Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 29th, 2011

[Mary Dawson]

Thank you.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Del Mastro, are you taking the rest?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It's interesting. Mr. Mayes brings a great point. The NDP member has mentioned a number of vexatious complaints that they've brought. It's funny. In the last Parliament I certainly remember media releases being done before the letters to you had even been written. In this case I'd just point out that I did write this in July and received a response in August, indicating that you were requesting further information and clarification from Ms. Turmel and the NDP on this complaint, but didn't bring any of this publicly until such time. I agree with you entirely that there should be a determination as to whether a complaint is legitimate or whether it's simply vexatious, prior to taking it to the media.

One of the things that really bothers me about this complaint—and I understand that you're not going to comment directly on the case. As far as folks at work in supporting me and volunteers who come out, I have members of the CAW who are on my election team. I have members of the UFCW who are on my election team. I have members of PSAC and I have members of CUPE—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

If you could quickly wrap up, please....

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

—who come out and help me, but none of them would have donated towards this convention directly. They've indirectly donated, and they didn't do so willingly. On top of that, of course, their unions were offering severely reduced prices to get to Vancouver, or substantially reduced prices to get to Vancouver, to stay at the convention and take part in that convention. They were people who have supported me for years who were actually paying for that out of their union dues. I think there's something really wrong with that. The NDP should come clean and tell everyone exactly what went on, the amount of collusion that occurred, and who was behind it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

That concludes our question and answer period.

Ms. Dawson, Mr. Maertens, and Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, I want to thank you very much for your attendance here this morning. I'm sure we all have a much better understanding of the challenges you face. There are quite a few of them. We appreciate your being here.

I also want to say thank you to the committee members. I know that theatrics are important to some of our members, but they have actually conducted themselves very well this morning, and I appreciate that and the respect they've shown you.

[Mary Dawson]

Thank you very much to everyone.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

We'll suspend for five minutes, please.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I'll call the meeting back to order and we will enter into committee business.

The item we have on the agenda is a notice of motion from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, would you care to read the motion for the record?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm proud to bring forward this motion:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information Privacy and Ethics undertake a study of the use of the G8 Legacy Fund for political purposes to determine if the Conflict of Interest Act was violated in its disbursement, if the actions of the Minister were ethical, and to review the fund in relation to the Federal Accountability Act and Accountable Government – A guide for Ministers and Ministers of State, 2011.

I'm bringing this motion to the ethics committee because of a few key elements, which have not been properly addressed by parliamentary review, of the massive spending that went into the G-8. Clearly there have been many, many unanswered questions, and it's been frustrating, I think, for the public and parliamentarians that we have the minister at the heart of it who has not answered any questions on his role.

This has come to the ethics committee because when the Office of the Auditor General did their report and said they were unable to find any paper trail or any bureaucrats who knew exactly how the money was disbursed, the Auditor General wasn't aware about the meetings that Minister Clement had set up, especially the key meeting in the middle of the election of September 2008. In the middle of the election, he set up a subcommittee--a private committee, a parallel process--that the Auditor General was unaware of. At that time Mr. Clement made it known that he would be bringing forward the funding and they would start to figure out how to spend that funding.

There was no fund to spend. Parliament had not made any recommendations about spending. It was certainly very inappropriate for the member to have a meeting in the middle of an election--a secret meeting with senior bureaucrats, with mayors, and to offer their involvement in this fund that had yet to be created by Parliament.

We do know that Parliament was asked to disburse funds. But they were not asked to disburse funds for the benefit of the Muskoka member; they were asked to disburse funds to deal with border infrastructure.

Madam Chair, anyone who's ever had to drive through Windsor, or any of the other points, would certainly know the need for putting money into border infrastructure. The issue of border infrastructure is about trade, the ability of our economy to continue with our biggest partner. It's also about fundamental safety and making sure we have the resources to stop guns or drugs and gangs from misusing border security.

When we were asked as parliamentarians to submit $80 million in border infrastructure, we thought the money was going to be used for that. Instead, $50 million was hived off and put into Muskoka. It was put into a fund that was disbursed, as far as we can tell from these documents, by a select group that included the mayor of Muskoka, the manager of the Deerhurst inn, and the minister himself, which was highly unusual. The Auditor General was not given any of this information.

We also began to understand that senior bureaucrats from DFAIT, FedNor, the summit management team, and Infrastructure Canada participated in these meetings. Yet when the Auditor General went to ask these departments how the money was distributed, each department signed off, saying they didn't know because they weren't involved in any way. Well, the Auditor General was not given the minutes of the meetings that showed the senior bureaucrats who were actively participating.

I find it a very, very disturbing possibility that the Auditor General was misled. I find it very disturbing that senior bureaucrats would not have told the Auditor General about their involvement.

The Auditor General's report also refers to the fact that there was no paper trail and that this was a shocking finding. They'd never seen anything like this, where this amount of money was disbursed without a paper trail. Again, we found out through documents supplied to us by the communities in the Muskoka region that the paper trail was run through Minister Clement's office, which was highly unusual, and I think highly unacceptable. It would create the impression that it was his money and his personal political power distributing the money and not the Government of Canada.

We know from the forms he created--these homemade forms for the projects--that they don't even refer to departments, to the Government of Canada. It says, “Send your request to the constituency office of Tony Clement”, which again violates all the normal rules of conduct for a minister.

As for the question of whether or not this was for political purposes or was a breach of the ethics code, we have to put it in context. In the 2006 election Mr. Clement barely won. It was by between 13 and 20 votes. Of all the ministers in the Conservative government, he was certainly the most politically challenged.

The obvious incentive for holding a meeting in the middle of the election in 2008 and promising to bring massive amounts of money to the riding would certainly have been direct political benefit for Mr. Clement. We saw that during the election numerous mayors and communities that had not supported Mr. Clement in the previous election in 2006 came up as very big supporters.

I think this is an issue that has to be brought to the ethics committee. We have to get to the bottom of why the Auditor General released a report in which the information the Auditor General was given was clearly at odds with the facts. Canadians have great respect for the role of the Auditor General. We put great trust in the Auditor General to be able to hold all governments to account. If the Auditor General is not being given the documents, if the Auditor General is being told by bureaucrats that they have no idea how the money was being spent when they were clearly involved, that raises questions about ethical breaches of this government.

I would like to bring this motion forward for debate. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I'd point out that Minister Clement has, first of all, agreed to appear before the public accounts committee, and that will occur here in the coming days.

Second, I would point out that this motion, which Mr. Angus has seen fit to have a national press conference on, doesn't even rank high enough in importance to the NDP for them to have all their members present when they are going to have a vote. I question the sincerity and exactly how important this is.

I would also suggest, Madam Chair, that first of all the Auditor General's office has been abundantly clear. They've investigated this matter fully. They're not going to reopen any investigation into this.

I would point out that all of the funds used here are 100% accounted for. Every single one of the projects has been publicly announced. They've been proudly announced and in partnership with municipalities in that region. They play a role of significant tangible benefits there.

I would point something out to the member. He talked about border infrastructure in Windsor. First of all, our party does not represent the City of Windsor, but I'd commend Jeff Watson from Essex who, since he was elected in 2004, has been, to my mind, the most ardent supporter of investment in Windsor's border infrastructure of anyone I know. He has been fully supportive of the DRIC process. What corresponding actions have we seen from the Conservative government under Stephen Harper? There have been record investments into the gateway infrastructure and border infrastructure at Windsor. I'm proud of it. Jeff Watson deserves an awful lot of credit for that.

Obviously if Mr. Angus wants to talk about Windsor, I can provide him with all kinds of documentation as to this government's record in investing in border infrastructure, not only in Windsor but right across the country. I'm proud of it, because we believe in trade. We know that if the NDP had an opportunity they'd shut down trade with the United States and NAFTA and everything else, Madam Chair. Frankly, they don't believe in it. Apparently they want a more free-flowing border with the United States, but they don't think anything should flow across it.

We will be opposing this motion, Madam Chair. Obviously, Minister Clementwill be appearing at the public accounts committee. I assume, given Mr. Angus' veracity on this issue, he'll want to attend there and seek any clarifications he may want.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Butt.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not going to reiterate most of the comments that Mr. Del Mastro made. He articulated my position on that quite well.

I do think it's ironic that we just had the Ethics Commissioner here for an hour and a half, and the NDP members didn't ask one question about this matter to the commissioner when she was here, to perhaps get some guidance and advice as to whether or not this is even a matter that would be dealt with appropriately there.

I agree that it is far better to deal with this issue, if there is an issue, through the public accounts committee. That's where the minister has agreed to go. That's the appropriate place for it. Dealing with it here is not appropriate. As I said, I think it's quite interesting that we had the commissioner here and my friends across the table didn't ask one single question about this issue when she was here.

We should not be dealing with it here, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Angus.

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

I've been listening with great interest to my honourable colleagues. Mr. Butt is new on our committee, new to Parliament, I believe. I just don't want him to misunderstand. When we were dealing with the commissioner coming before us, which was...what was it, we were talking about vexatious and frivolous, the motion brought forward by Mr. Del Mastro, and she told him there was nothing of substance.

But that's not the issue. The reason we didn't ask the Ethics Commissioner any questions about Mr. Clement was that we were not bringing a letter to her; we were bringing it to our committee. She's independent, an independent officer of Parliament. We, our committee, are the masters of our own house. That is the way the parliamentary process works.

So I'm bringing this to committee here, and as I said, we need to bring it here for a couple of key reasons. After 112 days of being in the doghouse, I know Mr. Clement has announced he's going to go to the public accounts committee and he's going to bring as many people with him as possible. The issue of accounts is separate from the issue I'm speaking about. We know that the $50 million fund was only a small part of the money that was funnelled into Muskoka through numerous programs under Mr. Clement's watch in the lead-up to the G-8. The amount of money is much higher, over $100 million. Most of those programs haven't been audited.

I think certainly there's a role for the public accounts committee to address that, but the public accounts committee doesn't address the ethical breaches, the fact that secret meetings were held in the middle of an election with senior bureaucrats attending. Senior bureaucrats of the Canadian government took the time in the middle of an election to participate in meetings where minutes were kept about a fund that didn't exist, and then when the Auditor General went looking to find out, that significant meeting was left out. The Auditor General wasn't given that piece of paper. When the key bureaucrats who participated in meetings all the way along were given the opportunity through their departments to explain their role, none of that information was handed to the Auditor General. So there was a question about what happened.

It's an ethical question. It's not a public accounts question; it's an ethical question as to what happened when members were brought in from bureaucracies who told local mayors in these private meetings to set the criteria they wanted for the funds and then they'd distribute them among themselves. That is a complete breach of any protocol that's ever been established in a credible western democracy. Yet this was allowed to happen, and it wasn't made clear to the Auditor General. She wasn't told about this and wasn't told that Minister Clement himself had the paper trail. I would say that represents an ethical breach. That's much beyond the issue of public accounts.

I don't think we need to debate all day about this. I'm glad my honourable colleague knows where Windsor is, but he would know that Muskoka isn't anywhere near the border, and yet Muskoka got $50 million of border money funnelled into the riding and Parliament was misled. If the Conservative government thought that Tony Clement needed $50 million to get re-elected, that should have been a line item. That's how a legitimate government would act. They'd say that Tony needed $50 million and show their line item, and we would see that in the budget. We didn't see Tony Clement's $50 million line item; we saw border infrastructure. The day the United States goes all the way up to Barrie, then maybe that investment of gazebos would help fortify our army. But right now Muskoka is a couple of hundred kilometres from the border. Parliament was told this is for the border; they were not told it was for Tony Clement. Again I think that's an abuse of Parliament.

This is an issue for our committee. The ethics committee must deal with this and must deal with the breach of this minister and whether or not senior bureaucrats participated in a cover-up to keep the Auditor General from doing her work.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to speak to the last part of this motion. The Conservatives like to tout that they're the ones who brought forward the Federal Accountability Act and the accountable government act, and they pat themselves on the back and say what a good job they've done. But the moment they're questioned on this, the moment someone wants to ask a further question under the guise of this act, they scatter. They don't want to have anything to do with it. They don't want us to ask questions about it, but they can get out there and pat themselves on the back. I think if they're serious about accountability and accountable government they wouldn't mind people asking questions; they would welcome them with open arms. But that's not the case.

The other part of Mr. Angus's motion mentioned Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State, 2011. They certainly use the word “guide”, because sometimes they use it and sometimes they say it's only a guide, they don't need to go by that all the time. In the guide, signed by Stephen Harper, it says ministers must answer the questions that are presented in the House. But when this minister gets a question, they get their little lap dog to come out and answer the questions for him.

If you're going to be serious about this, and if the public is going to think you're credible, you've got to be able to withstand some of the heat. I would encourage them, if they want to be open and accountable, to let some of the questions be asked. Sometimes you've got to suck it up and take it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Well, that's very interesting, coming from Mr. Andrews.

As I indicated, not only have 100% of the funds from these investments, the G-8 legacy fund, been accounted for, but the projects came in some $5 million under budget. We publicly announced all of the projects. The Auditor General came forward with specific recommendations to improve the transparency. We've implemented all of those.

Perhaps if the Liberal Party would have done this, Madam Chairman, and told us where the missing $43 million is from the sponsorship program, maybe I could accept some criticism from Mr. Andrews, but unfortunately it comes across to me as high hypocrisy from the Liberal Party.

Mr. Angus, I can assure you that I most certainly know where Windsor is, as a graduate of the University of Windsor and former president of Sir John A. Macdonald Hall. I invite you to go home and Google it. You'll see Sir John A. Macdonald Hall. From my first year room, I could throw a stone and hit the Ambassador Bridge.

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

Could you hit Muskoka?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Could I hit Muskoka?

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

Yes--from your room in Windsor.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I've hit Muskoka many times, Mr. Angus; it's a beautiful part of the country. I was proud that the government chose to invite international leaders there and bring international media and so forth to report back exactly how beautiful Canada is as a country. I thought it was a fantastic setting for that event.

Mr. Angus also brought up the issue of secret meetings. I'm sorry, I have to talk about that.

Mr. Angus, I don't think meeting with your municipalities to talk about priorities in the region.... I don't think those classify as secret meetings. I think those are important. I think that's what a member of Parliament should do--work with their municipal leaders, work with their provincial counterparts to do the very best they can for a riding.

But the NDP certainly knows a thing or two about secret meetings, just like the ones it had with the Bloc Québécois prior to the 2008 election, where they put together a coalition of separatists, and socialists--