Information & Ethics Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Fisher, go ahead on the motion.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Yes, on the motion, it's been about a week now that Mr. Barrett has been fishing. Yesterday, the Conservatives disrupted the HUMA committee while they were doing main estimates arguably to get their glorious social media clips and attack the reputation of the minister, but they got the facts wrong about this news story. They were corrected numerous times during the meeting yesterday.

First they claimed that he was in violation of section 4 of the Conflict of Interest Act. As the minister pointed out, in the Global News story itself the Ethics Commissioner's office confirmed that he met all of the requirements of the code. They claimed that the minister inappropriately awarded funds to a company, but as he pointed out, these grants went to the Edmonton International Airport. These grants were awarded by departments that didn't report to the Minister of Transportation and Prairies Canada. They incorrectly stated that the company, Navis Group, received millions in contracts when, in fact, those funds went to the Edmonton International Airport, which is, by the way, the fifth-largest airport in the country.

Mr. Barrett incorrectly stated that the minister was the owner of a company when that wasn't the case. That was pointed out to him. He scrambled and incorrectly said that the minister had an interest in that company. Again, Mr. Chair, I believe this is a fishing expedition by the opposition and by Mr. Barrett specifically. I can only assume that they've read the articles and they know that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner cleared the minister in this.

I find it a little bit ironic and kind of appropriate that during the study of misinformation and disinformation, we're having a conversation about things that are clearly misinformation and disinformation. Again, it's all for the glorious social media clip.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor on the motion.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We regularly have before us the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, whom we trust. I find that the motion as proposed somewhat disapproves in advance the future work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which has not yet been done.

I would like to move an amendment further to Mr. Barrett's motion. The amendment, as proposed, reads as follows: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and in light of recent media reports, the committee…”. That is what is already there. I move that we delete everything else and replace it with this: “call Minister Randy Boissonnault to attend a one-hour meeting, as well as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Konrad von Finckenstein, for one hour as well”.

I believe that such meeting will be enough to get answers to Mr. Barrett's questions. That way, it will not obstruct the committee's work, and we will avoid involving the Minister for no reason in our discussion on disinformation. In a way, the Commissioner will be able to tell us whether he has already started an investigation or he will eventually do so. I do not want the committee to do the Commissioner's work for him and undermine his authority. Nevertheless, it is important that we get satisfactory answers to the question asked.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

In terms of your amendment, Mr. Villemure, I just want to make sure that you are proposing that we call the Minister and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to appear before the committee for one hour each. Is that correct?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

That is correct. I move that we call each to testify for one hour before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. The amendment is in order.

Do you want to speak to your amendment?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I will summarize it by saying that I do not want the committee to undermine the Commissioner's authority.

This case deserves to be studied, but we must not exaggerate its importance. It is in the public's interest that we clarify this, since it was reported in newspapers.

On the other hand, I do not think that it is the end of the world. I therefore propose a one-hour meeting with Mr. Boissonnault and one hour with the Commissioner. I think that should be enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Green, you have the floor on the amendment, sir.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I've had the opportunity to interact with the commissioner enough to know probably what his answers are going to be. I don't think we're going to get much if there's an ongoing investigation. What I would propose—not to muddy this—is that I would like to see the spirit of the original motion reflected with the witness list.

I would like to open this up for discussion prior to moving a subamendment. I do believe that having Kirsten Poon and Stephen Anderson present would be helpful.

Mr. Chair, I would just ask you this question: What is the likelihood of our having the resources for a three-hour meeting? I don't think they should be with the commissioner. I think the commissioner should be stand-alone for a lot of reasons. I do think that they should be included, and I don't want them excluded. Having a professional politician and minister, Mr. Boissonnault, here for an hour and then having a professional bureaucrat and commissioner, Mr. von Finckenstein, here for an hour.... I'm not sure we're going to get much light.

I'm wondering what the resources are and what the possibility is of our having a third hour added to that. I'll just say this now: Given the choice between the commissioner and the new witnesses, I would take the new witnesses if we only have two hours. If we have three, then sure, we can invite the commissioner. I can already assure you of what he's going to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green, as I mentioned at the outset, I have asked for some deviation requests. We could.... Preferably in the afternoons is when that could happen. If that's the direction, then I could ask the clerk to possibly extend by another hour the normal two-hour session. We can do that.

I see the clerk is trying to get my attention, so just hang on a second here.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think we might have a resolution.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would propose a subamendment that eliminates the commissioner and puts the witnesses on. I would say that would leave us space, should we have additional questions for the commissioner, so that we can invite the commissioner at a later date. We've had him here numerous times on various topics, and he is very consistent with his answers.

I would propose a subamendment. I put on the floor that we defer the commissioner and in the first opportunity have the minister and the two witnesses.

Now, what I would say to the committee—and open it up for discussion—is that some people might think it's better to have the minister first and the other people second. I actually think it would be better to have the other witnesses first and the minister second, but I'll leave that up to the committee. That would be my subamendment: to defer the commissioner and to include the witnesses as listed in the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The problem with the subamendment is that it's kind of counter to what Mr. Villemure's amendment was. Just so we're all clear on this, what you're saying is eliminate the commissioner but have the other witnesses as proposed by Mr. Barrett and then, as a matter of organization for the clerk and I, have the minister appear after the witnesses who have been proposed by Mr. Barrett. Is that correct?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, we're all clear on what Mr. Green is proposing. I see some hands, so I just wanted to clarify that with Mr. Green.

I think I had Ms. Damoff first, Mr. Housefather and then Ms. Khalid, and then I have Mr. Villemure. Mr. Villemure was before Ms. Khalid, so go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I worry that on this committee, we do the work that the Ethics Commissioner is supposed to do.

I understand what Mr. Green is saying about knowing what the Ethics Commissioner is going to say, because they don't answer questions about an investigation that's going on. They can provide context on the act itself, but I still worry that there's an assumption from Mr. Barrett of guilt here when the report, even in the news media, said that the the minister met the requirements of the code.

It concerns me when we're superseding anything that the Ethics Commissioner does and saying, “Well, we know better than the Ethics Commissioner does, so we need to do our own investigation.” I'm not saying that we shouldn't do meetings on this, but I don't think it's helpful to get these additional witnesses here.

I'm also concerned about the presumption of guilt here without the Ethics Commissioner being able to do an investigation. An option would be for this committee to refer it to the Ethics Commissioner and ask them to do it.

I'll leave it there, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Next we have Mr. Housefather on the subamendment.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't like to get into procedural stuff, but just procedurally on this subamendment, I think that Mr. Villemure would have to withdraw his amendment and let Mr. Green put an amendment, because the subamendment counters the purpose of the amendment, and it's certainly not receivable in that way. I don't want to be overly picky, but I think you have to do it the other way.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I recognized that point earlier, Mr. Housefather. I'm going to continue with the discussion on the basis of what I stated earlier.

Mr. Villemure, go ahead, please.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I have nothing to add, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I want to seek a little bit of clarity. I don't have the text of the subamendment in front of me, and I'm wondering if we can—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The text of the subamendment is to have the minister appear and have the witnesses who Mr. Barrett had proposed for one meeting. That's one hour for the minister and one hour for the witnesses.