Information & Ethics Committee on July 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Next on the speakers list is Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

To provide an opportune response, I am a substitute for Mr. Angus and would never want to pretend to speak on his behalf, nor would I want to impugn his motives. It is very clear and contextual from where we're at today, from where I sit, that there are some factual statements that have been made that go beyond opinion in terms of results from previous transgressions.

While I appreciate the challenges the member might face in terms of the content of the preamble, I'm also confident that the results that will be had from successfully moving this motion here today will help us get to a better place in governance, because we have to have accountability. Saying I'm sorry is not good enough. Quite frankly, it just does not cut it. Saying I'm sorry is not being responsible.

Being responsible means learning from your transgressions and changing. This is elementary stuff. None of this stuff is overly complicated in terms of allegations that have been made or things that have been made public. This is very clear-cut stuff, things that I would hope learned and honourable members....

I should say this on the record now that I'm reminded of it, Madam Chair. I misspoke. I believe I said, “Garneau” hadn't read it. Of course, it was “Morneau”. I believe Garneau might speak a few languages and is probably pretty well read. It was Morneau who made the admission by omission that he probably hadn't even read the Conflict of Interest Act, even though it was in his mandate. That's where we're at. There's far too much at stake to simply sidestep this.

I hope that all members will recognize that as we walk through what will be, no doubt, a very delicate situation, balancing the privacy rights of private citizens with the need for openness, accountability and transparency at this table. As New Democrats—and I'm sure I can speak for my colleague Mr. Angus on this—we will always work to respect the private and delicate nature that we find ourselves in. This is actually about getting to somewhere where the hope is that future governments don't find themselves in the situation that this current government finds itself in. That's where we're at.

Again, I'll ask for the full support of all members. If we don't get it, I ask that this passes, and we get into the work of this committee to provide the types of recommendations that will help improve the governance and help improve democracy and accountability for all Canadians, quite frankly.

My apologies to Mr. Garneau for misspeaking his name earlier. I don't want to have to stand up in the House of Commons and suggest that I misled this committee. For the record, I'm quite clearly stating, it was Minister Morneau who suggested he hadn't read the act, when asked by my colleague Mr. Angus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I apologize to the listeners at home. They do not know that I just spent a few minutes with the clerk trying to find some information. Unfortunately, I do not have the information I need, but I will say this anyway. If any of my points are wrong and someone corrects me, I am prepared to withdraw my comments.

In my opinion, the main motion we are debating today substantially mirrors the motion we adopted yesterday, on division, in this committee. It talks about essentially the same study and the same witnesses. In essence, it is in fact the same motion. I can be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that is what it is. So there is a problem here. In my opinion, we cannot pass two motions that call for the same witnesses, who will discuss the same topic and come to the same conclusion.

In that regard, I hope to defer to your analysis, Madam Chair, but it seems to me that the issues we want to bring to the committee's attention are very similar. With regard to the rationale, I would like to get an opinion, some advice, from the Chair or the clerk.

My colleague has very kindly sent me this information, which I will read.

I think the last motion that we passed—and please correct me if I'm wrong—was “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; and that the clerk provide these records to the members of the Committee and the Ethics Commissioner for study; and that any examination by this Committee of the documents referred to be done in camera; and that this Committee calls upon Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to appear to give testimony relating to these matters.”

Madam Chair, I think that is indeed what we are debating today. The only difference here is that we want to add two or three names. Also, we are throwing the door open to other witnesses who could appear before the committee. I think it's the same thing.

I would like to invite the members present to think about it. We may come to the conclusion that it is essentially the same thing, a duplication in fact, which is contrary to the procedure and the Standing Orders.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

I have Madam Shanahan next.

Then, Mr. Green, I will hear from you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with my colleague. Could my colleagues tell me the difference between the motion that we studied at length and passed yesterday and the motion before us today?

Of course, a few weeks ago, everyone was preparing their own motions. I understand that. Sometimes motions may go in the same direction. This is an important issue, and I think it is up to the Chair to check the content of the motions. As we said earlier, these are the same witnesses, and the same issues will be dealt with. I think that our work will already fully cover the purpose of the motion before us now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Mr. Green, the floor is yours.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Now, let's be clear: The motion, and the original intent, that we passed here earlier was one particularly related to the complexities around the WE scandal. The WE scandal is so complex, with so many layers, that we're going to have so many documents and people pertaining to that one particular point in time that my colleague's response here....

This is the fourth ethical violation by the Prime Minister. You'll remember that there was cash for access. You'll remember the ministerial rules that have been broken. In fact, it is the Prime Minister's responsibility, as I understand it, to enforce ministerial rules, but they're not being enforced. The motion before us will, I would imagine, take into context past ethical transgressions by all governments, most certainly and notably the three that have been lined up by this current Prime Minister.

What happened to the recommendations made under the Trudeau report? What lessons were learned? That was a question, Madam Chair, that I asked in question period. I wanted to know, in terms of accountability, what lessons have been learned by this government. I firmly believe, based on what I've seen roll out over the last three weeks on the WE scandal—how soon we forget—that there's going to be more than enough documentation for that particular study for it to be zeroed in on at that particular point in time.

What my colleague Mr. Angus is trying to bring here is an opportunity for us again to come to a point where we can look at all of the policies and procedures, having reference to all of these other reports, all of these other instances. Based on the discussion we had at this committee, the focus of the other motion is particularly around WE and all of the various aspects in which the governing party and its cabinet have transgressed lobbying rules, ministerial mandate letters, conflicts of interest—very significant things—while refusing to recuse themselves.

I think that's what makes this a unique, stand-alone motion. The previous motion is looking at the WE scandal specifically as it relates to documents and the conflict of interest pertaining to the Prime Minister. The motion we have before us is looking at how we got here and, in fact, at how we continue to get here time and time again with this government. That's the difference.

It's unfortunate that it has happened so often that we have to have two looks at it from different perspectives. To suggest, though, that somehow—unless the members opposite have some kind of telepathic knowledge such that they know—we're going to be asking the same questions in both meetings to these people.... That is in fact a difficult thing for anybody to do. If you could do it, you'd probably be in a different position.

I'm still strongly urging members to support this, notwithstanding that we have many motions to come forward that we can work on about how we want to work together to get through the first motion and then hopefully get into the second one.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

We'll move over to Mr. Gerretsen.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the comments made by Mr. Green a few moments ago. I genuinely respect and believe that the intent here is to produce a good study that can be referred back to Parliament to offer ways of doing things to improve the process we have for everybody.

In that light, I'm going to go back to what I said previously. I raised an issue about my only issue with this being the preamble, and Mr. Green's response to that was that he didn't want to do that because this is really Mr. Angus's motion and he can't be here today. However, I would suggest that he is here in place of Mr. Angus today and I'm sure that Mr. Angus has put his full faith and trust in his abilities to represent him while he's here. It would be so much easier for me to vote in favour of a motion such as this and to support something such as this if that preamble weren't there.

We're talking about the culture of ethical permissiveness. These are subjective opinions, and people rightly hold those opinions, but it doesn't mean they are accurate. More importantly, those opinions do not impact the the direction that this motion is providing to the committee to undertake its work. As a matter of fact, it will mean nothing in that respect.

I would suggest to Mr. Green, as he just asked for all the committee's support in voting in favour of this, that he would equally agree that the preamble does not contribute anything to the work that needs to be done, which will be given through the direction of the resolve clauses of this motion.

Therefore, I would move that we remove the preamble—everything from the first “whereas” up to and including “Canadian law”—so that it would read, “That the committee move: that, pursuant to Standing Order...the committee undertake”, and so on.

It's just my opinion, if I could speak to it very briefly, that if Mr. Green's intent is genuine and he would really like to see all of the committee support this, he can definitely understand why, as a member who sits on the government side of the House, I would have a difficult time voting in favour of a motion that had all of that preamble in it. If his intention really is to see more people on this committee vote in favour of this motion, he would be in favour of removing that preamble, because it offers nothing in terms of giving direction and will in no way whatsoever impact the work that will be done by this committee. In my opinion, it just takes out some political cheap shots that are clouding what otherwise would be a really good study for this committee to undertake.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen.

Mr. Gerretsen has now moved an amendment to the motion. Does anyone wish to speak to that amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I find it most curious that the rationale the member puts forward in terms of making something palatable to accept is then assaulted by suggesting that my colleague was using political cheap shots, which, of course, would preclude me, based on his own logic, from supporting his amendment. Therefore, from that perspective, clearly I will not be supporting the amendment. We'll keep everything as is and we'll let it go to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

I'll now move to a vote on the amendment as presented by Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Madam Chair, could we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

You may.

The committee has voted, and it is once again a tie, with five voting yes and five voting no. The chair votes no.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I move back to the original motion. I have no other speakers on the list at this time, so I will move to a vote on the motion.

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

Madam Chair, with my regrets to the clerk, can we have a recorded vote, please?

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

I was going to ask for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

You'll recall that this is the motion as amended. I will now give it to the clerk to take a recorded vote at this time.

The vote is five for and five against. As the chair, I vote yes.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings]))

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Returning to the main speaking list as I have it here, I have Madam Shanahan next, followed by Mr. Kurek.

Madam Shanahan, the floor is yours.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to move the motion for which I gave notice earlier.

It reads, “That, in relation to the motion passed on July 22nd, to ensure the privacy and security of this personal information of Canadians, the committee adopt the following procedures for the handling of these documents:

“That the documents not be emailed to Members, staff or anyone else;

“That for the consideration of the documents during in-camera meetings, numbered, paper copies be provided to committee members by the Clerk at the start of any meeting at which they will be considered, and that they be returned to the clerk at the end of the meeting;

“That no staff and no mobile or electronic devices be allowed for the duration of the in camera meeting;

“That the documents be held in the Clerk's office, and that outside of in-camera committee meetings, Members may only view the documents in the Clerk's office and that no mobile or electronic devices may be in the room when the documents are being reviewed.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I have Mr. Barrett, Mr. Fergus, Mr, Kurek and Mr. Green.

Mr. Barrett, the floor is yours.

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

Thanks, Madam Chair.

When we dealt with the motion that was passed yesterday, it was the will of the committee that the review of the documents requested would be done in camera. I find it ironic that while the integrity of some members of the cabinet has been called into question in recent days, to my knowledge the integrity of the members of this committee has not. Unless it is the suggestion of government members of the committee that all matters dealt with in camera must be done in such a fashion, which I think is unnecessary and dramatic, I'll be voting against the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Mr. Fergus is next.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, first I'd like to thank the committee for its collective wisdom in agreeing to keep the matters in camera. Specifically, I'd like to thank the members from the NDP for supporting that motion. As I mentioned yesterday, I really did feel—and I still do feel—that we've opened the door to a practice that I believe, sooner than any of us think, will be regrettable. We might want to close that barn door later.

That said, the committee chose to adopt this motion. I salute the committee, in particular the NDP, for agreeing to try to limit the scope of the information that is going to be collected from private individuals. I think, Madam Chair, that this is giving us an opportunity.

Mr. Barrett raises a fair point. I'd like to reassure him that no one is calling into question the rectitude of members to respect the in camera process. What Madam Shanahan has actually raised is, frankly, nothing more than spelling out the practice. It's making explicit what usually has been implicit in the practices of the House, in terms of dealing with in camera material.

This way, you're really ensuring that this kind of information doesn't, through whatever means, get distributed beyond the members around this table, and it doesn't impede us in any way, because it allows us to continue to do the work. It allows us to examine the material that has been requested. It allows us to make a report, and to make that report known. You can accuse me of many things, but I think one thing you can't accuse me of is not being consistent. I remain consistent on this point. This is now politicians investigating politicians, and I think this could lead to some real trouble down the line.

I'd be happy to engage with any members who would at least give this a fair listen, fair consideration, to see if this is something that we can agree to. We should take the time that is necessary for people to have the opportunity to consider this and to consider what we're trying to do.

Madam Chair, if someone wanted to consider this and set forward a time by which we could come back and make a decision on this shortly, I'd be open to that. We would need to make sure that before this information comes in and gets distributed around.... We really should think about what we want to do here and try to preserve the integrity of our committee. As I said, it could start off with this particular situation, but this could easily—

This can easily get out of hand, Madam Chair, and we could start investigating a lot of things, such as the private lives of members or their families. That is not desirable.

If the committee decides that this is the route it wants to take, we will do so, but we can at least set up some guidelines, some safeguards, so that we stay on the rails. It needs to be explicitly stated that we must work in camera. I think that would be a good thing. No one would talk about it and all privileges would be maintained. The precedent that we are going to set must be crystal clear for the future work of various committees.

Thank you, Madam Chair.