime Minister , I don't think there would be a single member of the Liberal Party who would be fighting to see that we would not have access to them.

I believe that if these documents were going to exonerate the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister would work day and night to ensure these documents would be released to the committee members, and I do not believe that any members of the Liberal Party who are members of this committee would humiliate themselves the way they are doing by going on for hours and hours and reading documents into the record. We all have access to those documents. This is simply a decision by those members to humiliate themselves rather than have these documents see the light of day.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used to say that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. Well, Mr. Chair, I believe that the spreading infection of Liberal corruption desperately needs the disinfectant of sunlight right now. I strongly believe that it is time for this committee to have access to these documents in the way that this committee has voted in the past to have these documents brought forward. I believe now more than ever that we need to see these documents so that we can put this matter to rest.

If in fact there is nothing to be seen in the documents, then Canadians will never see the contents of these documents, because regardless of what happens, these documents will be held in the clerk's office and will not be readily available to Canadians. They will simply be accessed by members of this committee to ensure that we can verify the evidence. Mr. Chair, I believe that how desperate the Liberals are to ensure that these documents do not come to committee demonstrates just how damning the evidence within them must be. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin. I said that I would remind the committee on occasion of what the speakers list is. Next will be Mr. Dong, and then we have Madam Gaudreau, Ms. Lattanzio, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Fergus and Ms. Shanahan. Now we have Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong (Don Valley North, Lib.) :

Good afternoon, colleagues, and thank you very much, Chair. I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving long weekend and relaxed a moment with their family. I have been listening carefully to all members of the committee, not just today but last week as well, and I want to clarify something. I heard the opposition members accusing the Liberals of playing political games, going back and forth. I think I remember Mr. Barrett saying last week that this is a tactic we use and that they have tactics too. For the record, I take my committee work very seriously.

I was elected by my constituents and I was sent to Ottawa to do a good job. You have my 100% commitment to at least try to do a good job. I'm not gaming or anything like that. I take my job quite seriously. We heard the opposition, both in this committee and also out there through press conferences over the weekend, trying to portray that we are delaying, but I think many good questions have been put forward on this side to Mr. Barrett, and they weren't answered. They tried to portray that the same motion was passed in July. What changed now, and why are we delaying on this?

For the record, let me just remind my good colleagues on this committee what the motion was back then, and the motion we are facing right now. The motion back in July was put in writing on July 13 from Mr. Barrett to the clerk:

That, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(3)(h), the Committee review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contribution and other expenditure policies; and that, to provide a case study for this review, an Order of the Committee do issue to Speakers’ Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau — including, in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it — provided that these records shall be provided to the Clerk of Committee within one week of the adoption of this Order.

What we are seeing today, or saw last week moved by Mr. Barrett, is somewhat different. It was much broader. That includes allowing staff members to access these documents. There was no mention of government operations, no mention of WE. They tried to tie these things together. If you want to compare apple to apple to make an argument, I get that, but in my view it's not apple to apple. In my view, an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner is ongoing right now. He's trying to do his best to find out the truth for Canadians.

I think for committee members to try to start a parallel investigation runs a risk of interfering with this investigation the commissioner is doing and potentially contaminating it, and that is not very helpful. I don't think we were elected to do that. Then we heard Ms. Shanahan's argument about how inappropriate it would be and how intrusive it is to investigate a member of Parliament's relative, and I wholeheartedly agree with her. I think many members of this committee would agree.

(1540) We put our name on the ballot and put ourselves under public scrutiny. Our relatives should not have to be ordered to open their finances and all these privacy matters for the public to judge. The lack of protection around these documents was another concern I brought forward last week. Again, it has not been addressed. I heard some comment was made that we'll make it accountable. If anyone believes measures of accountability will take place, I don't know what they are. As members of Parliament we are all sworn by an oath, but that's it. I don't think everyone has access to these documents.

In principle, having MPs investigating another MP's relative is wrong. First of all, I don't understand the changes since the last motion, and how these protections are being put in place to safeguard the privacy of individuals related to a member of Parliament. I also heard mention that a lot of events are taking place. There's an urgency to matters on hand. We talked about the risk of COVID-19 over the weekend. Ontario is still seeing high numbers, and I think it's the same for the rest of the country. We're seeing extremely high numbers regarding COVID and we ought to do our work to help that situation.

I would like to bring other things to the committee's attention as urgent matters that should take priority in the committee. The discussion of COVID-19 has resulted in a drastic rise in anti-Asian racism. That is of serious concern to me and my family, and I'm sure to all Canadians. I'm sure you've read on social media and seen reported numerous times on TV how Asian Canadians are being attacked and insulted.

I remember one very recent case of a supermarket staffer who was just doing his job by telling an individual who wasn't wearing a mask, a face covering, to put a mask on or, for the protection of their clients, he would have to leave the store. In that exchange, he was told to go home. He said he is a Canadian and this is his home, but it didn't matter. The attack continued. Luckily, the instigator was surrounded by a group of people with the right mindset, who insisted that he should follow the rules or leave the store. These stories are not new; there are hundreds of them around the GTA—

(1545) Mr. Charlie Angus :

I have a point of order.

Mr. Han Dong :

I think it's a very important issue—

Mr. Charlie Angus :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Mr. Dong, we need to address the point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

We are talking about the documents that were ordered by our committee that relate to the WE scandal. I would ask my colleague not to divert us. There are many disturbing stories about COVID-19 right now, but it's not the work of this committee at this time. If we're going to be here all night, we should be focused on the question of Liberal interference and whether or not they will agree to go to a vote. If we could just stick to relevance, it would make it a lot easier for the rest of us.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Angus. Go ahead, Mr. Dong, but please try to keep comments to the issue at hand.

Mr. Han Dong :

Thank you, Chair, and I thank the member for his interjection, but I am making a point. A lot of important stuff needs to be done, and unfortunately we're debating this motion. Otherwise I could have had this opportunity to talk about these important issues and try to convince my colleagues—

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Then end the filibuster.

Mr. Han Dong :

Chair, that was uncalled for.

The Chair :

Please keep your comments to the chair, colleagues. Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong :

Thank you. This is an important issue that must be addressed and discussed by this committee, in my view, as are the concerns about racism in Canada more generally. We have all seen this coming up, not just in the past few months but for years. Racialized citizens in this country understand that acts of racism happen in this country. For too many Canadians, systemic racism is a lived reality.

That is why I'm extremely proud of what the government has invested in the economic empowerment of racialized communities—including through the Black entrepreneurship program—while working to close the gaps for indigenous communities. The government also took important steps to address racism with the release of Canada's anti-racism strategy 2019-22. It's a three-year strategy involving the creation of an anti-racism secretariat and the appointment of the first-ever minister focused specifically on diversity and inclusion.

In the throne speech—which the Conservatives and the Bloc voted against, by the way—the government committed to redoubling its effort by taking action on online hate. We've seen lots of that over the weekend. A gentleman named Justin Tang got quite a bit of support on Twitter about his experience facing racism. He spoke up in protection of himself and all Asian Canadians. I applaud that.

Going further on economic empowerment for specific communities and increasing diversity on procurement, the government is building a whole-of-government federal approach around better collection of disaggregated data throughout the government. I don't know how many members realize that if you look at the data on the number of Asian Canadians currently in the senior levels of our public service at the federal level, you will be shocked to find there are very few—maybe just a handful or maybe none, actually. Canada is a country that embraces multiculturalism.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants come to this country, and tens of thousands of permanent residents become Canadian citizens, only to learn that Canada's own public service is not reflecting the diversity of its society. That is truly troubling. I hope this committee will make it a priority to study and provide recommendations through the House to the government to change this prolonged symptom in our society. We are also implementing an action plan to increase representation through hiring, through public appointments and through leadership development within the public service.

Also from the throne speech, the government will introduce legislation and make investments that take action to address—

(1550) Mr. Michael Barrett :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Chair, I'm wondering if there's going to be a call for relevance on this. We're just hearing the throne speech read into the record. It's not germane to the motion to detail every project that the government is undertaking during its mandate, unless it's speaking to corruption in the Liberal government and the repeated findings of guilt by the Ethics Commissioner for Justin Trudeau, specifically on the release of these documents—

Mr. Greg Fergus (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.) :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Let me deal with this one first, Mr. Fergus. I'll come back to you. Colleagues, I have made every effort to give you broad latitude, but it is important to try to stay on subject. That's what we're here to debate, whether we like to debate or not. Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Greg Fergus :

Mr. Chair, I appreciate what you just said, and I also appreciate the way you've been chairing the meeting since you assumed presidency of this committee. I find that you have been very fair-minded in allowing some flexibility for people to raise issues. I think my colleague has been raising important issues that we should be focused on. I pay particular attention to the issue of the whole notion of combatting racism. I think it's important for us to have the ability to talk about this.

The constant interruption to talking about this issue—I know it's not the intent of my honourable colleagues—reminds me of the microaggressions that a lot of Canadians of colour face. I don't hear other members being interrupted, so I know that is not the intention. That is far from it. I've worked with these members for a long time, and they're honourable people. But I would ask that they exercise a bit more politeness and allow my honourable colleague from Toronto to continue with his comments.

(1555) Mr. Michael Barrett :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. In response to the member's comments, my call for relevance has to do with the immateriality of the topic to the motion. Discussing racism and measures by the government to combat racism is, indeed, very important, and it is the purview of Parliament and parliamentarians. So on that, we certainly agree. However, the matter at hand is not that issue. We are talking about the release of documents related to the WE scandal and corruption in the Prime Minister 's Office.

I would relish the opportunity to hear from the member opposite, at a time when it is appropriate, to discuss government action to combat racism, but at this time, that is not germane to the matter at hand.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fergus and Mr. Barrett. Please go ahead now, Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong :

Thank you, Chair. I was again listening carefully to what my colleague had to say. As I said, many questions have been raised last week and this week about the motion, and I have not heard a clear answer to those questions. It is important for me to talk about anti-racism at every opportunity I get, not just here at committee, but on social media or in front of a mike. Every chance I get, I will talk about that. Unfortunately, we are going back and forth debating a motion that clearly is a fishing expedition. The opposition has cast a broad net, much broader than the motion they moved back in July.

I just don't understand what has changed in the last few months for them to think that investigating an MP's relative is appropriate. It doesn't matter what the subject is; they just want to see all the records, going back to 2008, I think, and want access to these documents. Those questions have been answered. It doesn't matter what.... Opposition members are saying how simple it is. I don't think we should take it too lightly. We had the Prime Minister and chief of staff testifying for hours before the finance committee. There were a lot of truthful testimonies already given to the public.

This shows the willingness of the government to present its argument, to present the facts to opposition members as well as to the public. As to the whole notion of us trying to hide something, or why we are we not supporting this motion that was supported back in July, I don't think that's true. Until my concerns and my questions are answered, I will continue to take every opportunity to raise issues that are important to me, my constituents, Canadians and future Canadians.

I will continue to talk about how important it is and why the committee is not looking into the matter of anti-Asian racism happening during COVID. This is a big problem. I applaud the government for what it announced in the throne speech. I remember that the Conservative Party dismissed it and decided to vote against it right away, without even taking the time to investigate and consider the content and extensiveness of the throne speech.

I take this opportunity to share something I picked out from the throne speech that might be of interest to all members of this committee: “Move forward on enhanced civilian oversight of our law enforcement agencies”, “Modernize training for police and law enforcement”, “Move forward on RCMP reforms” and “accelerate work to co-develop a legislative framework for First Nations policing as an essential service.” These actions are not just reserved for the throne speech and the floor of the House of Commons. In fact, there was a motion adopted in the last Parliament, put forward by Mr.

Angus, to study facial recognition technology in Canada and its use. The motion adopted by the committee read:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), the committee study the use or possible use of facial recognition technology by various levels of government in Canada, law enforcement agencies, private corporations and individuals; that the committee investigate how this technology will impact the privacy, security and safety of children, seniors and vulnerable populations; that the committee examine the impact of facial recognition technology on racialized communities; and that the study include how this technology may be used nefariously, such as a tool for criminal harassment or for other unlawful surveillance purposes....

I think it's a very good motion. I would support it right away. We are in a very unique situation with COVID, where a lot of people are required to wear masks. It presents a very unique situation for us to understand other important aspects of this technology. This is very important work. In many ways, the pandemic has been a good thing to reduce the uptake of facial recognition technology. Now that everyone is wearing masks, these companies have not been able to move their technology forward. Speaking of wearing masks, I remember a story my wife told me at the beginning of COVID. I was outraged after hearing it.

She was supposed to meet up with a friend. Her friend was taking a ride on the red rocket, which, as you know, is what we call the subway here in Toronto. She was wearing a mask. At that time, there were a lot of negative views toward people wearing masks, at the start of COVID. She was called the B-word, and it was very offensive. She was shocked and hurt; worse, nobody stood up for her. She just moved to the other end of the car. She told my wife, who shared it with me, and I shared it with my colleagues in the caucus.

I applaud the Prime Minister , Minister Ng and many of my colleagues who spoke up on that point, and on any incidents where Asian Canadians wearing masks became targets of hate and racial attacks. It's not getting any better. We've seen hundreds, if not thousands of incidents throughout COVID where Asian Canadians are getting attacked. Some of their families have been here for generations. They're Canadians. We heard from the Prime Minister that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We all need to stand together in the face of COVID, and also in the face of these exposures of racism happening in our society.

I mentioned earlier Justin Tang's recent experience. He was in Ottawa, at the Rideau Centre, and someone not wearing a mask held the door open for him and his friend. He walked by and was told that it was his fault that we're in a COVID situation. There was a death threat following the comment. That is completely unacceptable.

(1600) That's why I am taking every opportunity to raise these issues. I hope this will change the minds of my colleagues and we'll study these important issues and provide some recommendations to the government through the House, so we can change these things. We can at least slow the pace, because these incidents are happening so often and they are not slowing down. In addition to the work of the House—

(1605) [ Translation ]

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ) :

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Madame Gaudreau, go ahead with your point of order.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau :

With all due respect, I would very much appreciate getting back to the original subject, as you suggested, Mr. Chair. The notice of this meeting dealt specifically with the motion. I would therefore urge all members to follow the instruction. Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau. As I mentioned before, relevance is key and to broaden it too much means that the efficacy of our debate would be diminished, so thank you for that point of order. Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong :

Thank you, Chair. To me, it's quite important. I understand where my colleagues are coming from in questioning why I am speaking of anti-racism, but as I said, I'll use every platform possible to talk about racism. In my mind, our committee is a very powerful committee. We can call witnesses and examine evidence and provide recommendations, so I think we should use our power to do the right thing. I don't believe that the fact that the opposition members are trying to rush to a vote without addressing my concerns about the changes to the scope of the motion....

We should be talking about something important, and if they choose to talk about the privacy of other members' relatives, I choose to talk about anti-racism. That's why I think, in my mind, it's quite relevant. But just to—

Mr. Charlie Angus :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

I think the issue of anti-racism is so important, but I've been very concerned that my Liberal colleagues seem to be using it to insinuate that members of this committee don't share that concern. The issue is that if the member wants to talk about anti-racism, if he has a bill or a motion to bring, we will discuss it. Rather than this continuation of what I think Mr. Fergus referred to as microaggressions that are being used against us when we're just trying to get answers, I would ask the member that if he wants to talk about anti-racism then he can vote on this motion and we can get to work.

All of us have taken a week out of our lives to listen to the Liberals talk about anything at all other than the fact that documents were requested by this committee and the access to those documents is being interfered with. If the member has something relevant to talk about on any other subject, he can bring a motion. It may get ruled out of order but he has a right to do that. I'm asking him not to play games, not to throw these heavily loaded insinuations at my colleagues, whose work I respect, and I respect his work.

If he wants to talk about something, then just let's bring this to a vote so we can get this thing done.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Angus. Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong :

Thank you, Chair. As I said, I take this very seriously. There is no game being played here. The concerns are that the questions are not being answered. If you want, I will point to something on the record. Back in 2003, an investigation was done by this committee, when Mr. Chris Warkentin said:

It's unfortunate, Mr. Chair, that my colleague has undertaken to bring this forward now, simply because we do have important witnesses we should be hearing from. I do apologize on behalf of this side of the table for dismissing our previous witnesses much earlier. Obviously, they have important subject material that didn't get covered because of the choice of Mr. Andrews not to wait until committee business later on in the meeting.

Having said that, this is before committee now, and we'll have to undertake to review this.

You know, Mr. Chair, the Ethics Commissioner is currently reviewing the circumstances and the submission that has been brought forward. We also know that the Senate ethics commissioner is reviewing this. We also know that the Prime Minister has answered the questions in regard to this, and has said he knew nothing of it. I can go on and on. I can read more if you want me to. It's just to prove a point that the accusation coming from the opposition members, especially from the Conservative members, that we are trying to stall this unveiling of documents or secrets, that we are trying to cover it up....

Just a few years ago, they were making the same argument, that a parallel investigation is taking place and there is no need for the committee to do the investigation. I wasn't there, but many members were. You will remember this; you debated it at this very committee. What's the difference? Why are you taking such a different position now and arguing that there is a need for a parallel investigation? It's pretty relevant to what we are talking about today. That's another question. I see Mr. Barrett is super happy about this, and I look forward to hearing his answer.

That's another question I put forward with regard to this motion. I was elected by constituents to ask questions. I won't vote blindly. I need to be convinced that there is a need for a parallel investigation, and I need to be convinced that you will not run the risk of contaminating the current investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. Again, there is an investigation happening right now. Also, why take away all the safeguards of the privacy of these documents and broaden access as to who may see these documents?

I think there are legitimate concerns, and I have not heard in the last week, including today, how they are being looked after. With that, I'll pause my speech and I look forward to contributing at a later opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1610) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Dong. Now we'll move on to Madame Gaudreau.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau :

Mr. Chair, my dear colleagues, good afternoon. After almost two hours already of long speeches packed with information, it is now my turn to raise a few points. We started out saying that we would try to maintain trust, that we did not want to go too far, that we wanted to do things right, and that we were in a democratic environment. Actually, I have a question for you to ponder: really, what is going on here? A group like ours has three functions. The first function relates to the topic. I have held my tongue on this matter, and I thank my colleagues for raising points of order.

When we hold a meeting, it's very important that we stay on topic, that is, that we complete the task at hand. I respectfully submit to you that, as representatives of our fellow constituents, we owe it to ourselves to maintain trust. However, I hope not too many people are watching us right now, as I told you last time, because this is no way to maintain their trust. Next, we have a process, and it's also very important that we follow it. Everyone legitimately has the right to speak. Some decisions made in the past were good, while others need to change. Finally, the atmosphere.

We first met only a few months ago. By the way, I cannot wait to see my new colleagues in person and in the flesh. Back then, you could sense a palpable desire to improve the lives of our constituents or to solve their problems. Today I see my colleagues on the screen working with their heads down, and that says a lot. I am no longer hearing stories or seeing smiles. At the end of the day, we have an objective and a role to play, and that is to improve living conditions for our constituents. We are parliamentarians and we are trustworthy.

The first time, I told myself that I had just arrived here and I would figure out how things work. I agree that we have a culture and it cannot be broken down. However, remember what was said in all the speeches: they spoke of how rapidly technology has advanced and how quickly we, as human beings, need to adapt to it. So, what I have to say today is directly related to the motion. Why are we moving in opposite directions? When someone says one thing, someone else says they have done that themselves before, and they are not obstructing. It's true, we can blame the pandemic for a lot of things.

We can come up with a bunch of reasons why. The fact remains that we have a job to do. I have said it before: we set an example, but we must be accountable. However, there are different levels of accountability. If we make a mistake once, we correct it and learn from it. If we do it twice, we begin to wonder what we might have done differently. When we do it a third time, we have to question our vigilance. Are we acting like professionals, to use a word that I have heard here? We all know what we must do.

What we need to determine today, now that we have established certain facts, is what should we have done and what did we fail to do. We need to get to the bottom of it; it's our responsibility to do so.

(1615) So I am appealing to your conscience. My dear colleagues, we are on an ethics committee, where we need to reflect on how we behave and live our lives, on what is good, what is bad, what is right. At the moment, I see several things that are not right. For example, we have taken all this time to finally say that we really have to vote. I feel as though it is 4:29 p.m. and I haven't had the chance to speak. I feel we have all had plenty of time for debate, and we are realizing that we are already in another place. We know the matters we must deal with. Several motions have already been moved.

We know what our constituents need, not only as a result of the pandemic, but also because of the changes in our society. I would really like us to challenge ourselves to be watchdogs for what feels morally right. In theory, when we want to hide things, we can do that in various ways. Mr. Chair, I am not passing judgment on this; I have noticed a change in behaviour and language used on this committee. People may say it's because we are in a hybrid meeting; they may remind us that we work very well together in person. In any event, it saddens me. We are capable of doing better and getting it done.

However, it's a minute to midnight in all respects. I agree, Mr. Chair, people would still like to speak to us. I am one of the first to take as little time as possible and try to be as constructive as possible. That is my conscience speaking. I am not saying you don't have one, but I am trying to state facts that might help us work better together. We have matters to attend to now, but I feel we are showing people that our committee doesn't have much to do. Based on what has been said at the last few meetings, you certainly see no urgency.

According to my constituents and some journalists, we are doing ourselves no credit at all. They do not know whether they can trust us, their elected officials. They believe that, with our actions, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. So it is time to walk the walk. At the very least, we need to listen to our conscience, if only because we are a committee on ethics. I, too, could speak for 45 minutes, for an hour and a quarter. However, I am stopping after four minutes, and I encourage all my colleagues to be concise when they exercise their right to speak. Our community will be the better for it.

We are ready to vote. We must maintain democracy. Democracy is about speaking out. People elected us. We are who we are, with the government we have. So let us get on with it. I am ready to vote, Mr. Chair. I know there are still some hands up, and I would like my colleagues to speak briefly. I can raise my hand too, and I want you to know that I will always be available.

(1620) [ English ]

Mr. Charlie Angus :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

I listened very closely and I thank my colleague for being very relevant after the last hour, which felt like a time in the wilderness. When she said she's ready to vote, is she calling for the vote, because I think that would be a good opportunity for us to test the floor? I'm certainly willing to vote after what we've been through, so I'm asking her if she's ready to call the vote.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Hear, hear!

Mr. Han Dong :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I see that we have a pretty extensive list of speakers who have raised their hands already to chime in. I just want to point that out. Also, I take this opportunity to correct the record that, when I read the evidence from Monday, May 27, of what Mr. Warkentin said, I meant 2013, not 2003.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Sorry, I have a point of order, Chair.

Mr. Han Dong :

I just want to correct my record.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Dong. Mr. Angus, go ahead.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Yes. I think my colleagues need to show some respect. The question was whether Madame Gaudreau was calling the question. I'm not interested in whether the Liberals want to hear the question; I want to hear Madame Gaudreau. She's a member of our committee and she has a right to say if she's ready to vote. I wanted to hear from her. The Liberals can vote against her if they want, but they shouldn't be interrupting her ability to answer a question.

(1625) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Angus. Just to be clear, I want to go to Madame Gaudreau because you've addressed your.... To be clear, colleagues, there's really no action that can be taken to call a vote. However, I think any member can address the chair and ask the chair to canvas the membership if they're willing to go to a vote, and in this case, as Mr. Dong pointed out, there are other members who are on the speakers list. They can certainly surrender their position on the speakers list and be willing to go to a vote. That's just to be clear as to how that process would work. Madame Gaudreau, do you have a comment in regards to Mr. Angus's intervention?

[ Translation ]

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau :

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. I was saying that we have an allotted time for this meeting, which should end in the next few minutes. We know very well that we can deliberate as long as we want. Earlier, I respectfully said that it would be nice to hear what all members have to say. However, some have taken up an enormous amount of time, leaving less room for others. Having said that, we have a process, a topic and an atmosphere to maintain. Mr. Chair, I appeal to everyone to move to a vote.

[ English ]

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there is still a speakers list, and I'd like you to name the speakers on that list.

The Chair :

Presently we have Madame Lattanzio, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Housefather, you and Mr. Warkentin. As I mentioned before, colleagues, anybody can ask if there is a willingness in the room to vote, so you should give me some indication if there's a willingness in the room to go to a vote. I see lots of shaking heads. That would indicate to me that there's no willingness to go to a vote now. I will move to Madame Lattanzio.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I listened to my colleague's comments very attentively and I want to come back very swiftly on Madame Gaudreau's intervention. [ Translation ] I agree with my colleague that we have a process to follow. The process requires us to formulate our opinions and have a solid grasp on what we are talking about. I am a new member of this committee, but I think I speak for most of us when I say that it's essential—

[ English ]

The Chair :

Ms. Lattanzio, just one moment, please. Clerk, Ms. Lattanzio's audio is louder than the translation, so it's almost impossible to hear the translation because of the audio and the way it's tuned. Is there somebody in IT who can handle that?

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Miriam Burke) :

I'll get somebody to look into that.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau :

Mr. Chair—

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm sorry to interrupt.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Do you want me to wait until it gets fixed, or how shall we proceed?

The Chair :

I think you can proceed. Madame Gaudreau, did you have a point of order?

[ Translation ]

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau :

It is not a point of order. I would just like to point out that sometimes, when you use the function that switches from French to English, things can go haywire.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you for that input. Ms. Lattanzio, do you have your

interpretation channel on French?

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

I do.

The Chair :

Please continue, and the technical crew will do what they can.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Okay, I'm just going to say a few more words in French, and then I'll switch back to English. [ Translation ] So I was saying that I'm a new member of this committee. I know that it has had discussions and made decisions about this before. Clearly, it's only fair that this newly formed committee be given the opportunity to address issues like this. In addition, I believe the motion has been amended since the summer. It's therefore only fair that all members of this committee have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the new information and documents and to study them so that they can make sound decisions, let us put it that way. I—

(1630) [ English ]

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

On a point of order, Chair, I hate to interrupt my colleague but I feel that the

interpretation is having trouble because of the speed at which she's speaking.

The Chair :

Thank you for your intervention, Mrs. Shanahan. Ms. Lattanzio, if you keep your cadence just a little bit slower, that would be better.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

I'm going to start speaking English. As I was saying—and this was my intervention last week—as a new member on this committee, I understand that discussions were had and information and documents were shared in the previous committee. But I think it is incumbent upon this committee, which has been reconstituted, that the members have all of the information and all possibilities to be able to gain all of the necessary information and documents, so that the motions before us be disposed of with the information we have today.

That said, I also understand—and that's what I understood last week—that the motion presented by my colleague Barrett differs from the one that had been presented in the course of the summer. Though I understand that the majority of it is the same, but for the reasons that are being discussed here in this committee, I think we owe it to ourselves to be able to look very carefully at this motion that has changed. I'd like to focus on two things: one, the nature of the motion itself; and two—and I'm going to stick to the motion—elements that derive from this motion.

I'd like to point out the following, and I'm going to read again the motion that was submitted by my colleague Barrett:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), an order...[for] the Committee do issue...Speakers’ Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau— including, in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it— which had been originally ordered to be produced on July 22, 2020, by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, provided that these documents shall be provided to the Clerk of the Committee within 24 hours of the adoption of this motion; and...the documents be reviewed in camera.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak on two very important elements. Why are we going back to October 14, 2008? As a new member of this committee, I have no idea why October 14, 2008 is a chosen target date. We are talking about going back 12 years. As well, why are we making it so general as to name the company, organization, person or entity booking it? I have colleagues Barrett and Angus, who have, time and time again, said—

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

I'm sorry. Let me finish and then I'll let you—

(1635) The Chair :

There's a point of order. Hang on for a second, Madame Lattanzio. Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Mr. Chair, for the information of members of the committee, my first name is Michael, so if they want to address me by my first name, it's Michael, not just Barrett. It's a bit unconventional to call me by my last name with no prefix or suffix. We haven't had a chance to get to know each other, Ms. Lattanzio, so that's generally how I'll address you. If you want to abbreviate it, Michael is just fine with me.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Go ahead, Madame Lattanzio.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Okay, MP Barrett, Michael. Both colleagues, MPs Angus and Michael, have stated time and time again that the basis of this motion is the release of documents of the WE scandal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing in this motion that pertains to the WE organization. It's very broad and general in its scope. Basically, all I can conclude from this is that it's purely a fishing expedition into any company, organization or person. The scope of this motion is way too large.

One, again, the question of the date; two, the scope of the motion; and three, of course, the individuals who are specifically named within the motion.... One can only question.... If we are to go back to October 14, 2008, we have had many, both past and present, sitting members who have had exchanges with companies, organizations and persons or entities booking events. Why were they excluded? Really, I don't understand why we would include the mother and the brother of the Prime Minister.

I'm going to go back to the Conflict of Interest Act, because I know that MP Angus made a point with regard to who was included and who was not after my colleague Shanahan read out the act. I'd like us to look at it again, because MP Angus made a very interesting remark in saying that colleague Shanahan had read only one part of the act. If we go to the act, we have

definitions as to who it includes. The following

definitions are in this act: the commissioner, the common-law partner, common-law partnership, dependent child, former reporting public office holder—we can go back to former office holders—gift or other advantage, ministerial staff, private interest, public officer holder, public sector entity, public service, reporting public officer holder, spouse and family members.

If we go to the definition of dependent child, again, we're talking about “a child of a public office holder, or a child of the public office holder's spouse or common-law partner, who has not reached the age of 18 years or who has reached that age but is primarily dependent on the public office holder or public office holder's spouse or common-law partner for financial support”—also known as enfant à charge .

When we go down to the definition of family members and relatives, we read, under family members, that “The following are the members of a public office holder's family for the purposes of this Act: his or her spouse or common-law partner; and his or her dependent children and the dependent children of his or her spouse or common-law partner.” Subsection 3, in regard to relatives, states that “Persons who are related to a public office holder by birth, marriage, common-law partnership, adoption or affinity are the public office holder's relatives for the purposes of this Act unless the Commissioner”.

Here we're talking about the Ethics Commissioner, who “determines, either generally or in relation to a particular public office holder, that it is not necessary for the purposes of this Act that a person or a class of persons be considered a relative of a public office holder.”

(1640) That said, we are asking this committee to determine that the mother and the brother of the Prime Minister be considered relatives when the Ethics Commissioner has the power to do that. He can decide which class of....

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Sorry, just to clarify, I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

I have heard many things from my Liberal colleagues. Are they telling us that the definition of the Prime Minister's mother can only be done by the Ethics Commissioner, that she would not be so clearly understood under the Conflict of Interest Act as a relative, as someone related by birth? If the Liberals are having to go down that road, I think there must be something in those documents they are desperate to avoid our getting if they are trying tell us and tell the Canadian people that only the Ethics Commissioner could figure out something as complex as the Prime Minister's family.

The Prime Minister has has a mother and a brother, and they were paid half a million dollars, but the Liberals are saying that we can't call them “relatives” until the Ethics Commissioner has ruled on that. If they are going down that road, then there's got to be something juicy in those documents.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Angus. That's not a point of order.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

It wasn't?

The Chair :

Go ahead, Madame Lattanzio.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I find it almost appalling how our colleagues are using terms like filibustering and saying that we are going in a certain direction, and making all kinds of innuendos and casting aspersions about our wanting to do our work and to try to understand the matters are on hand. All I'm saying to colleague Angus is that there are

definitions within this act. I think we owe it to ourselves to be able to look at these

definitions in light of the nature of the motion. Do we really have the authority to be able to accept this motion as is? Therefore, Mr. Chair, I'm going to turn to you and ask you to render a judgment call based on the interventions that were made. We have yet to get answers to the questions raised by most of our colleagues since last Thursday. Colleagues around this table have been quick to call this filibustering and to use sound bites. I get that, but, Mr. Chair, I think the time has come for me to ask you to consider if this motion before us, for all the questions that my colleagues and I have raised up until now, is receivable.

The Chair :

Thank you, Madame Lattanzio. If you're asking the chair to judge whether the motion is in order, it absolutely is. Whether we like the wording or not is another story. That's why we've continued to debate it for hours. I take it that you are ceding the floor. Is that correct, Ms. Lattanzio?

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

I have one final comment. Based on what Ms. Shanahan and I have read in the act, how are we to control the actions of the mother or brother of a sitting MP? How far do we go, if it is within the purview of this committee? Many interesting and, I think, valid questions have been raised since last week. We have yet to get answers to these questions. Yet we have colleagues who say nothing but “let's vote”. They say it doesn't matter if we have questions; it doesn't matter if we have concerns. We've just got to get to a vote here, they say.

They say they've got other business to take care of and that if we want them to deal with other matters, we've got to get this thing done. Well, I'm sorry. I think we are parliamentarians. We have a job to do. As Madame Gaudreau said, we have very important work to do, especially on this committee. I think we need to get all the answers and information that we've requested before we make a decision. I'm ready to cede the floor.

(1645) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Madame Lattanzio. Just to refresh everybody's memory, and because there are some additions as well, the next speakers are Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Housefather, Mrs. Shanahan, and Mr. Warkentin. We're now at 4:45. We've been in debate for two hours and 15 minutes, so we'll suspend now for about seven and a half minutes. How is that, folks?

A voice: Can we make it 10 minutes, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Sure, 10 minutes. It's 4:46, so we'll resume at 4:56.

(1645) (1655) The Chair :

Thank you very much, Clerk. Colleagues, I think I've demonstrated my style of chairing enough now that you realize that my main concern, as I mentioned when I introduced myself, is that everyone has a right to speak. That's very important. You're representing constituents, and you've all made an oath to Her Majesty to do that, and do that effectively. I did want to point out two things that I think go to the reputation of our committee, and also the way that we can operate in a very effective and collegial way. The first is that I'm fully fine with your pointing out the actions of your colleagues.

I think that to point out the actions and the consequences of those actions is quite permissible, but just be careful not to impugn the motives of your colleagues, unless you have a great ability beyond mine to actually read the minds of individuals. That will also ensure that we can work together in the future. This is only one motion and we want to make sure that we have a collegial representation of each other, as it's never fair to assume what the motives of someone are when they make their comments. Also, I want to mention another thing that I think is important for our reputation as a committee.

I've chaired the veterans affairs committee in the past, as well as the industry committee, and been the vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. On several occasions, and certainly with veterans affairs in regard to PTSD and the sensitivity around that and a number of people who came to testify in confidence, as well at the subcommittee on human rights where people testified against very evil regimes at risk of their own lives, the testimony was guarded by the clerk of those committees. I never recall a leak endangering anyone.

I just want to be clear that if there's a procedure, whether it's a result of this motion or any other, where we have to protect the information of individuals, the clerk and I will do that with the utmost of integrity and utmost care to make sure that those people are not endangered in any way, either to their reputation or from some other harm. That said, let me go over the speakers list once more. Up next are Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Housefather, Madam Shanahan, Mr. Warkentin, and Mr. Dong. Now we will go to Mr. Sorbara.

(1700) Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and for those wise words. We were all elected to represent a number of residents in our ridings, all 338 of us. If we consider all the colleagues here and those not in this meeting, we have the right not to be questioning the reasons for wanting to do things other than to represent the interests of our residents, and to ask questions from all sides of the House. That's what governing is about, and that's what being a member of Parliament is about. Before I begin, I want to highlight one thing.

It's not relevant to the actual study, but I would encourage all MPs to go online to the Royal Canadian Legion and spend a few dollars to get these wonderful masks to wear in their community. They're $10 each. I ordered 10 of them, and they just arrived, literally yesterday, and I wear them with much pride. We're going to be having virtual Remembrance Day ceremonies—and I'll stop in a second and move on to the actual motion, Chair—but it's one way of showing a lot of respect for our veterans by ordering these masks, supporting our Legions, and wearing them for the next few weeks.

I'm going to give some away to some residents. Onto the motion at hand today, there was much excitement. I got to sit on the public accounts committee this morning with Mr. Green, so again, Matthew, it's nice to see you here today. You're doing a great job of representing the wonderful hard-working residents of one of the Hamilton ridings where I have many friends. I was thinking about the motion at hand today. I looked directly not at the wording of the motion, and not the intent, but the mentioning of someone's family. We are all in politics, and we all have loved ones who support us.

That's the reason we're allowed to do this wonderful job. I don't think I could be here without the support of my wife, my children, and many friends and relatives. I also don't enjoy the fact of having to drag people in, in the sense that they have nothing to do with the matter. They're not in elected office, they're not political office-holders, or anything to that extent. When I see someone's mother or someone's brother brought into the discussion, it does concern me in many ways, because it raises a number of questions for me regarding privacy. I'm not a lawyer.

If the story were that my mother—who worked her entire life, raised three boys—were in this sort of situation, I wouldn't be very happy with this motion. I'm not going to question the intent of the motion. Mr. Barrett. You're a member of Parliament and you have your job to do. I am looking at it from my view and saying, “Bringing someone's mother in, I just don't like it.” I'm going to be frank. That's my opinion. You don't have to agree with it, and you probably won't, but personally, I really don't like it. When I speak to my residents, I speak to the job I'm doing as an MP, first and foremost.

We were elected to represent all the residents of all of our ridings, so whether they voted for us or not, whether they supported us or not, we listen to them, we answer their questions, and we help them out. That's our job. We try to make this country better than it is, and it's a pretty great place to be. We're blessed to have been born here. It's like we won the lottery. When I see this motion, it concerns me. It concerns me not only from the point of view of privacy, but also of smearing, if I can use that word. Maybe that word is too strong for some, but it concerns me from that point of view.

When I speak to my residents and say, “What happens if I were going after your mom and your brother, as a response of the government, and they had nothing to do with the program?”, that raises a lot of questions. I've heard that feedback, and it gets to my gut. After six or seven months of COVID, I've probably eaten too many pastries, but it really gets to the point of asking, “Where are we going as a committee, but where are we going as parliamentarians?”

(1705) When I think back, in my humble view, looking at this motion and understanding where it originated from, for me COVID really hit home in the month of March. We have a lot of friends and family back in our home country. My parents...I'm a Canadian of Italian heritage. COVID hit really, really hard in certain parts of Europe. For me, COVID hit really hard around the March period because we were going to do a spring break vacation and it got cancelled. We stopped it, of course. Then our government had to respond with a number of programs.

The program, which this motion doesn't even reference but wants documents pertaining to it in a round-about way, is one of those responses where we actually, as a government, asked a lot of questions. Because this has been a unique and extraordinary period of time in our country's history and in the world's history, we had to, as a government, listen, consult and respond. Some of our responses were improved after consulting and listening more. That's what a government should do. That's what people elected us to do: they elected us to respond and to listen, too.

I ask myself, as a member of this Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, or if I'm a citizen out there listening, what has the government done? It's done the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the regional relief and recovery fund and the Canada emergency business account. And I'm glad to see the unanimous support in the House for the extension of a number of programs that are helping Canadians today, as we speak, whose lives were impacted, are being impacted and continue to be impacted by COVID-19. That's a fact. We know it.

We can debate this motion, whether I like it or Mr. Barrett likes it, or I don't like points of it, but right now we know Canadians at home are being impacted, and continue to be impacted by COVID-19. This motion is in response to a program that we put forth, which we then, when we looked at it, said, “No, there's a number of questions that came out from the intention of the program”, so we continued with the Canada emergency student benefit, which I believe over 703,000 students benefited from. This motion with regard to these documents naming the individuals here concerned me.

If it were my family, my brother and my mom, from a privacy point of view it would concern me. On a really straight gut point of view, I wouldn't be happy, and I'm not happy. I'm not happy that we have to sit here and debate such a motion, which, in full frankness, is for me, Chair, if I can use the term, a fishing expedition. For me, that does not in any way assist any of those individuals in my riding and across this country from coast to coast to coast who continue to be impacted by COVID-19, and it does not deal with the issues of privacy at all.

In fact, I spent some time reading the commissioners' annual report, described by the news release as, “Pandemic raises privacy concerns highlighting urgency of law reform. Public health crisis has pushed daily activities online, underscoring critical need for change”. I tie that privacy to the commissioner's annual report back into this motion, where we will dig into, potentially—and I hope not, for many reasons—people's privacy, unelected individuals' privacy. It's nothing more than what I call a fishing expedition.

When I see the response from March, and I see our government's introduction of so many programs, so many initiatives, with help, I will more than gladly admit and say that a number of opposition members have contacted me, have contacted ministers, have spoken out publicly, and said, “How do we strengthen things? How do we improve things?”

(1710) And that's what Canadians expect. They expect us to work for the betterment of themselves and their families. They expect us to work for the betterment of Canadians who have been impacted. They expect us to work together, and we've seen that at all levels of government. Here in Ontario, between the provincial government and the federal government, on a regional basis and in our cities, everybody's working together. You know what? We have to step back and do what's in the best interest.... Yes, Mr. Barrett and other opposition members, yes, we must always hold government to account.

We must always ask tough questions. That is the job of opposition members, and frankly, it's the job of any member of Parliament, but when it comes to the privacy of Canadians, when it comes to looking at a motion that speaks to someone's mother and someone's brother, there's something wrong with that. There's something that strikes me as being very.... It just doesn't sit well. I had the pleasure of listening to Margaret Trudeau when she came to the city of Vaughan to give a speech to the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce in front of a thousand people.

It was a women's event, and she spoke about mental health and her experience and life. There were a thousand people in that room glued, listening to this individual share her life experience. You could hear a pin drop in that room. So I ask myself, for this individual, this mother, this grandmother, why are we undertaking a fishing expedition? For me, it doesn't sit well. The motion in no way sits well. I do not support the motion. I don't support the motion, not only because I'm a Liberal MP. I don't support the motion because it doesn't sit well with my values.

With regard to protecting Canadians' privacy, in 2016 there was a study done called “Protecting the Privacy of Canadians: Review of the Privacy Act”. I think this is relevant to this committee and to the motion at hand. I'll just read some of it into the record:

The Privacy Commissioner recommends creating a legal obligation for government institutions to safeguard personal information.... In his initial appearance before the Committee, Commissioner Therrien said, “In the digital world, it is infinitely easier to collect, store, analyze, and share huge amounts of personal information, making it far more challenging to safeguard all of that data and raising new risks for privacy.” Regarding the safeguarding of information, he noted that “[c]urrently, that is the subject of government policy, not legal obligations per se.”

In a brief submitted to the Committee, BC FIPA said:

We agree with the Commissioner that administrative direction from the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) is not sufficient, and that the Privacy Act should be brought in line with other legislation (including the BC’s FIPPA [Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act] and PIPEDA) by expressly including this requirement. There should not be a lower standard of protection in the public sector than the standard the federal government has imposed on the private sector through PIPEDA.

In its brief, the Privacy and Access Law

Section of the CBA also agreed with the need for including safeguards in the legislation

—and here I reiterate the word “safeguards” because we don't want fishing expeditions, and that is what so concerns me about the motion—

pointing out that while the TBS and other government institutions have created policies on safeguarding information “[t]hose efforts have been inadequate to signal to public servants and the public the serious risk of loss, theft or misuse of personal information in digital form.” The brief also noted, “A feature common to many other Canadian privacy laws, both public sector and private sector, is to require the organization to create reasonable safeguards to protect personal information including administrative, technical and physical safeguards.”

(1715) Mr. Israel of the CIPPIC and Ms. McPhail of the CCLA both endorsed the idea of creating a legal obligation to safeguard personal information. In her testimony, Ms. Austin pointed out that, “there are serious Charter issues in not safeguarding that information properly that the courts are starting to really pay attention to.”

Some witnesses discussed the need for sanctions when there are violations of the Act. Mr. Fraser said, “Many more modern privacy laws … have an offence provision that if an individual or even an institution, unlawfully and usually with knowledge, is in violation of the statute, they can be charged under that.” Mr. Gogolek of BC FIPA said, “There should be a broader scope and a broader availability of sanctions, including damages, under the Privacy Act.”

We know individuals' privacy in the modern age is of paramount concern to us. I'm a new member of the ethics committee. I've read Mr. Barrett's motion several times, or Michael, if he likes to be referred to that way. I understand what he's asking about—I don't agree, like I said—but I am very, very respectful of someone's privacy, especially a non-political office-holder's privacy, especially during a time when the government came out with a number of programs. We have to remember that there were no funds administered or distributed under the proposed program.

Students were assisted through COVID-19 through the Canada emergency student benefit. They were assisted with an increase in the Canada summer jobs program, and I know that's something that Mr. Barrett and his party called for. We actually boosted, we listened and we consulted. That's what a government is in power to do. We didn't just say “no”, we didn't bury our heads in the sand; we listened, and that's what we continue to do. When I was reading through this brief, I was able to glean and pick up:

One of the safeguarding measures that was suggested is to require that data be stored in Canada. This is referred to as domestic data storage or data localization. Mr. Gogolek testified, in British Columbia our public sector act has a domestic data storage requirement, something that does not exist at the federal level. Again, this requirement was recently supported by the committee reviewing our Act earlier this year, and also by the Government of British Columbia. We would commend this to you as something you may want to look at....

Other witnesses had reservations about this approach. In referring to the concerns about storing information in the United States, which has a different approach to the privacy of information, Ms. Austin said, Data localization is one response to that dynamic. I think it's an unrealistic response to think that this is a solution in the long term. Another response…is to negotiate a bilateral agreement with allies like the U.S. to say that when Canadian data is in the United States, you protect us to the same extent that you protect your own citizens.

Mr. Chair, I know I veered a little bit away from the motion. I'm going to tie it back in, because I understand the point and principle of relevance.

Mr. Fraser said that the location of data is only one of many factors to be considered. He said there needs to be “nuanced risk analysis” and referred to the TBS policy, which is, if any government department is going to make any decision about the location of data in connection with outsourcing…location is going to be a factor, but there are other things as well. Who is going to be the service provider? Who are they beholden to? What national ties do they have?

Similarly, Assistant Commissioner Oliver of the RCMP also called for a risk-based approach to safeguarding information....

That is why I believe, when I read the motion.... I think at one point, regarding who has access to the material, whether it's in camera or out of camera, we as MPs know that information in today's world is very powerful because it can be used in many different ways, and it could be torqued in many different ways and it could be leaked. The idea, the opportunity or the chance of someone's family being impinged—if that's the correct word, and I know there are many lawyers in here who will correct me on that—scares me. I think about this motion, and it does scare me.

I go back to that basic rule of life: Why are you going after someone's mum? Why are you going after someone's brother? I fundamentally disagree with that.

(1720) Is it right to ask questions of sitting office-holders, of sitting politicians or public servants? Yes, absolutely, ask as many as you want. In fact, one member of Parliament, during a committee I was able to sit on, when the power went out, assumed the title of chair when the chair was unable to log back in due to climatic effects in P.E.I. We understand that. We understand it is our job to ask tough questions, and tough questions were put to the Prime Minister and to Ms. Telford, and they were answered. To be frank, we as MPs need to bring in policies at this time.

I know that MP Green has brought forth a number of policies that he's championing. Some I agree with; some I probably don't agree with, but at least I give him full credit for doing that. Mr. Barrett, you have your right to bring forth motions and ideas. I would love to see ideas that help us to get through COVID-19 more, that improve the situation, that get people back working faster. If they're tough questions, they're tough questions, and we have a responsibility to answer them.

The ministers around the cabinet who have the privilege of being ministers of the Crown have the responsibility to answer those questions, to be frank, to be straight up, to put their cards on the table and say, this is where it is, this is what we're doing, this is how we're going to get to a better place. And I welcome those tough questions. I don't shy away from them and I wouldn't shy away from them. One of the recommendations in this report that I was able to read on privacy and why it's so principal and central to the motion at hand, and why I so adamantly oppose the motion, is recommendation 7:

The Committee agrees with the commissioner's recommendation on creating a legal obligation for government institutions to safeguard personal information and therefore recommends:

....That the Privacy Act be amended to create an explicit requirement for institutions to safeguard personal information with appropriate physical, organizational and technological measures commensurate with the level of sensitivity of the data.

Recommendation 8, which balances it out, states:

That, the Privacy Act be amended to set out clear consequences for failing to safeguard personal information.

This

part is particularly relevant to the motion before this committee, I believe. Why? It is because what we are debating here in this motion affects Canadians in a very profound manner. We are talking about a family. We are talking about a brother and mother who are non-political office-holders, who have given their time to many charities across this country to assist and to educate. Within that spirit, I have a significant issue with it. When I think about the breaches of privacy or the breaches of personal information, I think of this:

The Privacy Commissioner recommends requiring government institutions to report material privacy breaches to the OPC and, where appropriate, to notify affected individuals....

I would personally love to hear from the Privacy Commissioner on what he thinks about this motion, about what it touches and what it doesn't touch. Are my concerns real, or can they be alleviated? Are we really undertaking a fishing expedition, which I think we are, or are we not? I do not believe, in my good heart, that I'd be supporting a motion that will not answer any more questions, or raise any questions, but basically delves into the private lives of two individuals who are not the Prime Minister of Canada and his wife. It just doesn't give me good feelings.

I've been a member of Parliament for six years and I've participated in political life. My first election was in 1988 and I did not enter into this realm to vote for a motion that delves into the lives of someone's mother or brother.

(1725) I know when I speak to my residents, because I have spoken to some of them about this, they're in alignment. They're totally in alignment. Therefore, I caution the opposition, I really do, in saying that the focus of Canadians is not this motion. The focus of Canadians is not going into the privacy of Margaret Trudeau or Alexandre. That's not their shtick, if I can use that term. I think as a committee we need to be very judicious, very diligent in our studies. We need to understand what Canadians are thinking about.

We as a committee should be very judicious in what motions we undertake to study, and which motions we don't. I look at the need for privacy protection, and I share MP Sweet's.... I know you've been a member of Parliament for many years and have done a phenomenal job representing the residents in your riding. We all want to do the same thing and we all want to reach certain levels of building that profile and that brand.

I say to you, sir, and to all our committee members that we all need to look at this commissioner's annual report on privacy, and we need to think about what we do as a committee and where we spend our time. The motion at hand does not move us forward. The motion at hand does not answer or, if I can use the term, meet head-on the issues that are impacting Canadians. The motion at hand delves into privacy, and I'm going to go back to that. I'll go back to it a thousand times in the next 24 hours if I need to.

The motion at hand goes back and delves into the privacy of individuals where I fundamentally believe we have no right to go to. Again, it just strikes me as completely wrong. You want to ask tough questions, ask the tough questions. Over the summer we had a number of sittings of the House of Commons. We had a number of sittings of the finance committee, which I was able to serve on and help out. Now here we're back in Parliament. We'll be back sitting next week. Again you'll have a number of chances to ask questions. This motion frankly is not [ Inaudible—Editor ].

I look at the commissioner's message from looking at the Privacy Act and the privacy of Canadians. I want to read this because it's so important to understand what we're up against in today's world...even for the fact that the committee and MP Barrett have put forward this motion to seek to look at documents that pertain to the privacy of Canadians who are non-elected office-holders, who do not benefit from a program that was introduced by the federal government. I question that. I will read the commissioner's message for the well-being of the committee:

The need for federal privacy laws better suited to protecting Canadians in the digital age has been a common thread in our annual reports to Parliament for many years. Last year in this space, I noted how major investigations into Statistics Canada, Facebook and Equifax had all revealed serious weaknesses within the current legislation.

This year, the COVID-19 pandemic makes the significant gaps in our legislative framework all the more striking.

When I read that third sentence of the commissioner's message, I think about this motion, because if it weren't for COVID-19 we would not have needed all of these programs to be put in place to keep our economy afloat, for that 20% of the economy that was shut down, to help millions of Canadians out, to attempt to put in place programs to assist not only seniors, not only disabled Canadians, but to assist students as well.

(1730) One of the avenues that we investigated as a government was to look at the WE organization and to see if we could go down that route, which we pulled back on after doing our due diligence and asking those tough questions. We put in place the Canada emergency student benefit to help those students who were impacted, who had those summer jobs lined up that were no longer there. We know, fundamentally, that when there is a recession, for whatever cause.... And this was a shock to our economy. It wasn't a failure of the market. We needed to put in place programs, and that's where we got to this motion.

I would love to sit on a committee where we can go through all the programs we put in place and ask tough questions, because I know those programs help millions of Canadians, including thousands in my riding, whether they are businesses, students or seniors, and now, at the end of the month, disabled Canadians. I know we worked a lot with the opposition. I know we all worked together to ensure that no one was left behind, and no is being left behind. That's why there was a unanimous vote in the House of Commons, but by golly, am I going to oppose a motion that goes after someone's mum and brother?

It strikes me as wrong. I know the folks sitting outside in the morning having coffee—socially distanced, of course, and wearing masks—in the area that I represent; I know what you are doing. You're going after someone's mum, after their brother. You're spending time doing that. We have businesses to run. We have kids to keep in school. We have personal protection, making sure that's being delivered everywhere. We have to make sure we get Canadians to get that flu shot. And you're spending time doing what?” At my core, I don't like it. I've always represented my constituents; I'm in my sixth year now.

I'm a very frank MP, as m