Information & Ethics Committee on July 17th, 2020

[The Chair (Ms. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC)), Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I will call this meeting to order, and I will ask for the room to be cleared of any media presence. Mr. Barrett, your hand has been noted; I will come to you momentarily.

Welcome to meeting number six of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The committee is meeting today because a request was received from four members of the committee pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), to discuss their request to undertake a study to review the safeguards in place to prevent conflicts of interest in federal government expenditure policies.

Today's meeting is taking place in person, and the proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so that you are aware, the cameras will always show the person speaking, rather than the entire room as a whole. Please also note that sometimes there is a delay in your speaker being turned off. Should the meeting be suspended, just be aware of this.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules that are special, given the times we're in.

Occupational health and safety have requested that we limit our movement in the room and that we wear a mask unless we are seated, at which time the mask can be removed. Floor markings indicate the path of travel, which you will note goes counterclockwise around the room; please honour that. Individuals should respect physical distancing and remain two metres from one another, particularly when without a mask. Seats and microphones have been placed in a manner that respects physical distancing; therefore, we ask that you remain in the location that has been assigned to you throughout this meeting, please. If you leave the meeting and someone is expected to take your seat, we ask that you use a cleaning wipe, which is provided here in the room, and that you wipe the armrests, the table, the microphone, the earpiece and the surfaces around you. The same applies if you are taking someone else's seat; please proceed with cleaning before doing so.

To minimize health risks, you will note that limited personnel have been permitted to attend today. Staff have received a phone number where they can listen to these proceedings in real time, so we trust they're joining us from afar. With regard to washrooms, the washrooms on this floor have been opened 30 minutes preceding this meeting and will remain open until 30 minutes after this meeting. You will note that no paper documents have been distributed here today. All documents have been kept online, and you can access them there. Should you require a copy of a document, please advise the clerk of your need by immediately emailing the committee at [e-mail]. Hopefully you've all come prepared.

Mr. Fergus, do you have an immediate question to that?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, I have two things. Thank you very much for les consigne. I sit very close to the door; if I were to remove myself, do I have to do it counterclockwise and come around, or can I just come straight to my chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus, why do you have to start with such difficult questions?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

It's a fair question. Also, if I were to go get a coffee or a bagged lunch, should I be walking around all my colleagues, or should I just come straight to my chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I would ask that you honour the floor markings. We would ask that you go and take your food and then continue in a counterclockwise direction back to your seat. Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you. I don't want to be difficult, and certainly when I was told to follow the forms when I was in school, I was in the nuns' office continually for not doing that. As a practical, I am at the farthest end; it seems I would contact the fewest people if I went this way. If I went that way, I would go past every single person in the room. I would just suggest that it would be less contact at our end of the table if we went clockwise, which [Inaudible—Editor] my whole life.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Angus, I take your point. I would ask this: If you note that there are other people at the food table who may come in your direction and you would cross paths, I would ask you to honour the footsteps that are on the floor.

Are there any other questions with regard to the guidelines I have gone through here? Okay. Awesome.

Moving forward, then, as stated, we are here pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). The letter that was received by the clerk and then given to me as chair has a motion within it, which reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contribution and other expenditure policies; and that, to provide a case study for this review, an Order of the Committee do issue to Speakers’ Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau—including, in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it—provided that these records shall be provided to the Clerk of Committee within one week of the adoption of this Order.

I will now open the floor for discussion with regard to the motion that has been put forward to this committee.

I will start with Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Chair, I'd like to be put on the speakers list, please.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you to the committee staff for arranging the meeting. This is the first time the committee has had to adopt, in the new reality of COVID-19, footsteps on the floor and all the social distancing, etc. Thank you to the clerk, analyst, translators, staff et al.

With regard to the reason for the letter that was sent to the committee to trigger Standing Order 106(4), it was effectively for one purpose. That was to get answers for Canadians on Justin Trudeau's $900-million scandal. This has triggered an investigation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. This is the—

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

On a point of order, Chair, could the member just repeat that? Did he say “scam”? Is that not unparliamentary language?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Nope, the word “scam” is the member's word and not mine. I used the word “scandal”.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

“Scandal”, okay.

Well, I'd still like to understand whether or not that's parliamentary language at this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mrs. Shanahan. That is noted.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Chair, do you want the clerk and you to make a ruling on whether this $900-million scandal is in fact a scandal? Do we want the chair to rule on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I believe what's being requested is that language be watched carefully.

We will allow you to continue forward with your statement, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

In light of the revelations we've heard, and following on two scandals that saw Prime Minister Justin Trudeau twice found guilty of breaking the law—the Conflict of Interest Act, with respect to his trip to Billionaire Island and with his involvement in the SNC-Lavalin scandal—it's imperative that this committee exercise its function to ensure that Canadians can have confidence in their public institutions and can have confidence in the Prime Minister's Office and in the occupant of that office, and, when there is reason to call into question that confidence, that the full force of sunlight is effected so that we can have transparency. We heard from Prime Minister Trudeau once that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this motion is an effort to achieve that effect, to disinfect.

So let's put some sunlight on this. Openness and transparency were proclaimed to be hallmarks or commitments of this government, and we're looking to see that. It's worth noting that in the “Trudeau II Report”, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mr. Mario Dion said there were nine witnesses who were not able to testify because doing so would reveal a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council.

Now that is a problem, because we were told that all cabinet confidences would be waived during that investigation, and that was not the case. It's documented, and so we had nine witnesses who wanted to aid in that transparency that an independent officer of Parliament was looking to bring to the issue, and doing that was not possible.

I think, given the reality we're faced with, that we have a shifting narrative, it's important that we pin down all the facts as soon as possible so that we can assure Canadians that Parliament is exercising its function as a check against the executive branch of government. The records that are asked for in this motion speak directly to this issue, which has been dominating the front page of newspapers and which has been the top story on the newscasts across our country for weeks. We have this $912-million program that was awarded without competition. I'm aware—and I am sure that I'll hear from members of the Liberal Party—that it wasn't a sole-source contract, but we heard yesterday from civil servants that this was not a tendered contract. There was no tendering process. There was no RFP. The contention was that we wanted to get it done fast, so we did it.

Okay, but why was this organization selected?

There are a few distinctions about this organization that are a matter of public record and that need to be considered. One of those considerations is that members of Justin Trudeau's family, including his mother Margaret and his brother Alexandre, together benefited in the amount of more than $300,000 in dealings with this organization, with WE Charity.

We know that the Prime Minister's wife is a spokesperson for this organization. We know that Justin Trudeau is regularly involved with this organization as well. We know that Ms. Grégoire Trudeau did one time receive a speaking fee from this organization as well, prior to Justin Trudeau taking office as Prime Minister.

That's a lot of money. That's not an insignificant amount of money when we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars and about nearly $11,000 per engagement for Ms. Margaret Trudeau. That's significant. Then for this company to be awarded this arrangement, this contract, without competition....

If we want to decide on common language other than calling it “sole source”, if that's an impediment to us getting facts and transparency, I'm happy to engage in that conversation. But it is what it is. We heard yesterday that no competition was engaged on this.

We also know that for July 2, 2017, in one of many sole-sourced arrangements with WE Charity, there was a more than $1-million contract between the Government of Canada and WE Charity that saw Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his mother, Margaret, on the lawn of Parliament Hill. Documents related to whether or not Ms. Margaret Trudeau was paid her approximately $11,000 speaking fee for that effort have not been released by the PMO and have not been forthcoming from WE Charity. That's a problem. It's a problem when taxpayer dollars are going out of their hand and then into the hand of the mother of a public office holder, the head of our government. Any reasonable person would see that it's inappropriate.

This organization, WE Charity, has declined to pay speaking fees to other people with exceptional reputations and perspective in the field that Ms. Margaret Trudeau is also known to be an expert in, or well known for, in the field of mental health. That's commendable; I think it's tremendous that she speaks on that issue. I think talking about those issues is so important today. In the context of COVID-19, I think we've all heard, and some of us may have experienced in our communities and in our families, that with regard to mental health, there will be real challenges for folks who've been isolated as a result of this. So it's very important. But why pay her and not somebody else? Is it appropriate for her to be paid with taxpayer dollars, as the mother of the Prime Minister, $11,000 for 90 minutes' work? These questions that have been raised are incredibly important.

The answers we received yesterday at the finance committee are very interesting. The mandate of that committee is different. I know there are motions that will come forward from other members today. I think it's important that we not lose sight of this committee's mandate. This is the ethics committee. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is again investigating the Prime Minister of Canada, a prime minister who has twice been found guilty of breaking that law. We also have the Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau, who now has an investigation being conducted by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner as well, having already once been found guilty of breaking that law. The work of this committee is tremendously important.

I recognized that this would cause discomfort to my colleagues on the other side of the room, as it's the leader of their party, members of the cabinet and the same party that they sit in who are the subject of these questions. I genuinely believe that the sooner we get all the answers, the sooner we can put this matter to rest. Nothing would give me more satisfaction than being able to reassure Canadians that the rule of law is being followed, that we have an open and transparent government and that there is no more to see here. For now, there is more to see, and that's why it's important that we get a look at these documents.

I look forward to hearing other comments from members of the committee, Madam Chair. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to move this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I will continue moving down my speakers list.

I have Mrs. Shanahan next.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm glad to hear the member say that he's open to our discussing the definition of contribution agreement and talking about mandate.

I'd like to cede my time to Madame Brière, if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I would have to go down the speakers list. Mrs. Shanahan, if you are done, I will move to Mr. Angus, and then I will come to Ms. Brière.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Okay, I will continue, then.

Indeed, I would like to bring to the committee's attention our mandate and the fact that our mandate is actually a review mandate of the work of the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and the Privacy Commissioner. Given that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is now charged with this work, we are not an investigative body. Indeed, we are a review body. We are here to make sure that the commissioner is able to do his or her work. That is our role.

I'd like to just read out the mandate, actually—I find that this is always very helpful—and to do a review of the mandates of the other committees that we know have motions before them on this issue.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics reviews, among other matters, the effectiveness, management and operations as well as the operational and expenditure plans relating to four Officers of Parliament: the Information Commissioner; the Privacy Commissioner; the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; and the Commissioner of Lobbying. It also reviews their reports, although in the case of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the reports concerned relate to the Commissioner’s responsibilities under the Parliament of Canada Act regarding public office holders and reports tabled pursuant to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. In cooperation with other standing committees, the Committee also reviews any bill, federal regulation or Standing Order which impacts upon its main areas of responsibility: access to information, privacy and the ethical standards of public office holders. It may also propose initiatives in these areas and promote, monitor and assess such initiatives.

So we are not an investigative body. In fact, that was a discussion that we had in our first meeting here, when we set our rules and procedures.

I'm going to switch to French here.

I recall that we had a very detailed conversation about the fact that this committee is responsible for studying highly sensititive matters that pertain directly to people's confidentiality and privacy. It was determined that we would not discuss individuals or specific people.

The fact that we have a public life, as members of Parliament—or commissioners—is one thing. But it is quite another matter when it concerns a spouse, mother, brother, sister or any other person with whom we are related and who, in some instances, are just ill-fated to be so related. As I have eight brothers and sisters, I can tell you I have experience of this. We can't begin to conduct investigations into all of our families. It is not the role of this committee to tarnish people's reputations.

There is a reason why former Prime Minister Harper enacted the Conflict of Interest Act and appointed a commissioner. This made it possible to study situations considered worrying by MPs in strict confidentiality. The process has my complete confidence. There may be some here who do not trust the commissioner's office or the commissioner himself, but that is another matter. As for me, I am convinced that he has everything required to conduct the investigation as he sees fit.

The issue is mainly about our mandate, and that is what we should focus on. As MPs, we are responsible for dealing with matters that the House of Commons entrusts to us. We need to make sure that commissioners have the tools required. These commissioners, who are non-partisan and independent, are appointed for specific periods.

They are there to do very important work on behalf of Canadians.

I agree with my colleague opposite. We can ask questions to determine whether certain actions of an MP or a member of that MP's family, or even other relations, are appropriate. We are speaking about two things here. The immediate members of an MP's family include the wife or husband and their children, but as I was just saying, there are also other relations.

Is this reasonable? Is this really what we want to do? Have we truly got to that point? Are we going to conduct a public investigation into everyone when other tools are available?

I spoke about the Ethics Commissioner. And we also know that the Standing Committee on Finance held a meeting yesterday to discuss the contribution agreement.

I know it's a bit technical, but the fact is that there is a difference, for the public, between what is a contribution agreement, what is a transfer payment and what is a procurement contract.

A procurement contract is used to obtain goods or services. It is an agreement between a federal government contracting authority and an outside party to purchase goods, provide a service or lease real property. Most often, the outside party is chosen through a competitive selection process.... A transfer (payment) arrangement is used to transfer monies...from the federal government to individuals, organizations or other levels of government...to further government policy and the department's objectives.

Under a contribution agreement [a type of transfer payment], the government sets the high-level funding parameters, including the [program and policy] objectives, desired outcomes, eligible expenditures, and performance measurement.... However...the government does not direct or dictate how the recipient will carry out their project.

Those are the definitions. That is indeed the work of the finance committee. I daresay that we don't comment on other committees, but from the time I was participating in the government operations committee, I know that this could also be part of their mandate, to judge whether to conduct a study as to whether the department's work was carried out with all due processes and whether this was the appropriate method to use.

It is not uncommon, as we heard yesterday at the finance committee—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm diligently taking notes from my colleague, and I'm wondering if she could restate her outlining of the committee mandate. I may have missed this, but the last line says that the committee can also study any legislation or regulation or purpose, initiatives that relate to “access to information, privacy and the ethical standards of public office holders.”

I'm not sure if I missed that. If she could restate it, I'll just correct my notes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Hold on here one moment.

Is it a point of order?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes. It's hard for the interpreters to do their job properly when people speak too fast. It would be better if we could speak more slowly.

Thank you.