Information & Ethics Committee on March 26th, 2019

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

In jest; in jest.

I want to start by agreeing, actually, with Mr. Kent. It is outrageous that there is a leak with respect to the Supreme Court judicial appointment process. Without question, that kind of leak undermines the confidence in the judicial selection process and appointment process. I think people from all parties ought to condemn that kind of thing. It's completely inappropriate.

I also want to acknowledge that I voted for a more public-facing inquiry to get at the truth, but I think everyone on this side cares at getting to the truth. It's just a question of how we can best do that.

You'll remember, Mr. Kent, that informally, when the SNC story started in the news, I had come to you and come to Mr. Angus and said, “Is this something that you think we would look into?” I think if at that time, before the justice committee was seized with it, we had seized it instead, we would have absolutely been an appropriate forum, and then the waiver would apply to this committee. I can speak for myself; I don't know that it would have been closed down quite so quickly, but the fact of the matter is that we are where we are now, and the waiver does not apply to this committee.

More than that, I didn't hear anyone say today already that Ms. Wilson-Raybould has written a letter to the justice committee and said that not only does she have more to say but she is going to say it. No one is going to hold her back from writing a submission to justice and providing emails and text messages. Having spoken with Mr. Housefather and having seen his public statements, I understand that all of that information is to be made public.

In my previous life as a lawyer, we would call motions like yours, Mr. Kent, premature. To me, it makes far more sense to see what is said in that public statement and to see how justice reacts to that, frankly, and whether they think any of that new information is something...worth reconsidering their previous decision to close off their study and for us to, if necessary, revisit this conversation. Frankly, at this time, justice is seized with it, the waiver applies, and there are more documents forthcoming to justice. It seems like we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves at this committee when, even if we had Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott sitting there—I know, because they take their oath very seriously, having spoken to them both—they wouldn't be able to say anything to our committee because of the oaths they've made and because the waiver doesn't apply. Even if a similar waiver applied to our committee, we'd be relitigating, with Ms. Wilson-Raybould in particular, the very same information that she not only provided in person but will also now provide in writing.

So my view is twofold. One, I think this is appropriately before justice. We ought to wait and see what justice does in the wake of the additional information that is provided. Two, not everyone here today was part of our inquiry into Cambridge Analytica, but I've said this publicly in interviews already. I have not found committees like ours to be very effective at conducting inquiries. When we had AIQ come before us, they provided written documents. The ability of our committee to do the work of effectively a commissioner.... It was very important for us to do that kind of work and to pass it off to the Privacy Commissioner, but for us to conduct that inquiry ourselves, we clearly ran into roadblocks. We were unable to proceed based on our inability to compel documentary production in the same way and our inability to revisit testimony in the same way. Frankly, the tools we have at our disposal are more cumbersome. The Privacy Commissioner was well placed to pursue that further.

In this case, what can we do, if we want to get at the truth as far as this committee is concerned, that is within our purview? Well, the Ethics Commissioner reports to us, and the Ethics Commissioner has undertaken, as I understand in the letter to Mr. Cullen and to Mr. Angus, that he is proceeding with an investigation. I know that the Ethics Commissioner is to attend before this committee for estimates in early May already. If we want to bring him here earlier, so be it, if that's the will of the committee, but certainly I think it's fair for us to ensure that the Ethics Commissioner has the tools, resources and mandate to do his job effectively, and to do his job in a timely fashion, such that we are able to get at the truth.

When I voted the way I did for a more public-facing inquiry, it was because I did not think that committees were best placed to do this kind of work, and I thought that an independent, non-partisan commissioner-style process was much more effective.

If the Ethics Commissioner doesn't have a full mandate to do this kind of work, we can ask those questions. We can ask him about the limitations there might be to his mandate, and he can express concerns if he has any.

I think that, fundamentally, is the job this committee should undertake, with the current waivers as they apply and with the status quo as it is. If additional documents and testimony that would make me change my mind are produced, then so be it. As I say, I hate to be technical, but I think the motion is premature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

To respond to that amendment, once again, go ahead, Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank the vice-chair of this committee for a very thoughtful response to the motion and to the presentations by all members on the opposition side of the table.

I sense the direction that he and his colleagues will take in terms of voting on this motion and the amendment, but he should not be surprised that I disagree with him on a number of points.

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

It's happened before.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

First of all, it is true that the justice committee has agreed to receive the transcripts and records offered by Ms. Wilson-Raybould in response to other witnesses before that committee, but the waiver has not been extended to allow her to respond to those still important issues that both she and Ms. Philpott say they wish to speak to.

Our motion says, in (B), that a formal request be made by our committee chair to write a letter to the Prime Minister and to request that he waive all constraints that would apply to any individuals the committee may decide to invite, whether it be Ms. Wilson-Raybould or Ms. Philpott primarily, or to others who, I believe, do have a right to respond to Ms. Wilson-Raybould's testimony, as well as to that of the Clerk and the former principal secretary.

Second, with regard to the AIQ investigation, I agree that this committee did not have the tools or the authority to demand completely honest responses from the executives of AIQ, and we stated such in our report. They were unwilling witnesses; there is no question about that. They had to be dragged, kicking and struggling, to come back before this committee to not answer questions that we still had.

I think certainly in the case of Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott , we have willing witnesses who are anxious to present testimony. If, indeed, the justice committee reopens or accepts and releases the documents that Ms. Wilson-Raybould will table, sooner or later, there is a possibility—although I sense it's remote—that they would reopen their study to include a request to the Prime Minister to extend the waiver or to remove entirely all constraints on their testimony.

Third, with regard to the Ethics Commissioner's investigation, I think he has expressed in his appearances before us within the last year or the last half-year his concerns that he doesn't have the necessary authority to conduct investigations to the extent that he would like and that in fact not only his order-making powers but also the penalties that he may apply are rather modest.

While I appreciate your remarks with regard to agreement on the leak regarding the judicial appointment process, I would still urge you to support the motion before us today, with the understanding that it would not interfere or conflict with whatever remaining study the justice committee may wish to undertake. I am, however, not optimistic that, beyond the release of whatever Ms. Wilson-Raybould intends to send to them, it might be reopened, given some of the statements by the members of that committee when it was shut down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

We'll go next to Mr. Blaikie again.

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

Thank you very much.

The first thing I'd like to say in response to Mr. Erskine-Smith is that I don't accept that he speaks for his colleagues on the committee. I take the argument from him. Of course, the NDP would prefer to have a public inquiry. If the argument is that he would prefer we have a public inquiry—as opposed to what's being proposed today—we're happy to accept that any day of the week. Our impression is that's not on offer, at least not so far.

My question for all the other Liberals on the committee who voted against having a public inquiry is why they would vote against this motion. I'm not satisfied by Mr. Erskine-Smith's answer, which is particular to him, that we have the reasons why they will be voting against this motion. I think Canadians deserve to hear why Liberals who are not supportive of a public inquiry are also not supportive of creating other forums for Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott to come forward. We don't yet have that. We should have that before the vote. I invite all five of them to give their own reasons, as Mr. Erskine-Smith has done.

I take it from the position that because the waiver doesn't extend to this committee—if we take that as a reason not to invite the Prime Minister, as this motion does and as Mr. Kent has pointed out that this motion invites the Prime Minister to extend the waiver—the Prime Minister would refuse to co-operate with an independent committee of Parliament. It's from the Prime Minister himself and from his House leader. Often in the House we have heard that they respect the work of parliamentary committees. If a parliamentary committee said that it thought it was appropriate to study this issue and it wanted to hear from these witnesses, the Prime Minister should have no problem extending the waiver, as he did somewhat for the justice committee. I also just don't accept that as an argument. I think it is important that this committee express its desire to get to the bottom of this issue and that it make a request, as this motion would, of the Prime Minister to extend that waiver.

That's part of what we're doing here today. We're not just trying to launch a study of the ethics committee. We're also trying to call on the Prime Minister to extend that waiver out of fairness to Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott who want to be able to tell their story.

I think that's an important point that ought not to get lost. I would hate to think that all of this talk about respecting the work of committees and wanting to allow them to do the work that they see fit was disingenuous in the House. I take, by implication, that this is the position of the Liberals on the committee, if they think that somehow if we call for this study and ask for the extension of the waiver that the Prime Minister wouldn't grant it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Up next is Mr. Weir.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I think that Mr. Erskine-Smith raises a valid point that Ms. Wilson-Raybould is in the process of making a written submission to the justice committee and that the written submission would probably be of interest to members of this committee before undertaking a study of some of the same issues.

In the spirit of trying to find a reasonable compromise, I wonder if Liberal members of this committee would be amenable to tabling the motion before us after we have had a chance to see Ms. Wilson-Raybould's written submission, rather than voting it down altogether.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Certainly, Mr. Weir, you're able to suggest that, but not as a current sitting member of the committee. That would be something they would have to consider and could talk about after—

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I'm just suggesting that. I recognize that someone else would actually have to make the motion to table it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Weir.

We'll go next to Ms. Ramsey.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to address some of the things that have been said by my colleague, first of all, about how this particular committee is maybe not the appropriate place. I want to again reiterate that the ethics committee deals with lobbying. At the heart of this story what we are talking about is extensive lobbying by SNC to influence the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and Michael Wernick to intervene and to go to the former attorney general to pressure her to change her mind. Lobbying is absolutely within the scope of this committee, and I believe it really does firmly belong in this committee as a study.

Committees may not be the best place to hear this, and I completely agree that the gold standard is a full public independent inquiry, but if the Prime Minister were going to do that, he would have already initiated it. We are seeing clearly that that is not going to happen. If it were going to happen, we'd have it launched. This is seven weeks of torture for Liberals. Every single day the story changes and becomes worse. If you truly believe that the Prime Minister wants to have a full independent public inquiry, we would already see evidence of that. Canadians would already see that, so I agree with you that committees aren't the best place but this is the only place we currently have to be able to have a forum, to create space for people to be able to speak who very publicly have indicated that they would like the opportunity to do so. It may not be the best but it's the only option before us right now, as parliamentarians.

Before I leave committees, I have to say that the justice committee has been very clear. The study is done. There is no further conversation or study. There have been multiple attempts to bring this back to the justice committee, which have been voted down by members of the justice committee. No one in Canada believes that the justice committee is going to revisit that, and I say that as a member of the justice committee, as vice-chair of the justice committee. There is absolutely no indication that they will entertain any further conversation.

The letter from Ms. Wilson-Raybould to the justice committee is very narrow in what it represents. She was asked a direct question by Mr. Rankin during her testimony, and the letter she has sent is a response to that direct question. It's very limited. I do not believe that we will anticipate some big long full statement from her coming to the committee. She has indicated that she will provide the text messages and the emails as requested of her by Mr. Rankin. That is what we can expect to see inside of that communication, if you will, but that communication will land at the justice committee and nothing will be done with it. There is no study that indicates that something must be done with it. There is no will to do anything with it. It will come, but how meaningful will that be if there is simply a letter that becomes public?

What I think is going to happen is that it will raise even more questions than we currently have. The idea that this letter is going to clear everything up.... I think that is not the case at all, and it is being taken out of context in the spirit that it was delivered. She even references a report. There is no report. There is no study at the justice committee, so there is no report to come forward. The justice committee is not going to revisit it. I think Canadians understand that and see that clearly and, as a member of that committee, I'm telling you that I do not believe there will be any further efforts at the justice committee in terms of this particular focus.

So we land back at the ethics committee, which is just another space for us to have this study, and it's entirely appropriate to have that here, regardless of what she may say. If there is an order in council for this committee, then I'm certain that Liberal members can go to the Prime Minister and say we need an order in council for the ethics committee and we need him to expand it and not limit it in a way that leaves so many questions unanswered. Your own members are going out publicly saying there are things to say beyond this scope, so please let us say them.

I think in the interest of fairness that you should pursue the study here. You should allow the study here—that is really what we're talking about; let's be honest—because you hold the majority of votes, and we can all count. Ultimately you're holding the fate of this truth coming to light for Canadians in your vote today, because the justice committee will not revisit this. There have been multiple attempts by the opposition parties there to see that happen. What other options are we left with? There are other committees on which Liberals have majorities, where you will continue to listen to, I think, very reasonable arguments that any reasonable Canadian can see a path forward on and yet vote along your party lines in order to support your Prime Minister and keep the truth from Canadians.

I would like you to consider those things, because I really believe that all that we have at this point is this committee. The Liberals have been out and talking about parliamentary privilege and saying, “they can just stand up” and “they can just say this”.... If you really want them to be able to speak their truth, if you really want them to have a space, here it is. We're offering it to you on a silver platter. We're saying that here's the space for something you're telling Canadians you want. You want them to be able to speak. You would like that to be able to happen.

Here it is, all packaged up for you to be able to say, “Yes, we also would like our colleagues to be able to have an opportunity to speak, and yes, we would like the truth for Canadians.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you again, Ms. Ramsey.

Next up is Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre]

Thank you.

I just want to very quickly respond to something Mr. Weir said. He mentioned that a deferred prosecution agreement might be necessary in order to protect the company's ability to get federal contracts. That is actually not true. That is another falsehood that has been disseminated about this controversy.

The government has already granted an exemption to the ineligibility and suspension policy, and that exemption allows SNC-Lavalin to continue to bid on federal projects even though it would otherwise be banned due to its charges. Also, the government has already indicated plans to extend that exemption even if the company is convicted, so the company can get an exemption, even after convicted, from the ban on federal bidding. If that were the government's only goal here in shelving these charges, it wouldn't need to interrupt the trial; it can do so under its current powers with an exemption from the bidding ban.

For Mr. Erskine-Smith, who mentioned that the motion is premature and that we ought not to hear from Jody Wilson-Raybould until such time as she has had her chance to submit her additional documentary evidence to the justice committee, we would be prepared to amend the original motion to read that she would appear here within a week of having submitted additional documentary evidence to the justice committee. That would solve the problem that Mr. Erskine-Smith is worried about. It would ensure that her documentation is received by committee and published by that committee's chair and available to all members around the table. That way, we would all be dealing with the most up-to-date evidence when the hearings go ahead.

I know that I don't control the speakers list, but I would invite Mr. Erskine-Smith to respond to that compromise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Okay. We do have the amendment before us. I guess it's a friendly amendment to the motion.

We have you up next, Mr. Kent, but would you like Mr. Erskine-Smith to respond first?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Go ahead, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

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

To the extent that it makes sense to consider this question on a later occasion, it would make far more sense, in my view, to see the documentary production, see what is said, see if there's anything new there substantively that needs to be addressed and see how the justice committee reacts to that.

Ms. Ramsey, I take your concerns to heart, but it's still appropriate, I think, as far as our parliamentary colleagues are concerned, to see how they react, where that committee is properly seized with it, and then to make a determination. I don't think it makes any sense today to make any determination when we don't know what is to come.

Mr. Kent, if you want to have this conversation again down the road, my view, as I've expressed, is that we are going to have the Ethics Commissioner sit right here, and we're going to be able to put to him questions about limitations or problems: problems with insufficient resources or problems with his mandate, or if he is sufficiently tasked with this. Those are the questions that I think this committee should be seized with right now, absent new information, as we don't know yet what is to come.

I respect the attempt to put this back on the agenda for me today, but the fact that this is premature isn't cured by saying, “Let's make a decision today and have it take effect a week from now.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Seeing as this is a bit of a conversation, I'll put it back to Mr. Poilievre, and then we'll move on to Mr. Kent.

[Pierre Poilievre]

I had understood Mr. Erskine-Smith's position to be that we needed to see the evidence that Madam Wilson-Raybould would provide the justice committee, and that we couldn't hear from her until that time.

I think I had a solution that would allow us to do that. Unfortunately, we don't appear to have support for that compromise.

That said, I think we should vote on the motion and the amendment here and give Liberals an opportunity to either put up or cover up, as are their options.

And then I take from Mr. Erskine-Smith's position that even if the motion doesn't pass, he'd be willing to reconsider after Ms. Wilson-Raybould's information is tabled before the justice committee. That is another avenue to be pursued down the road.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.

We'll go to Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I understand the attempt to use premature consideration of this vote, but I think that it is important, as we have heard from everyone on the opposition side here today, that we get an indication.

I don't think a no vote, based on.... This goes far beyond the current situation before the justice committee and the submission that Ms. Wilson-Raybould will be making there.

I do agree that it may well be necessary for us to bring a subsequent motion, which responds to the reality of whatever the justice committee does once it has received those submissions.

Chair, I would suggest that we go ahead with consideration of the motion and the amendment to the motion before us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

I have two other speakers still wishing to speak.

The vote for the amendment has been called. Do you still want to speak to the amendment?

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.