Information & Ethics Committee on July 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Mr. Kurek is next.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I hear something often from my constituents, and it's that one needs to take action. Whether that's expressed through in-person conversations, over the phone, or in emails or letters, it's incumbent upon all of us to do just that.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, action was taken. All parties got together, and although there has been disagreement, and significant disagreement, about aspects of that response throughout the last number of months, action was taken.

Canadians still expect their government to work for them, to deal with the issues at hand and the challenges that they're facing. I know I hear often from members of all parties that there needs to be a clear focus on serving Canadians.

However, we see this Liberal government embroiled yet again in a scandal that is taking away from its ability to do the most basic work it's been tasked to do. With revelations that we heard yesterday, Madam Chair, it is absolutely unprecedented to forget to pay back $41,000 and to take an illegal trip as a cabinet minister when your position specifically precludes you from being allowed to do that. These are not just serious allegations; they are serious admissions.

Canadians expect their government to work for them. Canadians expect that each and every one of us is willing to take action, and certainly I plan to support this motion. There is no doubt that this finance minister has certainly lost not only my confidence but the confidence of Canadians and that he is distracting from the work that Canadians expect from their finance minister. Regardless of whom they voted for, Canadians expect better. Canadians deserve better.

Madam Chair, I plan to support this motion put forward by the Bloc because it's time that there's some accountability. It's time that action is taken to help restore trust in the institutions of government, in Parliament.

My honourable friend Mr. Barrett made a very good point. We are caretakers of the offices we hold. Whether that is as a member of Parliament, as a committee chair or a member of a committee, as a member of cabinet or as the Prime Minister himself, we are caretakers, and we must do just that: take the utmost care, because Canadians hold us to the high standards that we should strive for.

It is unbelievable, quite frankly, what we've been seeing in the actions of certain members of the Liberal government.

With that, I plan to support this motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Green is next.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I do feel compelled to say this and share the sentiments of my friend Tom, who hearkens back to a time when the rule used to be that if you got caught, you fell on the sword. You did the honourable thing. You were expected to do that. I don't think that's going to happen here, because quite frankly, I don't think there are systems for true accountability in place. I hope to get to that in my next speaking slot.

While I agree with the sentiments of the folks who will support this motion, I still don't believe that it's incumbent on this committee to do it. I do think it's incumbent on this minister to consider what the old rule used to be: that if you got caught in situations like this, you would do the honourable thing and step down.

I'll just put those statements on the record, but I will not be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

All right.

At this time I will proceed to a vote.

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

Can I have a recorded vote, please?

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I will continue with my speaking list.

Mr. Green is next. I will add Ms. Shanahan and I will add Mr. Kurek.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I'd like at this point in time to table a motion that was presented as a notice on July 14 by my colleague Mr. Charlie Angus. This is a motion for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics:

That, whereas there is a culture of Ethical Permissiveness around the Prime Minister; and whereas the Prime Minister has twice been found to be in contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act and is under investigation for a third potential breach; and whereas the Prime Minister's Office thus appears to lack the capability or inclination to adequately advise the Prime Minister with respect to the avoidance of conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest in compliance with Canadian law, the Committee move that pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee undertake a study of the policies, procedures, and practices surrounding ethical conduct and avoidance of conflicts of interest within the Prime Minister's Office, including testimony from the Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart and Katie Telford, Chief of Staff the Prime Minister's Office; and that the Committee, upon completion of its study, issue a report with recommendations to better permit the Prime Minister's Office to conduct the business of government with public confidence in its integrity.

Let me take a moment to speak to this. Clearly it's in the purview of this committee, as we've just discussed and debated in the previous motions, to hold members of government accountable for decisions that are made by government. What has also been made very clear throughout this entire debate, however, are the repeated ethical violations and the apparent lack of ethical standards being applied. We have watched this occur at almost every step along the way in this WE scandal, and of course in previous transgressions by not just the Liberal government but by past Conservative governments as well.

What appears to be clear is that there's very little staff safeguarding against these repeated conflicts, that there are no systems and principles in place to ensure that a minister doesn't take a $40,000 paid trip.

I should note for the context, for Canadians watching, that in my riding of Hamilton Centre, the average household income is $43,000, just by way of context. It's significant, yet it appears that the rules just don't apply to some people, and that some people with power and access and privilege, it seems, can't help themselves from helping themselves.

It would be a misstep for us to go around the table, time and time again, every time there's a scandal, doing the “gotcha”. I'll admit that part of this is about that, about holding people accountable in the moment. I think, however, that it's incumbent on us, through this study—and I hope to get support from everybody—to come out of this committee with clear recommendations and systems and principles in place to ensure that we can restore the public's confidence in the government and in the government's integrity, because that is really, fundamentally, what's at stake, Madam Chair. I'll go so far as to say that in the public discourse, the public opinion of public office holders is so low that it's generally accepted that the transgressions that have happened are acceptable.

Why? Well, Liberals will say it's because Conservatives did it, and Conservatives will say it's because Liberals did it, and so on. At the end of the day, what I'm hoping for and what my colleagueMr. Charlie Angus has led towards in this regard is that as a committee we can come together in the true mandate of our committee, in a non-partisan way, to give very clear direction to future governments, future ministers, future holders of power about where their parameters are so that there could be no ambiguity there.

It is certainly my hope, given the testimony that's been provided by the government side and by the opposition, that we can all be aligned in support of Charlie Angus's motion to create this study, and then come out of it with concrete recommendations for the House to adopt that will strengthen these policies and procedures to ensure that staff adequately provide safeguards against the missteps of elected officials.

The question was put to Minister Garneau, “Have you read the Conflict of Interest Act?” His response was telling. He said, “I believe when I first came into office I would have access to all of those acts.” I know that as a new backbench MP in the fourth party opposition, it was brought to my attention that we had to read it and that we had to do an orientation session for it. It's in the mandate letters of ministers. Certainly the Prime Minister, in writing the mandate letters, understands this. I can't accept that these are just lapses in judgment. This is a culture of ethical permissiveness.

I'm calling on the support of the members of this committee. I look forward to hearing their feedback. I'm sure there will be conversations around past judgments regarding our party as well, and how standards are applied to different parties in different scenarios. I'm here for that.

I appreciate the indulgence of this committee and ask for their support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Green, thank you.

Next on my speaking list is Mr. Barrett.

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

I yield my time. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

I didn't want to speak to this motion. I wanted to speak to another matter. I yield my time as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I thank my colleague from the NDP for bringing this forward.

I will say from the outset that I will be supporting this motion. However, I don't want my support to be construed in any way to say that the Prime Minister can blame a process, or that any public office holder can blame processes or the advisers around them, when it is they who set the standard for their teams. From what I've experienced in my various careers, you can have as good a process as you want, but if you have people who are not committed to upholding that process and to acting in an ethical manner, then they will find ways around that.

I will be supporting this motion, but I don't want anything to detract from the fact that it's the public office holders who need to be held accountable for their own actions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Madam Chair, I will be supporting the motion, but I would like to make an amendment.

I won't read the full amended motion. I'll provide the amendment in writing to the clerk, if that's okay.

The amendment is as follows: After “practices surrounding ethical conduct and avoidance of conflicts of interest within the Prime Minister's Office”, this amendment would strike “including testimony from” and add “that the witnesses must include, but are not limited to, the following”. Then the original motion would continue with “the Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart” and so on.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Chair, I do not have the text of the proposal. Is it possible to get it in writing? Do we have it in writing?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I can send it to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Because it's an amendment to the motion that is on the table—

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

That doesn't include the amendment.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We're talking about the actual motion. If we could get a copy of the actual motion, that would be beneficial for members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Sure. The notice of motion was given by Mr. Angus, and it is available within the website for this committee. The clerk has asked that you access it electronically. Because of COVID-19, we are not giving out paper documents. The clerk is able to email it out, if that is the desire.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Can I speak to it after the amendment, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Speaking to the amendment, go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

My staff will bring a printed copy of the original motion with the amendment in about one minute, in both official languages, and I hope members take that into consideration when considering it.