Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 5 of 5
View Charlie Angus Profile
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank my honourable colleague for mentioning me.
That was a good, timely reminder of past incidents, so I will just say two things: It is definitely within the purview of our committee to investigate ethical breaches within public office holders, but to my colleague's statement, it is also a very important obligation within our committee that we handle these matters in a manner that is respectful and that is not dragging other people in. When Mr. Andrews, a former Liberal, was going after Dean Del Mastro, I thought, every single day that he was here, that we had to have a proper process, and that is very important because we are not a kangaroo court here.
On the issue of the Trudeau family being involved, we have to be careful, because Madam Sophie Grégoire Trudeau has done a lot of really very impressive things. I have no interest in bringing her in any way into this story. Margaret Trudeau has inspired many people with her incredible work as a public spokesperson. I think it is a very terrible situation that we are even having to discuss Margaret Trudeau.
Why this issue matters is that it is about WE and the relationship to the Trudeau government. I was very surprised to learn that WE began to hire members of the Trudeau family after Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister, and then we learned that other key people, for example, Jully Black, an incredible public figure, was not paid and Theo Fleury wasn't paid. It raises the question of whether or not there was an attempt to buy political influence. That, to me, is the issue before us.
If the Liberals are concerned about how we have documents on members of the Trudeau family, I share that concern. I don't know that we are here to go after Justin's brother, who is a filmmaker. If he is a spokesperson for WE and he got paid by them, he probably thought they were paying him because of his incredible skills as a filmmaker. That may be why he signed up. Our issue is whether or not there was an attempt to buy the influence of the government, because the financial interests of the Trudeau family and WE have become very convoluted and very connected. That's what we need to clarify.
We know that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has launched this investigation because of those convoluted ties. As well as those convoluted ties, we learn more and more about Bill Morneau's ties with WE, so that is of interest. I have no interest in what Bill Morneau's children do at WE and whether they are paid or whatever. It is the issue of recusal and the issue of buying influence that are the focus we have to deal with. That is separate from the finance committee and it is separate from government operations. It is about the obligations of public office holders. It is about the obligations that we established when our committee first began to review the Conflict of Interest Act and when we are called upon to review it, and it is the same with the Lobbying Act. It is to make sure that it applies to everyone in a manner that is fair. That is the role of our committee.
When we had the first finding of guilt for the Prime Minister, we would have expected that measures would be put in place in the Prime Minister's Office to protect the Prime Minister and prevent conflict of interest from happening a second time. That didn't happen. The SNC-Lavalin case was very shocking because it cost the Prime Minister his chief of staff, Gerry Butts, and it cost the Clerk of the Privy Council, something that has never happened before. The Clerk of the Privy Council is someone we all look to as the independent, non-partisan voice of the civil service, advising the Prime Minister to make sure he follows the rules, and that didn't happen.
When we end up in a situation in the middle of a pandemic, in which $900 million is awarded to a group that has deep ties to the Trudeau family, the obvious question is why that did not raise flags in the Prime Minister's Office. Again, I will not support in any way bringing Trudeau family members before our committee, because that's not the issue, but we need to hear from Katie Telford, chief of staff, about why it is that there were no checks and balances. This is not difficult stuff to figure out about the obligation to recuse. Why did Bill Morneau not recuse himself? Not only does his family have direct financial ties; Bill Morneau has been very involved with WE as well.
Then we learned from finance—again, finance is a separate committee—that there was a proposal circulating before the Prime Minister made his announcement that set the stage for WE getting this contract, and that the proposal was within the Prime Minister's Office, apparently with PCO, and it was in the Department of Finance with Bill Morneau. Again, we go back to not just the refusal to recuse but to whether or not WE was given the inside track on a massive program that was supposed to be doled out in a pandemic to help university students. If that was the case, then that was severe interference in the workings of government. Major questions have to be asked.
We as a committee are looking at that. Our obligation as the ethics committee is to make sure we have the appropriate checks and balances, as my colleague says. Obviously, the appropriate checks and balances were not in place because this scandal should never have happened. It should never have happened in a pandemic, during extreme economic uncertainty, that a decision would be made to award money so easily to people who are so connected to the Prime Minister's family, where there were clear financial interests going back and forth.
That is an embarrassment to all of us. I think it is also an insult to the work that all of us did across party lines when we were asked at the beginning of the pandemic to reach out to every organization in our region to identify placements where we could hire young people through Canada summer jobs. So much work was done. Across party lines, we stepped up. The civil service stepped up. We identified them. In my region, we would have had hundreds of placements. We had all the medical students in northern Ontario. We were identifying placements for them. We were identifying farm organizations that wanted to hire the agriculture students coming home. We had law firms calling us because of what they were being told, with Liberal MPs saying it was going to come through Canada summer jobs. All of that got sidelined. Suddenly this proposal came through, this proposal that was announced by the Prime Minister just after WE began circulating their proposal, which was, I admit, different, but it was very similar in terms of what it was to be.
Our focus here is not what happened in terms of the other contracts. Our interest here is whether or not political influence was attempted to be bought through the hiring of people close to the Prime Minister and whether the Prime Minister's and finance minister's refusal to recuse themselves put them in a conflict of interest and put a decision at risk that has now been a huge embarrassment. I say this across party lines, that in the middle of a pandemic I've been very proud of the work we've done. I've been proud of being able to stand up for government programs that we'd worked on and helped change and improve. Whether it was small business or whether it was CERB, the emergency $2,000 a month, I could say to people in my riding that across party lines we were working together.
I cannot justify this $900-million deal that may not even be legal, paying students well below minimum wage. The more we learned about it, the more we learned that WE did not have the capacity to do it. I cannot stand idly by as a committee member when questions are being raised about the financial links with the family. If the Liberals want to put forward a motion about how we discuss this, so that we are not bringing in the Trudeau family and embarrassing them for the work they do on the sidelines....
The Prime Minister should have known that, because of those financial links, this would put him in a conflict. This is the Prime Minister's responsibility. I would like to see the Liberals say to us, “Okay, here's a deal. We will bring the Prime Minister to this committee and he will speak as to why he didn't think it was a problem that his family was being paid and that he was awarding this out.”
It's the Prime Minister's responsibility that I'm interested in. It's Bill Morneau's responsibility that I'm interested in. It's Katie Telford, as chief of staff, who should have been looking after our Prime Minister and putting some kind of big ethical mitts around him so that he didn't keep putting his finger in the conflict of interest socket. That's what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in our committee being used to go after the individual members of the Trudeau family. I agree that we can put in limits on how that's done, and we can talk about that, but I would like the Liberals to tell us that they are going to have the Prime Minister sit here and explain why he put his family in that position.
View Charlie Angus Profile
Thank you.
It's been fascinating. I think I'm at the 21st century, but I'm not sure because I keep losing my place with his....
I think the issue of ethics is really important. Could he explain to us, if the ethics committee is so important to the Liberals, why they shut down the Ethics Commissioner from coming to give his last report on the Trudeau findings of guilt? If they believe we're supposed to work with the Ethics Commissioner, how come they continue to interfere with the work of our committee to find out the recommendations of the Ethics Commissioner every time Justin Trudeau's found guilty?
That would be very helpful, but maybe he's not at the 21st century yet.
View Charlie Angus Profile
Thank you, Madame Chair.
I don't know whether I've said it yet today, but thank you for doing such an excellent job of keeping everybody on their respective sides without our going into the middle and breaking parliamentary procedure. Thank you so much.
It's been a fascinating day. Certainly we learned a lot about Madame Brière's long history at her college or university. We learned about ancient Athens and we went through the medieval era, so if you'll indulge me, I'll quote scripture from the book of Luke.
You didn't know I was an altar boy, did you? Well, I was. In the book of Luke, it says that what is done in the darkness will be shouted from the rooftops and what is whispered in the backrooms will be shown to all. I think this is what happens when we end up with corruption scandals and conflict of interest. It's embarrassing for the government.
I don't go back as far as Athens, but in my time in Parliament I've seen a lot of the tawdry, backslapping, rum bottle politics on the Rideau, which was famous for all the tawdry deals. I came in just after Jean Chrétien spent a couple of billion dollars on golf balls. I remember Brian Mulroney getting money in a brown paper bag and explaining that to Canadians. There was Bruce Carson. I've seen that one, and Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright. The work of this committee has been sometimes very raucous and very confrontational, but it is this committee that tries to establish some review of the ethical behaviours of parliamentarians.
We are not a technical committee. We are a political committee, as my good friend Mr. Scarpaleggia said. It falls to us to sometimes bring these issues into the public light.
I have been quoted extensively, so I feel as if I might have a life here beyond my limited career. If other people do quote me in perpetuity, it might speak to how long I've been on this committee.
The issue of the integrity of documents is something I've spoken of before. I've raised it when we've had Liberals in power and Conservatives in power, and we do need to establish precedence. I think that's really important.
I think what makes this issue difficult is that we had the WE charity state publicly that no money was paid to the Trudeaus, and that was false. The question of trusting them on this is very.... It raises questions now that have to be answered. What were those financial relations? The refusal of the Prime Minister and Mr. Morneau to recuse themselves has raised ethical questions that must be answered.
When we had two other findings of guilt against the Prime Minister, we tried to have the Ethics Commissioner report to our committee, but we were blocked by the government, so how do we make recommendations about how things should be done if the government refuses to let the Ethics Commissioner speak to our committee so that we can present to Parliament a report that would suggest changes?
If we had done that on the previous two findings of guilt, Mr. Trudeau might not be in the situation he is now, because maybe there would have been some measures put in place.
Madame Brière was great in talking about how we have these standards. Well, we have standards, but if those in power refuse to respect them, we have a problem. This is why the Prime Minister is under his third investigation.
We could talk all night. I've been in many long filibusters, but I have a conflict of interest with my own family members. I should put it out in case someone finds out. I am trying to move one of my daughters this weekend. That's a conflict of interest for me, because I'm a lot more afraid of my wife than I am of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and I have to help move my daughter, so I'm trying to bring us together.
I've heard the Liberals say again and again that they think it's inappropriate that the financial records of the Trudeau family be brought before our committee, and they keep mentioning the Ethics Commissioner. I certainly heard my Conservative colleagues suggest that they want to hear Justin Trudeau speak, because it's Justin Trudeau who put his family in this situation. It was his choice, and it was WE's choice to start paying the Trudeau family after he became Prime Minister that put them within a very fair discussion about political influence.
I would offer a friendly amendment that we, the New Democrats, would support this committee calling for the financial records to be obtained from WE and transferred to the Ethics Commissioner so that we're not turning this into a family circus, but we want those documents turned over.
If the Liberals supported that, then that would back up everything they've said for the last three hours, excluding all the stuff they said about medieval kings and princes, ancient Athens and all the other stuff. However, the gist of what they kept saying was to trust the Ethics Commissioner.
We would put that forward in a friendly amendment. We could say that we'd call on Justin Trudeau to explain his role in this and the decisions he made. The Liberals have said, again and again, that it's not fair to draw on the family members, that it's the office-holder, so if the public office holder, Mr. Trudeau, agrees to come here, we would agree to transfer the financial documents of the Trudeau family and the WE corporation to the Ethics Commissioner so that he gets to decide what's going to be released or not be released and we get to hear from the public office holder.
I would make that a friendly amendment if my colleagues are interested. Then we could vote on this, and then we could go home, and I could go move my daughter and not be in serious conflict with my family.
Other than that, I'm willing to stay.
View Peter Julian Profile
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I listened very carefully to your ruling yesterday. It applied to yesterday's sitting, but not today's. As you know, it wasn't conditional. The fact that the Bloc Québécois whip is trying to alter your ruling, which was quite clear, doesn't seem right to me.
Chapter 13 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by Marc Bosc and André Gagnon, states that the Speaker has the authority to name the member, that is, to address the member by name, and to order his or her withdrawal from the chamber for the remainder of the sitting day. That's what you did.
I'd like to move on to question period.
View Carol Hughes Profile
I want to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that using specific descriptions of members, even indirectly, is not really acceptable. I just wanted to mention that.
The honourable member for South Surrey—White Rock.
Results: 1 - 5 of 5

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data