Information & Ethics Committee on March 26th, 2019

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

In part, I would just like to address some of what's been said in conversation, particularly the idea that we ought to wait on an appearance by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in order to undertake a study. There are a couple of issues with that.

One is that we know—it's been made public—that the commissioner himself is sick and on an indeterminate leave, so we don't know that.... Even though our parliamentary process around the estimates will continue, the commissioner himself may very likely not appear. Even if he did, if the investigation were still under way, I'm quite sure it's not his usual practice to comment on investigations that are actually happening. Until he concluded his investigation, there would be nothing for him to say in this place.

Further, with respect to that investigation concluding without him back in his position, the Conflict of Interest Act, under which he reports, in section 44(7) indicates that, “The Commissioner shall provide the Prime Minister with a report setting out the facts”, etc. In other words, the act says that only the commissioner provides that report. It's not clear that, without an interim commissioner—and no interim commissioner has been appointed—the report could actually be issued and therefore the investigation concluded.

Absent an actual interim commissioner, I don't think it makes sense for the committee to wait on the Ethics Commissioner's appearance before the committee, because we really have no idea when that would be.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Ms. Ramsey.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I just want to put onto the record that the chair of the justice committee, Anthony Housefather, has written an op-ed in the National Post, commenting on the fact that he has drawn his conclusions already on the justice committee.

I want to offer that as further evidence that there will be no further action at the justice committee. I still feel it's quite inappropriate for a chair, who is meant to be impartial in the House of Commons, to be writing publicly about what I would say is an ongoing issue here on the Hill, in general.

Certainly through his going public and writing this op-ed, he is making quite clear to Canadians that it won't return. How could it possibly return with his comments being made quite publicly, and the fact that he has now drawn the conclusion that it's done? I just want to put onto the record that it will not be returning to justice, and if it does, it will just have all of these things swirling around it about the Liberals on the committee already having made up their minds, and the chair being quite public about his personal opinions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Are there any further comments on the amendment?

[An hon. member]

Can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

It has been raised already, but I would appreciate hearing from other Liberal members of the committee their thoughts with regard to both the motion and the amendment, but also the conversation that has gone on across the table with the Liberal vice-chair. I would welcome any comments that they might be willing to offer now.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I just quickly say I think this is one of the very rare occasions where they're all going to let me speak for them.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Now we'll move on to the motion before us.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I call for a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

As I see no further discussion, we are adjourned.