Information & Ethics Committee on July 22nd, 2020

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

You'll recall, as a recap, that there was certainly a lot of discussion about the mandate of this committee and about what its extent was. There was one allegation that we were looking to drag Justin's mother to the meeting and perhaps her relatives and her family.

You'll recall that it was my colleague, Charlie Angus, who brought forward this compromise. That's what brought us here today with this amendment, which was to use the tools of the commissioner in this investigation and to have the appropriate documents above and beyond what's been reported. You'll recall we already know through public record that $300,000 and more of pecuniary interest was transferred to family members. The compromise was to have this amendment essentially allow the private information of a private citizen to go directly to the commissioner.

In conversations with my friend, who is providing the subamendment, recognizing the announcement of the Prime Minister to agree to go to the finance committee, I think there would be a fair comment or feeling that the compromise that was put forward by my colleague might have been dead in the water at that point, that the Prime Minister might not have been willing to attend two committees, given the precedent.

What this amendment does—and I'm hearing this amendment for the first time—is that it essentially brings us back to the original spirit of the amendment the Conservatives proposed originally, which is, in fact, not the compromise that we tried to provide. I feel like, if I could just be so plain as to say, this is now a game of chicken, because we believed we were negotiating in good faith with our friends across the way in order to have accountability brought to this ethics committee.

Being here and representing my good friend and very learned colleague Charlie Angus, I'm here to represent that original compromise and that original interest to allow for the Ethics Commissioner to do his work in the investigation, provided there is support around this table to have the Prime Minister come to this committee.

This committee is not the finance committee. This committee has a different mandate, and the mandate is very clear. It's an ethical mandate. There have been financial breaches, as we've heard today from the finance minister's $41,000 forgetting of monies that should have been paid to this organization and the many other ethical breaches that continue to unravel, but at the end of the day, our mandate here is to shine a light on this issue.

I would like to think, I would like to hope, that, if there was goodwill around the table to support the original amendment as it was, then I would be willing to stick with the intention of the original amendment over the subamendment. In fairness, I am just hearing the subamendment for the first time. It's a very smart subamendment, by the way, because it brings it right back to where we are, at square one.

Through my comments through you, Madam Chair, I want to hear from the other side. I want to hear from government if they are negotiating in good faith on a compromise before I make my decision on whether to vote for the subamendment or not. If they're operating in good faith, and we were to vote down this subamendment—and I'm going to speak very plainly—then the expectation is that we would get support from the government side to support the spirit of the original amendment, which was to have the documents go to the Ethics Commissioner and have the Prime Minister called to this committee.

Now I'm not naive enough to think that the invitation is going to automatically result in his appearance, but this is about accountability. This is about integrity. If there are games to be played, if there are future filibusters to be had, let's just be very clear that we could wrap this up very quickly. If in a few comments on government from the other side they say, “Yes, we'll support this amendment, as was the original spirit. We will negotiate in good faith with the New Democrats on the amendment”, then I won't support the subamendment, but if I don't get that, Madam Chair, if I feel like we're going to be filibustering, if I feel like we're going to be into another procedural shenanigan....

The public is watching, and they'll see what's gone on in this committee. The public is not stupid. That's where we are at with the amendment that I'm bringing forward on behalf of my colleague.

I'm very curious to hear from the government side. If it is willing to operate in good faith, we could vote on this motion. We could put the question on this amendment and call this meeting to order to get on with things. Otherwise, we might be facing another filibuster, and we'll be right back to where we started.

That's where I'm at right now. Where I'm from, plain talk is not bad manners. I hope that in speaking plainly and clearly folks know what's on the table right now. I hope to hear from members of the government side that they are operating in good faith, and that we're not going to have another filibuster. We can have this committee operate within its mandate and call the Prime Minister to testify before this ethics committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

We'll go to Mr. Fergus, followed by Madam Gaudreau.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My thanks to all my colleagues around the table for giving us the opportunity to consider the proposal or the compromise put forward at our last meeting. I am very grateful to you.

Madam Chair, before I make my comments, could I ask the clerk to read Mr. Angus's amendment to the original motion again? Could you read it again so that everything is crystal clear?

If it's all right with you, Madam Chair, I would then like to continue with my comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

At this time, I will ask the clerk to read the amendment.

To be clear, you just want Mr. Angus's original amendment, without the subamendment. Is that correct?

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

Yes.

[The Clerk]

It is that the motion be amended by adding after the words “one week of the adoption of this Order” the following:

and that these records be provided to the Ethics Commissioner for his study; and that this committee call upon Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to appear to give testimony relating to these matters.

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

According to the amendment, would that information go directly to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

The way the amendment reads, based on Mr. Angus's amendment, the information gathered, the speaking list gathered, would come to the clerk of the committee. It would not come to the members of the committee. Directly from the clerk, it would then be submitted to the Ethics Commissioner.

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

Is that what we all understand?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

And the Prime Minister would come before the committee.

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

I got that. I just wanted to make sure on that part. The reason why, Madam Chair, I sought that precision—to make sure that it directly goes—is that.... It gets back to the principle that I raised at the last meeting.

If you'll allow me a little bit of time to talk about that, my concern always has been that.... Why we set up the commissioner, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, was that it takes it out of our hands. We have delegated this authority to act on behalf of all members of Parliament, regardless of political affiliation, to act in our better interests because sometimes it happens that.... I know all members are honourable, but even I am tempted every so often to play a political game. I know, shocking as it is, Madam Chair, it does happen to all of us from time to time. When we're talking about these important issues, about the finances or whatever background—I don't know; it could be a criminal issue; it could be whatever background that people might have—we want to make sure that this information is going to the person it should go to, and that is the person who is entrusted to act in a non-partisan way on behalf of all of us. That is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

That's the reason I sought out an understanding on that. With that, Madam Chair, I have to admit that I feel very comfortable with the amendment. I still feel uncomfortable with the subamendment. My position hasn't changed on that. It's not said in the reason. I'm not trying to advance any political agenda on this. I'm really trying to think out.... It's fine for this issue, but there are going to be other issues that are going to come out, and we don't want to cross the Rubicon on this one. To use another good Latin reference, we don't want to cross that Rubicon; we don't want to cross that river. We want to stay on this side. It's in all of our interests to do so, and it will be in the interest of subsequent generations of politicians because we're only here temporarily.

Madam Chair, I'd like to compliment Mr. Kurek for part of his opening comments today when he talked about where we find ourselves. We do find ourselves in a health crisis. We do find ourselves in a global pandemic. I think Parliament has done a very good job of coming to the aid of Canadians in extraordinary ways, in ways that frankly make us the envy of the world.

I really appreciate the proposed steps taken by the government, which have have been improved by members of the opposition, to come up with things such as the Canada emergency response benefit and the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which I think is going to be playing an increasingly important role in making sure that our economy grows back better. I appreciate the input that all members of Parliament have made, that I know my colleagues on this side have made, and I certainly know that you have heard from your constituents on what we did in terms of old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and business loans.

All these measures, which were designed to get Canadians through this health crisis, have worked well. We have worked hard on that. To limit the spread of this disease, we told people not to go in to work. It comes with costs and consequences, however. We worked very hard to make sure that those efforts were worth it. However, Madam Chair, one thing that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Sorry, Mr. Fergus. One moment, please. We are discussing the subamendment right now, so I would ask you to keep your comments to the subamendment, please.

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

I will do that. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I'm just following up on what Mr. Kurek raised at the beginning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Yes, thank you. I don't mind your making a quick reference, but if it's the full compilation of your speech, then I think it's beyond the scope of the discussion right now. Thank you.

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

Excuse me. I will not make a political speech, and it was not my intent to do so.

There is an amendment to the original motion put forward by Mr. Angus, which I am prepared to support. I hope and believe that my colleagues are also prepared to take action to ensure that we have limits on this and that the information is sent directly to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We are also asking the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, which is a good compromise I'm proud to support.

I hope the committee rejects the subamendment. If it is defeated, I'm prepared to proceed with the vote so that we can move on and continue to do the good work that Canadians demand of us.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

The next two speakers are Madame Gaudreau and Madame Brière.

Madame Gaudreau, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This will take about five minutes.

The first time I spoke on this committee, hopes were high. We sit on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and we must be accountable, honest and transparent.

We took a break and it was good to see each other again, even though we are now very far away from each other.

Having said that, I was not able to speak at the last meeting, but I was very disappointed in a lot of things. Since the pandemic began, we have been told we need to act quickly and what we are going through is unprecedented. I agree, but what would happen if the committee, which is responsible for quickly shedding light on an issue, were unable to do so? We all have the ability to get to the bottom of this quickly, to help people who have needs and to make sure that the rules are followed.

I attended both meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance on this issue. Given everything we heard, it is important—to me, I am brand new—that, day by day, the perspective changes. For several days, my constituents have been calling and asking me what is going on.

As I said earlier in the House, the—I do not want to use the word "ordinary" here—administrators volunteering at an association for their children "have to disclose any personal information that could lead to a potential conflict of interest." You and I are the first to disclose any potential conflict of interest. Folks have asked why it is that members of the government, who are not overseeing evening educational events for their children, but, rather, managing billions of taxpayer dollars, do not do it too. I told them that they were absolutely right, that they cannot simply stand by and watch what's going on, and that we must take action.

I believe I have now been speaking for five minutes.

We are discussing the subamendment and we need to get to the bottom of the issue. Anyway, what is there to hide? We must be accountable.

You will have gathered that I support Mr. Kurek's subamendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

The next two speakers are Madame Brière and Mr. Kurek.

Madame Brière, the floor is yours.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to raise a couple of points before we get to the other issues. First, I hope Mr. Barrett does not feel he is being targeted. It's a combination of circumstances. I, for one, am also learning things from meeting to meeting. Although my comments on Friday raised a number of eyebrows, I see that other members like to flaunt the fact that they speak Latin, Greek or Hebrew.

As we pointed out on Friday, it is important that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner be provided with all relevant information to examine the matter in hand. We have full confidence in the commissioner, since it is part of his mandate to provide advice on any matter relating to enforcement of the Conflict of Interest Act. It is also part of his mandate to investigate. However, our committee is neither an inquiry committee nor a kangaroo court. That is why we accept the part of Mr. Angus and Mr. Green's amendment that says a copy of all documents should be provided directly to the commissioner.

I, too, welcome Mr. Kurek's remarks today. It's true that Canadians need to know the ins and outs of this situation. Indeed, we are working for all Canadians. That has always been our priority, especially since the beginning of this pandemic. Mr. Kurek also claims that we have not put Canadians' interests first. Yet we have implemented many programs, whether to help individual Canadians, personally, or to support businesses, such as the emergency wage subsidy, which we adapted to be even more responsive to the needs, concerns and issues faced by all our entrepreneurs during the crisis. Let's not forget the measures to provide commercial rent relief, or to help seniors, people with disabilities and students. In students' case, the program was designed to support them. Within the first week of the program's launch, 35,000 applications were made by people from all walks of life. We can see that the measure was necessary and expected.

We acted quickly and effectively. The numbers show that we have helped millions of Canadians and that billions of dollars have been distributed to support everyone. We even proposed a way for Parliament to work so that bills could be debated and put to a vote, a clear example of our respect for democracy. Rest assured, I am not going to repeat what I said on Friday.

With respect to the matter in hand, the Prime Minister has apologized. As mentioned earlier, he is now ready to answer questions from members of the Standing Committee on Finance. As for the subamendment, in my opinion, investigative work is the commissioner's responsibility. He is entitled to receive the documents and records he deems necessary, and he may do so confidentially.

For these reasons, I agree with my colleague Mr. Fergus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

The next two speakers are Mr. Kurek and Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Kurek, the floor is yours.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll keep my remarks very brief.

Again, the question of the mandate of this committee has been brought up. I would actually use the comments that Mrs. Shanahan made, in part, in her speech on Friday. I apologize if this isn't quite 100% verbatim. It was as fast as my shorthand could go. She said that we have wide powers of how to conduct our business, when referring to the committee.

The inference that we want to turn this into a kangaroo court or go on a witch hunt, whatever the case may be, is absolutely not the case. However, with the number of calls that I'm getting in my constituency office—emails, text messages, Facebook comments and messages—Canadians demand answers. It is incumbent upon us all to ensure...and I'll use another quote from Mr. Fergus's testimony on Friday. It is that democracy is fragile. It is. We've seen shaking of the trust that Canadians expect to put in their government, regardless of its political stripe.

Seemingly, every time Twitter gets refreshed, there's a new revelation, a new element to the scandal that is being revealed. Certainly, from what I'm hearing from my constituents, we must do everything we can to restore the trust that Canadians expect to have in our Parliament and in their government, regardless of whether they voted Liberal or not. We need to take every step necessary to help bring that trust back.

I would encourage all members to once again consider the question that was asked by that constituent I mentioned, with a phone call earlier this week: “What is the problem with shining light on this issue?”

I encourage members to support the subamendment. I would like to see it go to a vote, so we can move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

We'll go to Mr. Barrett, followed by Mr. Vaughan.

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

In the interest of moving to a vote, I'll cede my time. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Next is Mr. Vaughan, followed by Madame Gaudreau.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to join this committee today to further explore the role of this committee in relation to what's in front of us, with the amendments and the motions that have been moved.

I'm going to start with a bit of background. When I was a city councillor in Toronto, one of the roles I fulfilled in David Miller's mandate was to appoint an ethics and integrity commissioner. As we were formulating that office, one piece of advice we got from several different bodies across the country—municipal, provincial and federal and people with experience—was to be very careful about setting up politicians to investigate politicians. There's a political theatre and a political process for that, but when you set up investigative bodies with competitors—with colleagues investigating each other—it very quickly becomes something that is unfair, both to those who are accused of wrongdoing and to those who are asked to participate in the investigation of colleagues. It's impossible to divorce the ethical standards from the political behaviour. This doesn't give us good, strong ethical governance structure. It doesn't give us good, strong investigative results. It doesn't give us clarity on what's been done wrong, what's been done right and what needs to change in terms of the rules and regulations to make sure that democracy and good governance are protected.

The motion that's in front of us is understandable in terms of its intent to get information from private citizens transferred to the Ethics Commissioner, so that the investigation of the situation we find ourselves in can be appropriately done and reported back to Parliament. The findings can be done through an independent system, which a previous Parliament wisely set up and put together. I think that's a really important principle.

I think there is a gap in the way in which it operates because of the issues that have been raised here, such as family members' roles in the conflict of interest guidelines, which family members, to what degree we understand family members' behaviours and how that impacts us as public office holders. I think we need clarity around that. It's critically important, even without this issue in front of us, to maintain the confidence and trust Canadians have in the governing process.

When we set up a parallel investigative process, it is not unlikely that this body could reach very different conclusions from the Ethics Commissioner. That calls the role of the Ethics Commissioner into question immediately. That's not a good situation. For those of us who rely on the Ethics Commissioner to clear our names or to deliver findings to us, it is not a good situation to undermine the integrity of that office while that office is doing critically important work on our behalf.

I'm very reluctant to set a precedent in this committee, which does not have a mandate to investigate any member of Parliament for any reason on a particular issue. To suddenly say that this committee would then have the power to compel any member of Parliament to attend and suffer the political consequences if they decline the invitation sets a really dangerous precedent. It sends this ethics standing committee off in a whole new direction it was never intended to deal with.

We set up the Ethics Commissioner not to depoliticize what was happening, but to give us clarity in a political setting. From there, how we choose to respond to the Ethics Commissioner is where this committee's work begins. At that point, I would assume, having read previous Ethics Commissioner reports on individuals, that the relevant information as to where the rules were broken, which rules were broken, why they were broken if they were broken, what rationale existed to frame the rules the way they were and what proposals may be required to change that is where the work of this committee starts.

It doesn't start by investigating the individuals simultaneously, regardless of who that individual is. It is very clear, if you read the full mandate of this committee, that our job is to evaluate those reports and to make recommendations to Parliament on what changes need to be made to guidelines and conflict of interest regulations so that Canadians can have confidence in Parliament.

I have complete support for Member Angus's motion to request that this information be forwarded to the Ethics Commissioner. That's fine. I think it's massively premature to call the Prime Minister, in this case, in front of this committee while that ethics investigation is under way. I think that is a flaw in the way the amendment is drafted.

I also think it assumes a conclusion to the Ethics Commissioner's investigation, that somehow we can start asking the Prime Minister questions in real time while that investigation is under way. Clearly, it's like doing the investigation and the trial all at the same time. I don't think that's an appropriate way to proceed.

I do support the motion, as I said, the amendment in the spirit of Mr. Angus's motion, but I am very concerned about calling politicians from the House, any MP from the House, in front of the ethics committee every time there's a political point to be made. I think that sets a very dangerous precedent, and I can't support that at this time.