WE scandal kicked over to ethics committee (again)
Invoices for paid speeches at centre of probe
OT TAWA • After weeks of debates, filibustering and two failed motions, a parliamentary committee may finally be able to study the invoices for paid speeches that Justin Trudeau and his wife did for WE Charity as part of a new study on the WE scandal and a slew of other potential Liberal conflicts of interest.
It’s taken roughly 20 hours of debate since Parliament returned from prorogation in late September, but the federal ethics committee may actually manage to relaunch the study of the WE scandal.
Monday, NDP MP Charlie Angus brought forward a motion to the committee to continue its review of “the safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest in federal government expenditures.”
The study would focus on the highly controversial and now- defunct $ 543.5- million deal between the Trudeau government and WE Charity to administer a student volunteer grant program. The committee was already engaged in a similar study before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prorogued parliament in August.
The motion also ensures the committee will study:
The dealings between Rob Silver, husband to the prime minister’s chief of staff, his employer and cabinet. In August, Vice and National Post reported that Silver had pressured the government to make changes to its pandemic wage subsidy program so that his employer would be eligible. The government’s handling of a $237 million ventilator contract that involves Baylis Medical Company, owned by former Liberal MP Frank Baylis. The government’s relationship with controversial data mining giant Palantir Canada and its president, David Macnaughton. He is Canada’s former ambassador to the U. S. and a close contact of Trudeau’s. How the Trudeau Liberals may have used partisan resources during the allegedly non- partisan federal judge appointment process, thus possibly violating nominees’ privacy rights. As it stood, the motion seemed to have the support of all three opposition parties, a necessary condition to it passing a vote.
But the Liberals quickly took offence to part of the motion, proposing an amendment that removed both the study into Rob Silver and the judge nomination process from the text.
To many observers’ surprise, that amendment quickly passed when Angus voted with the Liberals to gut nearly half of the studies contained in his motion.
“I had significant concerns about, so I’m very happy to see that removed,” noted Liberal MP Francesco Sorbara after that vote.
Then, as part of the WE scandal study, Bloc Québécois MP Marie-hélène Gaudreau proposed a new amendment that would have the committee order a copy of all WE Charity speaking contracts involving Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his wife.
This was the third time some members of the committee tried to order the documents, and the second time that day that Gaudreau was trying her luck.
Late last week, a motion entirely dedicated to obtaining those invoices was defeated by one vote when another Bloc MP, Julie Vignola, voted against the initiative … by mistake.
The other opposition parties were surprised by the outcome, but none were as furious as the NDP’S Angus, who accused the Bloc of having voted against the motion because they had a backroom deal with the Liberals.
The Bloc refuted that allegation, arguing that technical and translation issues were the cause of Vignola’s misunderstanding all the while desperately trying to
have the vote cancelled.
Monday, the chair of the ethics committee, Conservative MP David Sweet, denied the Bloc a re- vote because it would set a “bad precedent”.
But he did allow the Bloc to submit a similar-but-slightly-different motion, which was surprisingly defeated five votes to four by the Liberals because Angus decided to abstain from voting.
Angus offered no explanation as to why he likely knowingly allowed the motion to be defeated by the Liberals.
But he then voted in support of the Bloc’s proposal to add the study of the speaking invoices to his motion.
Many Liberal expressed their displeasure after Gaudreau’s amendment to include the Trudeau’s WE Charity speaking invoices was added to Angus’ motion.
“I think we had a consensus around the table. So to bring back again something that we had already decided on … just does not make sense to me,” MP Patricia Lattanzio said.
Gaudreau was quick to respond that all of this debate would have been avoided had the Bloc simply been allowed to review its mistaken vote.
“You’re right, we’re turning in circles right now,” Gaudreau said. “We are an ethics committee that is tasked with studying conflict of interest and lobbying laws. When some stretch out their speaking time, try to hide things, say something or another isn’t good, and question what we’re trying to study, then it really makes you wonder ‘ what are they trying to hide’?,” the MP asked her Liberal colleagues at the end of the meeting.
“I am really disappointed in you,” she concluded as the meeting came to an end.
The debate on the amended motion will continue on Tuesday.
you’re right, we’re turning in circles right now.