Information & Ethics Committee on July 17th, 2020

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

This is where I was incorrect.

Madam Chair, let me read off this part to see if there's a distinction in that thin branch that I think our members were trying to hang on to.

If you and the members would indulge me for a second, please.... My apologies for this.

This makes the point that it's really important, when we hand members of Parliament the Standing Orders after the election, that we provide them with the most recent Standing Orders.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I'll speak to the chair of the House about this.

The point I was trying to make was with regard to.... I'm looking at the access to information. There's a spacing problem in the printout here, so I'll say this in French, which seems not to have this problem. Here we go:

(v) the review of and report on reports of the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to his or her responsibilities under the Parliament of Canada Act relating to public office holders and on reports tabled pursuant to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, which shall be severally deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately after they are laid upon the Table;

(vi) in cooperation with other committees, the review of and report on any federal legislation, regulation or Standing Order which impacts upon the access to information or privacy of Canadians or the ethical standards of public office holders;

(vii) the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives which relate to access to information and privacy across all sectors of Canadian society and to ethical standards relating to public office holders;

and any other matter which the House shall from time to time refer to the standing committee.

When we say that we want a case study without parameters that is focused on particular individuals, we are indirectly, as I have said before, doing what we are not allowed to do directly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Angus.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, as someone with many years of experience filibustering—I've been called out by the chair many times—if one is going to filibuster and rag the puck until two o'clock, which is their right, they have to be introducing new material. If they're just repeating what the other members have read into the record, they're actually just trying to walk the clock down. I would ask my colleague to....

I mean, I love the stuff about ancient Athens. He can talk about Sparta if he wants, or he can talk about other things, as long as he brings relevance. To refer to the same things that Mrs. Shanahan has already spoken about is dilatory.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Fergus, please continue.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I take it from the absence of a statement.... I really do feel, actually, that I'm not trying to repeat material suggested by other members but trying to point out that what is happening here

it's that, as I mentioned in French, we are indirectly doing what we cannot do directly.

We are bypassing the rules of the House of Commons.

We should simply allow the Ethics Commissioner to do his work. We need to avoid giving in to the temptation of conducting a witch hunt and trying to find information about individuals who may be linked in some way—which remains to be seen—with us in connection with our work. Let's let the commissioner conduct his investigation. It could prevent an undesirable situation. We should avoid simply looking for potentially prejudicial information and instead have a clear and precise objective.

If there are gaps in the act that governs the work of the Ethics Commissioner, then it is up to us to examine and assess them, do a proper study of them and fill these gaps. That is not what will happen here with this so-called case study. We are using an exception to justify a project and that's not a good idea.

I have confidence in the collective wisdom around this table. We can avoid this situation and avoid damaging our democratic institutions. We must always support these institutions. The people who succeed us—we are all only here temporarily—will see that it is worth the effort to run for office to serve in the House of Commons for the furtherance and continuity of our democracy. I would be concerned if we were to act in any other way.

That concludes my comments, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for your patience.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus, thank you very much for your comments.

I have Mr. Green next on the speakers list.

Mr. Green, you are permitted to speak; however, because you are not a regular member of this committee, nor have you been substituted in, if the committee objects, then unfortunately I cannot give you the floor.

At the will of the committee, you can go.

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Ms. Gaudreau.

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

I would like to point out that from the very outset, when the committees began to meet in person, everyone followed the health rules. There is one particular rule that was established.

So if you tell me that the rule is still being observed, I will do otherwise. I would like to ask the following question: are we following the health rules established in the agreement reached by the committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Is that about the health rules? Is that what you're saying?

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

I am referring to the number of MPs in attendance. There was to be a member from the Bloc Québecois and a member from the NDP. If you are telling me that it's all right this way, I will proceed accordingly for the future meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

It is the member's parliamentary privilege to be at this meeting, so accommodation is being made for him to be here.

Mr. Green.

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

That was not what had been agreed upon at the outset. Nor is it what the committees meeting in person are doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Again, it is his parliamentary privilege, and it is the responsibility of this House and for me as chair to respect his parliamentary privilege. He has every right to be here—

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

Don't the health rules take precedence over privileges?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

That's correct.

Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd also like to thank the staff for setting us up in such a way that I feel very comfortable with my two-metre distance from my colleagues, as well as with the directions on the floor and all the protocols, notwithstanding coughs.

I would also like to extend, through you, my gratitude to this committee for having the courtesy to allow me to speak as the deputy critic for ethics. It's been very illuminating to be here today. We have heard a lot from the government's side, certainly anything from, as was referenced earlier, stories in Greek and Latin to biographical stories. It's good to get to know everybody in that way.

I do feel that this is a very critically important issue for Canada and for this committee in particular.

Notwithstanding the loquacious nature of my colleagues, I just want to draw attention to the narrowing of the scope that I feel is happening here. There have been some very good procedures and standing orders that have been read into the public record. Certainly, for the viewers who might not know that, and even for me as a new MP who may not have read every single aspect of the mandate of this committee, it's been very important.

Madam Chair, I'd also like to acknowledge the work of my friend along the way who pointed out some of the omissions in the mandate of this committee, which I think are also important to fulfill the public record.

We've heard a lot about the appropriateness and the extension of conflict of interest regarding the political involvement, potentially, of family members here in this committee. I would agree with my colleague Charlie; I have no interest, nor do I think it's appropriate to necessarily bring spouses and family members before this committee that way, because, quite frankly, they haven't signed up to be cross-examined at committee. However, each one of us has. I think there is a responsibility for the Prime Minister and for senior members of both his staff and, of course, some of the ministries to be present here.

I do want to remind members of this committee, from my early learnings, that under the Conflict of Interest Act, it is very clear. Despite the very liberal definitions of “conflict of interest”, I thought it would be important for this committee to add the following contribution. Family members or relatives are included seven times in the Conflict of Interest Act.

The following are the members of a public office holder’s family for the purposes of this Act:

(a) his or her spouse or common-law partner, and

(b) his or her dependent children and the dependent children of his or her spouse or common-law partner.

Again, I have no interest in bringing any of those people before the committee.

“Relatives” are defined as follows:

(3) Persons who are related to a public officer holder by birth, marriage, common-law partnership, adoption or affinity are the public officer holder's relatives for the purposes of this Act unless the Commissioner determines [otherwise].

I'll go further to where it states, later on in part 1, “Conflict of Interest Rules”, that:

For the purposes of this Act, a public officer holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends [or neighbours] or to improperly further another person's private interests.

I think that's a very germane and important point.

We also look at influence under section 9: “No public office holder shall use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to—”

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Green, just one moment, please.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On a point of order, I'm just wondering if the member can.... I might have misheard. Did he say that the definition of family...? Would what is germane be determined by the commissioner?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

This is as it's related to the act.

So, for the purpose of this committee, what I would suggest is that one of the classic—speaking of Latin—rhetorical fallacies is the modal scope fallacy, where you narrow the terms to such a place where you can't help but further your side. I'm looking to define these terms in a way that doesn't mislead the public. In the public, we've heard “witch hunt”; we've heard “circus” or “show”. What I'm concerned about is that if there's a show to be had, it's one of contortion wherein we're not actually sticking to the act.

Again, for people tuning in, as this is broadcast live, I want to make sure they have a clear understanding of what influence looks like under section 9. It says:

No public office holder shall use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder’s private interests or those of the public office holder’s relatives [as defined by the act] or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.

The influence, I think, is an important consideration, given that these are not conversations of backbenchers, of regular members of Parliament, but of cabinet and of the highest echelons of power and privilege in this country.

There is another thing I want to draw our attention to. As new MPs—and I see some of my other colleagues who are new—we went through the whole process of the conflict of interest, the reporting processes where you had to declare. It was a very fulsome discussion, and one thing they taught us was on gifts.

I get very caught up in what I will call “political weasel words”. I'm not saying that in a pejorative way, but that's a term that's generally accepted for slipping and sliding around definitions: around what a contract is, or a contribution agreement, or what an honorarium is. I think we can generally agree on the fact—

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

Chair, “weasel words”, is that parliamentary language?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

There's a whole book on it, actually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I don't believe the term was used in reference to an individual. It was used in reference to words, so I'm going to allow it.

Go ahead, Mr. Green.