Information & Ethics Committee on April 9th, 2019

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

We'll call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 143 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), we continue with the study of privacy of digital government services.

Today we have with us Brian Kelcey, vice-president of the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

First of all, as most of the committee knows, there have been two motions brought before us. We'll start with Mr. Kent.

Go ahead.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, you'll recall that a couple of weeks ago, when I first brought a motion suggesting that we provide a safe and civil venue for witnesses to appear to discuss some of the unknowns—and, so far, unquotables—with regard to the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal, the Liberal vice-chair, Mr. Erskine-Smith, made it very clear that, as he said, he's voiced and voted for a more public inquiry to get at the truth. He said, “I think everyone on this side [the Liberal side] cares at getting to the truth. It's just a question of how we can best do that.”

We accepted, with some disappointment, Mr. Erskine-Smith's characterization of the motion as “premature”, but he did make the point that we should wait for the justice committee to make a decision on whether to reopen their study or not, and they didn't. He said that he would be pleased “to, if necessary, revisit this conversation.” Mr. Erskine-Smith said that, given that the waiver had been provided to the justice committee, it was appropriate to hear more about this.

I'm hoping today that those on the Liberal side of this table will consider this motion, which I'll read into the record:

That, given the new information on the matter of political interference in a criminal prosecution by the Office of the Prime Minister disclosed in documents tabled by Jody Wilson-Raybould and Gerald Butts, the Committee:

a. Instruct the Chair to write a letter to the Prime Minister requesting that he waive all constraints that may prevent individuals invited to appear before the Committee from speaking freely;

b. Invite Justin Trudeau to appear prior to April 12

c. Invite Jody Wilson-Raybould to appear prior to April 12

d. Invite Jane Philpott to appear prior to April 12

e. Invite Katie Telford to appear prior to April 12

f. Invite Elder Marques to appear prior to April 12

g. Invite Mathieu Bouchard to appear prior to April 12

h. Invite Amy Archer to appear prior to April 12

i. Invite Ben Chin to appear prior to April 12

j. Invite Justin To to appear prior to April 12

k. Invite Jessica Prince to appear prior to April 12

l. Sit extra hours in order to conduct these additional meetings.

Mr. Gourde, could you repeat that in French, please?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

It is my pleasure to repeat my colleague's notice of motion, which I am happy to support, in French.

That, given the new information on the matter of political interference in a criminal prosecution by the Office of the Prime Minister disclosed in documents tabled by Jody Wilson-Raybould and Gerald Butts, the Committee:

a. Instruct the Chair to write a letter to the Prime Minister requesting that he waive all constraints that may prevent individuals invited to appear before the Committee from speaking freely; b. Invite Justin Trudeau to appear prior to April 12; c. Invite Jody Wilson-Raybould to appear prior to April 12; d. Invite Jane Philpott to appear prior to April 12; e. Invite Katie Telford to appear prior to April 12; f. Invite Elder Marques to appear prior to April 12; g. Invite Mathieu Bouchard to appear prior to April 12; h. Invite Amy Archer to appear prior to April 12; i. Invite Ben Chin to appear prior to April 12; j. Invite Justin To to appear prior to April 12; k. Invite Jessica Prince to appear prior to April 12; l. Sit extra hours in order to conduct these additional meetings

Mr. Chair, you understand that it is always our hope that, on the opposite side, some are listening attentively. We hope that light will be shed and that we will be able to give all of these witnesses the opportunity to present their version of the facts for the benefit of all Canadians, who want to hear the truth about this truly important matter. So, the sooner this matter is resolved, the better it will be for everyone.

I hope that my voice will be heard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

I think we have a speakers list. We'll go first to Mr. Angus.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I support my colleague on this issue, because getting the facts on the record as to whether or not there was an orchestrated campaign to interfere in a criminal prosecution is the issue that's right now dominating our country. It's making it impossible for my colleagues in the Liberal government to move forward, because we have not gotten clarity on this. This is a political crisis that is unprecedented. I've never seen anything like this. We've lost the Clerk of the Privy Council. We've lost the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. We've lost two of the most respected women cabinet members—the president of the Treasury Board and the former attorney general—as well as the former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. This is an issue that's not going away.

I particularly note my colleague Mr. Erskine-Smith's comments in the Toronto Star, which I read, but also at the last committee, that he felt this was being handled by the justice committee. Well, the justice committee shut this down and did not allow further testimony. The only two key people from the Prime Minister's Office who testified both had to quit their jobs in disgrace. There are unanswered questions. There are questions about who in the office overstepped their ethical obligations. I also note that my colleague Mr. Erskine-Smith said that if there was new evidence to come forward, then it definitely would be within the purview of the ethics committee. Well, I certainly would suggest that after hearing the information brought forward by Ms. Wilson-Raybould, everything she said at the justice committee has been verified by her facts, and none of those facts have been contradicted by any other evidence.

I also note that Mr. Butts' counter-evidence does not create a pattern or an image that these people were at personal loggerheads, that there was this conflict, that she was impossible to work with. I found that there was a great deal of respect, because she felt that she was working for the Prime Minister's interests. Her conversations in the text messages that Mr. Butts provided were very respectful. It was about whether or not there was interference in the rule of law. That's what we need to stay focused on, not a larger soap opera of he-said-she-said. Was there interference in the rule of law? This is a fundamental question that has to be above party lines here.

I make that note as I received a letter this morning from Mr. Drago Kos of the OECD anti-bribery unit, who wrote to me to confirm that they are paying very close attention. They are paying very close attention because the government said that there would be a robust investigation at the justice committee, and then it was shut down. Mr. Kos has stated that the OECD would welcome any more information to be handed...because they are monitoring whether or not Canada has breached its international obligations. If Canada breaches its international obligations in a matter as serious as an international corruption trial, it will certainly put us on the list of outliers.

It's well within the purview of the ethics committee, because we have obligations to oversee the Conflict of Interest Act and we have obligations in terms of the obligations of public office holders that we have to deal with. There are issues of the pressure and the lobbying that went on, into the Prime Minister's Office, that put key people in the Prime Minister's Office in, I think, very compromised positions. This is something that is within the purview of the ethics committee. I think we need to move on it.

I think it's very unhelpful to have the mano-a-mano back and forth between the Prime Minister and the head of the opposition as to who's going to sue whom and who's more willing to stand up to the other guy. That is not helpful. I think the simplest thing—I don't care how long we sit—is to get the hearings done. Let's get a report. Let's restore it to the Canadian people so that we as a nation can decide, if there was a problem, whether there will be accountability. If there wasn't a problem, then we can move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Next up is Mr. Erskine-Smith.

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

First, I've never been quoted with such approval by Mr. Kent and Mr. Angus. I encourage them not to stop in the future, although I do disagree with some comments Mr. Kent made earlier referring to those of us on this side as minions. I have voted my conscience once or twice.

I would also note that I expressed skepticism a couple of weeks ago with respect to the ability of a committee like this to function as an investigatory body and pointed to commissioners and their roles as more up to that task. I did say a couple of weeks ago that the motion then was premature, and I did so on the basis that I didn't want to predetermine what new evidence Ms. Wilson-Raybould was to put forward. I am still of the view that had that evidence been new, had there been new allegations made that required another look, it would have been open to our committee to undertake that.

That's not what happened. Instead, there was a 43-page submission on the heels of three and a half hours of testimony, and at the end of that 43-page submission, Ms. Wilson-Raybould wrote, “As such, for my part, I do not believe I have anything further to offer a formal process regarding this specific matter”.

I would also note that on April 4, in the most recent Maclean's interview, Ms. Philpott noted, “I think there's enough information out there now for Canadians to judge what took place.”

You have the two principal individuals who raised these concerns in the first place saying that we've heard all we need to hear, and certainly Ms. Wilson-Raybould in particular has said that she has submitted everything that needs to be submitted. For us to then undertake and renew this process doesn't strike me as an effective use of our time. With the Ethics Commissioner attending before us, or at least his office attending before us for the estimates, we should still be putting questions to the Ethics Commissioner as to whether that office has the tools, resources and mandate to do this job effectively.

Mr. Angus, obviously, noted the Conflict of Interest Act, and it is our purview, but typically we don't undertake these investigations ourselves as a committee. We ensure that the commissioner is doing the job he needs to do and that the commissioner reports to this committee directly on those investigations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

Next up we have Mr. Kent, and then Mr. Angus.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, just a point of clarification, my reference to minions was quite clearly describing those in the Prime Minister's office who we know have exerted pressure in the justice committee, and we observed their considerable agitation and toing and froing whenever the committee seems to be going into areas where they think they might be concerned.

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

Apology accepted.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

It was not an apology. Your Liberal House leader accused the Conservative members of being minions, and that's what the Speaker was upset about. I would suggest that someone convey to the House leader to check with the dictionary on the very honourable definition of what a minion is: a loyal, unswerving member of a staff who will do anything to protect their master.

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

No one has ever accused me of that, by the way.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

No, and I don't suggest that any member of this House should be described as a minion.

With regard to Mr. Erskine-Smith's response, we haven't heard from the one person in this entire continuing and, as I said today, ever-deepening scandal, and that is the Prime Minister himself. He has made the threat. My colleague is a lawyer, and I think he recognizes a SLAPP lawsuit as well as anybody else. It would attempt to shut down any criticism of any sort.

We also haven't heard from those other names besides Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott who have been implicated in wrongdoing and who haven't had a chance to speak to the truth or the accuracy of the testimony that we've heard from the clerk, from the former principal secretary and from Ms. Wilson-Raybould. I was a little surprised to see her remarks that everything has been said that needs to be said for Canadians to make a judgment in this matter. I think there are still huge questions beyond that unprecedented waiver window, which the Prime Minister has referred to any number of times, and the period after, which led to her resignation from cabinet. Ms. Philpott, of course, had remarks with regard to the toing and froing inside that window, and no one has ever heard testimony from Ms. Philpott about those events.

I would suggest that there is ample cause, ample reason, to invite the Prime Minister, first, to remove all constraints on any of the potential witnesses listed, but also to continue to look for the truth in this matter. I think there is still grave uncertainty in any number of areas and issues under the shadow that was cast by the very detailed and very credible evidence originally given by Ms. Wilson-Raybould in the justice committee before their premature shutdown.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

Just to follow up with my colleague Mr. Erskine-Smith, whom I've never referred to as a minion.... I may have referred to some members of the justice committee as the PMO's House puppets, but I don't have such a good relationship with them as I have with my colleagues here, whom I have enormous respect for. So, we will maintain that respect. I can't remember if I made that comment or not, but it wasn't about my colleagues here.

There are a couple of issues here. One is that I wrote the letter to the Ethics Commissioner, asking him to investigate under section 7. The Ethics Commissioner has very few tools to deal with something of this nature, and we have to be very clear about what powers the Ethics Commissioner has. We asked on the question of preferential treatment; that seemed to be an accurate reading. He came back and said that, no, he felt it was section 9. Now, section 9 is on financial interest, which has always been ruled as personal financial interest. Nobody is suggesting that the Prime Minister has shares in SNC-Lavalin. That's ridiculous.

The decision by the Ethics Commissioner to go to section 9, to me, has raised a number of questions about the study, because he cannot deal with the issue that really matters to us, which is whether or not there was political interference in a prosecution. That's something he can't do.

Second, he is off ill, and the Ethics Commissioner's office cannot release a report while he's off. Now we are told that the investigation is still ongoing, but that's not something.... With regard to an issue like this, if he's the one dealing with it and he's off, that's problematic.

I just want to say that I was very surprised and thrown off to find that a cabinet minister's sister-in-law is the chief investigator for the Ethics Commissioner. Now, I totally expect and understand that this person recuses herself in this matter, but under the Conflict of Interest Act, where it defines relatives of public office holders, she fits the definition.

I'm actually even considering formally requesting that they withdraw my request for an investigation because I don't have confidence. He cannot deal with the matter at hand.

As to my colleague with all his many requests of who should appear, I've been here 15 years, and we have dealt with all manner of smut and corruption. We've never had a prime minister sit at a committee, so I was thinking, “Okay, well, I don't expect the Prime Minister to come for that.” As to whether Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott have finished what they've had to say, that's not really the issue.

The issue is that Ms. Wilson-Raybould in particular presented an enormous amount of evidence that we haven't gotten answers to. I don't know if we need to bring her back to get more evidence. She has laid out the evidence. You can't finish a trial or get to a conclusion unless that evidence is tested.

A number of people are named in that, such as Ben Chin. As a public office holder, what he was doing was inappropriate, she says. Was he flying free as a bird and trying to intervene, or was he directed by the finance minister's office? That's the question that we need an answer to.

Ms. Telford is quoted as saying that she doesn't believe in legalities. Well, she's the right hand of the Prime Minister. Anybody who's that close to the Prime Minister has to put legality and the law at the top of the list. Was she misquoted? I think she should have a right to respond, but we need to know about her role.

There are also Mr. Marques and Mr. Bouchard.

What was really disturbing in the evidence that Ms. Wilson-Raybould came forward with, which has never been contradicted by Mr. Wernick or Mr. Butts, is the attempt to get around the Attorney General to see if they could have, off the record...or just talk to her. They actually didn't say “off the record”, but they talked about getting around to talk to her. That would be extremely inappropriate, so I think these witnesses need to be called.

If my colleague wants to move forward, we could pare down the list a little bit so that we're not being repetitive but we're focusing. If those questions are unanswered, we could go to a larger list. That's how we tend to do things at committee. Let's start with a few. If we can get answers, then that may.... If the Liberals are happy, we'll move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Is there any further discussion of the motion on the table right now?

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

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

I'll just say something very briefly. I have discovered that Mr. LeBlanc has cousins everywhere.

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

East of Rivière-du-Loup....

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

With respect to the Ethics Commissioner, any questions Mr. Angus might have are properly put to the Ethics Commissioner's office. If his mandate is not sufficient, we should be putting those questions to the Ethics Commissioner. I said that the last time, and it remains true.

The only other thing I will say is that every single witness on this list could have availed themselves of the same opportunity that Mr. Butts did, which is to have requested to appear before the justice committee if they had something to say to contradict anything that Ms. Wilson-Raybould had put forward. As well, they could have submitted additional documents, just as Mr. Butts did at the very end of the study. They were accepted by that committee and published, even though they had closed oral hearings. Anyone who wanted to contradict anything Ms. Wilson-Raybould has said had every opportunity to do so.

It does not make sense to me that the two principal people in this, who have raised these concerns, have said that they have nothing more to add—we have so much evidence that we have a 17-minute recording of the key conversation in all of this for all Canadians to hear if they are so interested—and that we, as a committee—which typically does not undertake investigations—are now to invite Amy Archer to get to the bottom of this. Frankly, if Amy Archer has something to contradict, she could have submitted it to the justice committee, just as Mr. Butts did. Otherwise, the evidence stands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you.

Next up we have Mr. Kent, and then Mr. Angus.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

In answer to that, Mr. Butts, of course, resigned in what I think many people saw as disgrace before he brought that testimony. I would think that even senior staffers in the Prime Minister's Office or in the finance minister's office would be very prudent in avoiding any appearance before any committee and making any public statements, given what they saw as the fate of the principal secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council, who were two of the most senior individuals supporting the Prime Minister.

I think that they have not been given an opportunity. An invitation would certainly give them that opportunity. As I suggested, a letter from the chair would invite the Prime Minister to remove any constraints there might be on those individuals to speak the truth here, before a civil and safe venue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Mr. Angus.

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

I just have to think that if what my honourable colleague said is clear, that if they had anything to contradict they would say it.... Katie Telford is on the record, according to the witness, saying that she wasn't interested in legalities because they were going to get this thing done. That's a serious charge to make against someone who is the Prime Minister's adviser.

If she's not interested in contradicting it, then I guess we have to accept as true that she wasn't interested in legalities. If that's the case, she definitely needs to come before our committee, because she has obligations to uphold as a public office holder.

I think it would be absolutely unacceptable that if Ms. Telford heard that testimony and isn't interested in contradicting it.... Then we have to assume it is true and we have to bring her to committee to ask how she can function in the Prime Minister's Office if issues of legality and interference in the rule of law are not something that's within the operating culture in that office. That, to me, is a question that now does need to be answered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

We're back to Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I have one final comment.

When this committee conducts studies—and we've done it with some collegiality over the past couple of years—we don't limit ourselves to testimony only from volunteers. As we saw with the Cambridge Analytica/AggregateIQ scandal, we had to invoke the powers of this parliamentary standing committee to reinvite a number of individuals who we felt had misled the committee and Canadians with regard to the truth in those matters.

In considering whether or not to strike this study, I don't think that asking the Prime Minister to remove all constraints would be going beyond the bounds of the normal practices of this committee. It is within our power in any study. As my colleagues Mr. Angus and Monsieur Gourde have said, there are still any number of unanswered questions from the original testimony, not only of Ms. Wilson-Raybould but of the former clerk and the former principal secretary, and allegations made about some individuals whose names have been possibly somewhat besmirched. They may well have truths they would like to speak under the protection of testimony in this committee.