Information & Ethics Committee on July 29th, 2020

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

Ladies and gentlemen, I call the meeting to order.

At the last meeting, we had Mr. Kurek's motion up for discussion. I have the speakers list from last day.

I'll go to Mr. Kurek, and then to Mr. Fergus.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I was asking to continue the debate. I apologize for my ignorance, being a new member, but are we continuing debating the motion that we had adjourned on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Absolutely.

Mr. Kurek, you are welcome to speak to the motion that is currently on the table.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate this opportunity to, once again, enter into debate on an incredibly important subject. It has certainly captured much of the attention of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The motion that is at hand is very simple. It simply asks that we have full disclosure of the relationship between other members of cabinet and WE Charity and the decision-making process.

Each day, it seems that further information is revealed about this ongoing scandal. Of course, many of us, I'm sure, were watching the testimony yesterday at the finance committee, and I'm sure we will all pay rapt attention tomorrow. The continuing revelations of connections, of lack of consistency in testimony, of the information that seems to be uncovered on a daily basis, I think, speak for themselves when it comes to why a motion like the one I presented last week is so important. It would ensure that the very basic questions that Canadians are asking will simply get answered. What connections exist between members of cabinet and WE Charity, and did members of cabinet know about the conflict of interest that has become increasingly clear?

It's even just the ambiguity between what these relationships look like. Yesterday the Kielburgers mentioned that they had limited contact with members of cabinet and that they wouldn't have called themselves friends of the Prime Minister. We've heard all of these things before in the first Trudeau report that found the Prime Minister guilty of ethics violations regarding his “friend” the Aga Khan.

I think that Canadians deserve answers. This is a simple process, a simple procedure, that simply asks those who were tasked with making the decision regarding close to a billion dollars for the information requested so that Canadians, quite frankly, will get the answers they all deserve.

I look forward to what I hope will be a productive debate on the issue and to seeing this passed. I would encourage all members of this committee from every party to be productive and proactive to ensure that we have that attitude in mind in moving this conversation forward, to get the answers that Canadians deserve, and hopefully move forward. I would certainly ask that each member consider supporting this motion as it attempts to do that very thing.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not sure whether this point was raised, but if you could read off the list of speakers from time to time, it would be a good way to let those who wish to participate in the debate know where they are on the list. It's just a friendly suggestion.

I listened closely to what the honourable member from the Conservative Party, Mr. Kurek, had to say, and I read his motion carefully.

Madam Chair, this is a bit unusual, but I hope you'll agree with me. The honourable member called this a very simple motion. Unfortunately, I would say it's not that simple.

In the last comment made at Friday's meeting, the honourable member Mr. Garrison showed quite easily that this motion was not, in fact, simple, using himself as an example. He has numerous cousins and a number of brothers and sisters. Are we going to ask all of them to provide documentation to the committee? The third paragraph of the motion reads as follows:

Additionally, the letter should require that all Members of Cabinet disclose whether they, their families or their relatives have connections to WE, ME to WE Corporation….

Madam Chair, what does “their families or their relatives” mean? I imagine it means myself and my children, but does it include my parents, my brothers and sisters? Does it include my cousins, my relatives or the families of my spouse, my children, my grandchildren and my parents? Where does it stop? Frankly, it's not a simple motion, and that's the least I can say about it.

I see that the honourable member would like to respond. Madam Chair, through you, I'd like to ask him a question, if I may.

Does my honourable colleague believe this motion, which seeks to produce documents from my family members, my relatives, will in fact get the information he's seeking from the interested parties in an effort to get an understanding of who has been involved with this organization? If so, in what form should they produce these documents? That's a question I have for my colleague. I hope, in his opportunity to speak, when we're further down the speaking list, he will respond to that question. That would be very helpful to me in my consideration of whether or not to support this motion.

This just bears witness to the idea that it sounds simple but it gets really complicated. I sound a bit like a broken record—and I'm trying to keep everything innovative here; I'm not trying to run down the clock—but I have to ask all of my honourable colleagues around the table what we want. When I look at this motion, which is like the motion that was passed last week, I wonder: Do we really want a situation where members of Parliament are investigating other members of Parliament?

I really believe this is something that we should let the Ethics Commissioner do. We can encourage the Ethics Commissioner. We can call the Ethics Commissioner here.

We can ask him questions. We can ask him about the scope of his investigation. We can encourage him to explore certain solutions. We can ask him to dig deeper during the investigation he deems appropriate to set up, as he sees fit. We can make numerous suggestions, but we should let the commissioner do his job.

If, at his discretion, the commissioner deems it appropriate to probe further, he will. Since we are trying to obtain all this information, not just from the Prime Minister and his family, from Bill Morneau and his family, from Katie Telford and from Seamus O'Regan, but also from all members of cabinet, their families or their relatives, why not ask every member of Parliament? Why not ask everyone in this great country of ours? Where will it all end?

That's what worries me. I hope that gives the committee some food for thought. We can arrive at a motion that isn't as broad and open-ended as this one, but only if it is the committee's will to adopt the motion. I still maintain that the best decision is not to make one. Allow me to explain. What I mean is not to make this decision. Let's let the commissioner define the scope of the investigation. We can invite him to appear before the committee, and we can encourage him to pursue certain avenues, but it is his responsibility to conduct the investigation. If not, if we cross this line, where will it end?

Madam Chair, unfortunately, those questions have never been answered, at least not to my satisfaction. If we continue down this path, we can do the same for any other matter. We can look into anything to keep asking questions in an effort to gain a partisan advantage. That is not what this committee is for. I could argue that this doesn't fall within the committee's area of responsibility. I'm afraid that we're going to start something that will never end.

Just before I wrap up, I do, however, want to applaud the decision the committee made last week. Once a poor decision has been made, all we can do is try our best. The committee decided to limit the study by specifying that the information be reviewed in camera.

That way, given what we've embarked on, here, this fishing expedition, we can minimize the risk of doing harm to people who have practically nothing to do with politics, other than having a politician in their family or having connections to one. As I said, a close look at this motion and the definition it sets out reveals far-reaching implications.

Madam Chair, I will leave it there, and I sincerely hope that my fellow members will think about what I said.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Next on the speaking list we have Ms. Shanahan, followed by Ms. Brière, Mr. Angus, Mr. Kurek and Mr. Drouin.

We'll start with Ms. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I, too, must express my dismay at the motion in front of us. I see that some additional text was written that follows a motion presented retracted earlier. The additional text says, “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii) and to the committee's current study to review”—and I stress the word “review”—“the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest and federal government procurement contracting, grant contribution and other expenditures”.

This is a study the committee has agreed to undertake, but this motion goes on to add to the study's motion, with instructions. I'm wondering if they're even in order. I think there are problems. We're asking the chair to “write a letter to each member of cabinet requiring they disclose whether they had knowledge of the personal relationships between those listed and WE”, and there's a list of the WE organizations. There's no framework here. Later the motion says, “prior to the cabinet's decision to award the administration of the Canada student services grant”. What does that timeline look like? What are the dates we're talking about? Where is someone receiving this letter to start? What are they to make of this request?

As my colleague pointed out, later on when we ask about families or relatives and whether they have connections, again, what are we talking about? Who is your family? I don't know if we'll have the opportunity to hear from every member here as to who their family members are, but I have a couple of exes and a number of children—although I will not name them here for their own privacy. In my family, I have eight brothers and sisters. It's hard for me to keep track of who the spouses and partners are and the number of nieces and nephews I have. It's a moving target. Families are fluid today; families are flexible. We love every one of them, but they didn't sign up for this kind of disclosure. Who are the relatives? Going out further in the family line, I can tell you, coming from a good Irish Catholic family, that I have over 65 cousins. I've lost track of the cousins, the first cousins. They are all doing well I'm happy to say; thank goodness for Facebook.

However, it's very concerning that this is the kind of net this committee wishes to throw out there. I don't think that Canadians listening to us would agree that's appropriate for this committee to be doing.

I have many concerns about this resolution, and not the least is that I don't see how it's helpful to the work of this committee. We want to review the safeguards that are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in “federal government procurement contracting, grant contribution and other expenditures”.

I think that's what Canadians want to understand, which is that this committee is executing its responsibility to make sure that the Ethics Commissioner, the lobbying commissioner, the different independent, non-partisan commissioners we have in place, who have full powers to compel any document, to question any person they deem necessary...to be able to say that they can undertake their job.

Again, I'm very concerned about this motion, and I hope that the other members of this committee will reconsider it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Madame Brière.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Chair, I'm going to continue along the same lines as my fellow members.

First of all, my mother comes from a family of 15 brothers and sisters, and my father, 14 brothers and sisters. Each of them has three or four children. I wouldn't even know some of my cousins if I ran into them on the street. They live all over the province. Some of them are even in the Dominican Republic. My question is this. How do the opposition parties define family and relatives as far as this motion goes? Why do they want to cast such a wide net for information that is, to some degree, confidential or private?

My second point has to do with the same motion. It states “prior to the Cabinet's decision”. What is meant by “prior to”? Does it mean that day, that week? Does it mean two weeks or a month prior to the decision? The motion makes no mention of time frame or timeline in that regard, so it would be worth discussing how to address that, as well.

What's more, we don't know the details of all those peoples' lives. My fellow member Ms. Shanahan pointed out that she, too, has trouble keeping track of every single one of her relatives. A family is a work in progress. A family is always changing. Could we not include the wording “to the best of their knowledge” given how broad the motion is and how hard it is to know where the limits are?

I would ask the opposition parties to define the words “their families or their relatives” in the motion and to discuss what is meant by “prior to”. Lastly, I would ask them to consider adding the wording “to the best of their knowledge” to the motion.

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

Madam Chair, I was just going to put forward an amendment to that effect. I think we could agree on that. I have no problem waiting for my turn, but in order to save some time, we may want to do it now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I understand, but I have to be respectful of the speaking order.

I have to give the mike to Mr. Angus next, then Mr. Kurek, Mr. Drouin and Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think we can put a few things in perspective based on yesterday.

I think one of the difficulties the government has found itself in is the decision by WE and the Kielburgers not to put their name under the lobbying registry. As a result, we don't know how they engage with government, and I think that's very problematic.

Small charities, all manner of charities, are on the lobbying registry for reasons of transparency. The fact that the Kielburgers felt they didn't need to register with the lobbying commissioner, I think, has caused them a great deal of difficulty, and it has certainly hurt the government.

There is a question in terms of relations that's important. In terms of family, I'd like to put a few things on the table. One is that we were initially led to believe that the Prime Minister's family were paid because Margaret Trudeau is an amazing public figure. I could certainly see why she has a strong career, but what we found out yesterday, which was really shocking, was that the board at WE were told that nobody was paid, and yet the Trudeaus were paid. When the Kielburger brothers were pressed on that, they said that they weren't paid speaking fees, but paid after events, so it was the corporate involvement that becomes very problematic for the Prime Minister.

I think that's something the Ethics Commissioner will follow up, and it is nothing whether the Prime Minister was aware of it or not. It creates the image of trying to use the Prime Minister's family and name to give access to corporate interests. I think it's highly problematic, so it raises issues of judgment, certainly on the part of the WE organization.

I appreciate my Liberal colleagues' mentioning all their families, the Irish Catholics. God Almighty, I hope your family doesn't party with my family; it would go on for weeks, I bet. I understand people saying that they don't want to use families, and yet yesterday the Liberal's research shop came up with my daughter having been involved with the Kielburger brothers, and they mentioned it in the national hearing.

I think I should put on the record how this played out. The fact that my daughter, when she as in grade 7, raised money for Nicaragua, before I was a member of Parliament, does not in any way mean I am going to support this $900 million deal or oppose it. It's completely irrelevant, but the Liberals did mention it.

That's not the first time my children were named. I'm just putting it on the record that my daughter, who was in grade 5, gave a speech about the children in Attawapiskat to a little St. Patrick grade school in Cobalt, Ontario. I found that mentioned in a briefing note to Minister Chuck Strahl by the Department of Indian Affairs, that my daughter, who was in grade 5, was giving a speech on the conditions of children in Attawapiskat, and her name was listed. I'm only mentioning her as well because it's her birthday today, and I would really like to see her. Family do get drawn in, whether it's right or wrong, so I put that on the table.

I have a problem with this motion for a couple of reasons. One is that what we do here is create a precedent; this is like law. I have been on both sides. I've been in opposition all my time, but I've been under Liberals and Conservatives, and we have to decide, when we make a precedent here, how it could be used in the future, so we have to be careful. Fishing expeditions, I believe, are beyond the purview of a committee.

We have to have a specific reason to ask for specific things, because we have enormous powers here. We're not a court. If we vote on this and decide to go ahead, we have powers that are unique to our committee, as parliamentarians, so there needs to be a judiciousness about them. To cast such a wide cast around cabinet that would draw in family certainly raises questions to me. I don't think that's in order.

We also have a tradition in Parliament, which I sometimes have questioned, of taking an honourable member at his word. That it is the Westminster tradition. We have to have a reason to investigate someone. We can't just say, “Prove to me that you're innocent, and then I'll believe that you're innocent.” We have to have a reason, because our parliamentary tradition is based on that principle.

As far as conflicts go, we have to provide those conflicts to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which is outside the purview of this committee.

I understand what my colleague is attempting to get here, but I do think that if we set this precedent, this will be used again for other purposes that may be even more nefarious. We have to be careful with the tools that we have, so I cannot support this at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Kurek.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I look forward to addressing a few of the concerns that some of my colleagues have brought forward.

First, before I go into some of the specifics of that, I think it is foundational that members of Parliament, that Canada's Parliament in general, hold Canada's government to account, that MPs, whether it be in the format of question period or in their role as members of a committee, are able to hold their government to account. This is not asking every MP.... It is not asking for a fishing expedition, but rather it's asking for some questions to be answered that are related to a billion dollar decision by members of Canada's government in cabinet.

As members of Parliament, I believe we are entitled to be able to ask the question very simply, “What knowledge was there first, that each member of cabinet require that they disclose whether or not they had knowledge of relationships between the individuals and WE, and a number of the WE entities?" That's a simple yes or no question: Did they have that knowledge or did they not?

When it comes to the question of prior...I think that there was a decision made at a cabinet meeting, and at that time, was there an understanding of the conflicts of interest that existed or not? It's quite simple. When it comes to the end, that's a question, as MPs, that we need to be able to ask those who are tasked with making decisions for the government.

I would put on the record, Madam Chair, that I find it very interesting that a number of concerns with the motion have been brought up. They're well taken; I appreciate that the members opposite would share their concerns. However, I find it troubling that those concerns were not brought up with a suggestion to make a change that would make it more palatable, whether it be adding “to the best of their knowledge”, as Ms. Brière mentioned....

We could be more definitive in terms of a family relationship. I come from a fifth generation in Canada. We were supposed to have a family reunion this summer, and there would have been hundreds of people attending. Now, because of COVID, that's been put on hold.

So that is well taken. However, I find it troubling that they would have cause for concern and yet not bring forward a solution to remediate those concerns in the name of transparency. It's troubling. Certainly my constituents are demanding answers on all of these questions, and I think it is incumbent upon members of Parliament to ensure that we ask them.

Certainly I would be happy to entertain amendments that would assuage some of the concerns that exist. I would hope that if those amendments were made, other members of this committee would consider getting on board with ensuring we can get the information that is required.

There was a comment by Mr. Fergus about looking for partisan advantage. I think back to the first number of meetings we had in this committee, and there was a lot of non-partisan work. I think we had a very constructive dialogue back and forth about the direction of this committee, and yet here we are today discussing a series of issues related to an unprecedented scandal that the government faces. It is incumbent upon all of us to get answers. To me, that's the furthest thing from looking for partisan advantage.

You know, you have the Prime Minister having to apologize and you have a whole bunch of cabinet ministers acknowledging a certain level of involvement, with some apologizing and some not. Further questions continue to be raised on a daily basis. That's not partisan. That's called accountability. That's why we're here as members of Parliament.

The comment was made by Ms. Shanahan about the net being cast wide. That's fair. I appreciate that. So let's define what those family relationships should look like. I would hope that if we could do that, we could come up with a consensus and we could move forward in a way that speaks to the non-partisan objective here, which is getting answers for Canadians. Defining that net is something that certainly I would be happy to entertain.

I know that those comments were echoed by Mr. Angus in relationship to the precedent we set. I agree; especially in the Westminster system that we have, precedent is foundational to the way we conduct ourselves. Transparency and accountability are part of that precedent. Certainly, that's the intent of this motion—to ask the questions and get answers on the relationships that may or may not exist. I think Canadians are generally very understanding when the best attempts and efforts are made to simply get those answers.

With that, I look forward to continuing the debate. I would encourage members to consider that offer, and certainly there's a willingness on my part, to entertain some amendments that would make this more amenable. I quite frankly would look forward to support by all MPs from all parties to ensure that we can get to the objective here, which is accountability for Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not a regular member of the committee, as most of the members here today are, but I have a few comments on what's been discussed, in relation to business, political and family connections.

I know the member opposite is open to certain amendments. We can talk about that later, but it's important that we do our due diligence and establish what counts as a business connection for a politician.

I don't think we should be the ones defining that because it's a conflict of interest for us to do so. We shouldn't be the ones deciding what a potential conflict of interest is, but it's something that could be clarified and codified.

We have a duty to invite the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, or previous commissioners, to appear before the committee to advise us on the matter and, perhaps, propose solutions.

On the word “connection”, I think it's incumbent on all of us to have a lot more information before we even propose an amendment. I think we ourselves can come up with a definition, but I think we should probably have the Ethics Commissioner, and the former ethics commissioner, in front of this committee in order to inform us on what would be deemed a problematic connection when and/or if there is a contract issued, which is the issue at hand that we're dealing with.

I would just say that perhaps we could take it offline and have that discussion, but I am.... I don't know if we would come up with the right definition for what you're looking for in your motion. I would say it would probably be best to have, as I said, a few witnesses here before, and then we could produce the documentation that is requested in that particular motion.

I'd say let's probably take it offline, have a discussion, and then see where this goes, but I do raise caution on us defining the word “connection” by ourselves, without having an informed debate and witnesses in front of this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

It goes to Mr. Fortin and then to Mr. Barrett, Mr. Fergus, Ms. Shanahan and Mr. Kurek.

Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I won't rehash what's been said around the table, but I agree with just about all of it.

It's understandable to want to achieve an effective motion that can be adhered to, while ensuring it's based on common sense, in other words, a motion that doesn't require people to investigate their families.

I have a simple amendment. I propose wording the last paragraph in a way that's similar to the first.

Where it says, “the letter should require that all Members of Cabinet disclose whether they, their families or their relatives”, I would remove the words “whether they, their families or their relatives” and add “to the best of their knowledge”.

The motion would therefore require members to disclose whether, to the best of their knowledge, their immediate family members have connections to WE.

The honourable member opposite, Mr. Drouin, brought up the possible challenge around defining what constitutes a connection. I don't think we should become too obsessive about this.

Here's the question I would ask myself. If I were a member of cabinet, how would I respond? If I were asked whether every person in my family and everyone I knew, including my friends, had connections to WE, I would find that onerous. Mr. Fergus explained it well. It can be complicated to find out whether the neighbour you go out for beers with once every couple of weeks has a family member with connections to WE.

It's not about asking people to investigate their neighbours or family members. However, if I were asked whether, to the best of my knowledge, members of my family or my friends had connections to WE, and if I knew that my sister or nephew had worked for WE, I would say yes. If I knew that that person had been involved in a cocktail fundraiser, a speaking event or anything else, I would say yes. Keep in mind, I wouldn't even have to ask my sister whether she had connections to WE, because the information would be “to the best of my knowledge”.

Although I understand the concerns raised and I recognize that they are, indeed, legitimate, I think we could quell them by asking members whether, to the best of their knowledge, members of their immediate family have connections to WE.

That's the amendment I propose, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Proceeding to the amendment, the first on my speakers list is Mr. Barrett.

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

Thanks, Madam Chair, and I'll thank the Bloc member for his amendment. I think it's very reasonable.

We heard half an hour of interventions by government members, and no amendments were proposed. We got a view of some family trees; we're all richer for having heard about those.

The spirit of Mr. Kurek's motion makes a lot of sense. It's apparent that there's a lack of judgment and adult supervision in Justin Trudeau's office. This is the sad reality that we have to face. He's twice been found guilty of breaking the law—ethics laws twice—and the finance minister once. Now both Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau are under investigation again.

Media asked cabinet these questions: “Did you know?” We got crickets from them. Who's going to find out? To speak to Mr. Angus's point, we take them at their word.

Okay. Would the Liberal members on this committee vote for this motion if all Liberal ministers who've spoken to the media or on the public record about their knowledge were excluded from the motion? Would that satisfy the committee? It's not a fishing expedition.

“Did you have knowledge of the personal relationships?” is question one. With the amended motion, we're asking whether cabinet members, to the best of their knowledge, knew about their immediate relatives' connections. We're not asking what they are; I'm not asking who your nephew is, where he works, or what his connection is.

They'd respond to the chair and say, “Yes, I do have family connections.” Then it would be for the committee to decide what to do with that information. Do we call that member before the committee, or do we refer that matter to the Ethics Commissioner? We could do that.

The most important part of what we're finding out here, however, is who knew. We're looking at what safeguards are in place. Cabinet obviously isn't a sufficient safeguard.

I knew that Margaret Trudeau was speaking for WE; I knew that Sacha Trudeau was speaking for WE. How did that escape the attention of the federal cabinet and the PCO? How did it happen?

These arguments are a red herring. Mr. Gerretsen sat there last week when the conversation came up and said, “Okay, let's go home.”

If that was genuine, and if there were questions.... There were no questions to Mr.—

I'll look for an off-camera response from Mr. Kurek. Were there any questions to your personal email account from government members looking for clarification or collaboration on the motion?

He has indicated that there were not any.

This isn't collaborative. There's no co-operation here; we're ragging the puck again. We've been through one of your filibusters on this committee already.

It's a cover-up, guys. That's what this is. You're complicit in a cover-up. There's no question that there's a prima facie case on our hands of ethics violations. There's no question that it's under investigation. I wrote to the Ethics Commissioner; he confirmed that he would investigate, based on the facts that were presented. Mr. Angus wrote the Ethics Commissioner. We both raised some of the same points and some different points, and guess what? Investigations are under way.

If a lesson had been learned the first time that Justin Trudeau broke ethics laws, I would believe that he was sorry. If Bill Morneau were really ready to take accountability for breaking ethics laws and if he were sorry, he would have read the Act. He didn't. We heard him say at the last committee, the finance committee, that he thinks they gave it to him when he was first elected.

Yikes! You have to be kidding me. You broke the law and you didn't even take the time to read it? I have to tell you, if I were sitting in the defendant's chair, in the prisoner's box in court, I'd probably take a look at the Criminal Code section under which I was being tried. I would expect the same is true for conflict of interest violations.

They act as if it's innocent mistakes—“Who would know? and “How would I know?” I take proactive steps to ensure that I'm in compliance with the rules that govern us as parliamentarians.

I hope there is an opportunity at some point, if anyone doubts that.... Perhaps I can ask my adviser in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's office if she could provide an indication, with my consent, of how often I contact her to confirm compliance with regard to correspondence, meetings and people offering me invitations to events. All are legitimate functions in my role as an MP.

Am I being overcautious? Maybe. I'm also not under investigation. I've also not been found to have broken the Act. I would expect the same of any of the 337 other members who occupy seats in the chamber. Is it too much to ask the same of the federal cabinet?

None of you is in cabinet. You aspire to be, as I do. I hope that in the next election we form a Conservative government.

I see that Mr. Drouin doesn't think that's going to come to pass. I don't know, but we're going to—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

My hopes for cabinet? I don't have any.

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

Oh, he says he doesn't have hopes for cabinet.

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

Neither do I. I've burnt all my bridges.

[An hon. member]

Is that on the record?