Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 15th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Sorry, Mr. Barrett; Mr. Dong has a point of order.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to remind the committee members that we are not in camera. This conversation is being watched by the general public, who may have various levels of understanding of proceedings here. Something that we may think is a joke or that we take as a joke may not be seen that way by other people. I would just caution members to be very careful on their choice of words.

Thank you, Chair.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Dong. Those are wise words.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, while I do not believe necessarily the word “cover-up” or the general use of the word “cover-up” is unparliamentary, when somebody says “cover-up by Mr. Drouin” or “cover-up by Mr. Dong”, I do believe that is unparliamentary.

As the chairman of the committee, I believe you should ask the member not to make those accusations of honourable members.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

I did address the committee earlier in regard to impugning someone's actions. I don't know whether criticizing actions or consequences would be unparliamentary, but I certainly think impugning those, calling into question the motive of those actions, would be unparliamentary.

I just want to caution all members in that regard. We don't know what the motives of any individual are when they act, or the subsequent consequence, so let's just keep it to the action and the consequence.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

The action of a multi-day filibuster by members of the government is a government-led cover-up, Mr. Chair. I'll leave it to members to govern themselves accordingly.

To Mr. Dong's point on people watching and not having an understanding of what's going on, I think that as we go into our third day of these proceedings, people are getting the picture very clearly that three days into this meeting there has—

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I didn't say that they don't have an understanding of what's going on. Don't put words in my mouth, please, Mr. Barrett.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, please address the chair when you're going to make a comment.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

To Mr. Dong's point, when he said that Canadians who are watching might not know what's going on, they're getting a very clear picture of what's going on when we're into a multi-day filibuster by these members.

We've heard over and over again about going after individuals. We're not going after individuals; we're looking to verify information that has been presented to parliamentary committees. We've seen wild inconsistencies between testimony by ministers and documents that weren't redacted. Seeing the information unredacted and the way it was ordered, and seeing the information to verify testimony that on a number of occasions has been demonstrated to not be consistent with the truth is important work. It is important work for this committee to do if Canadians are going to be able to trust the work and trust the programs implemented by the Government of Canada.

Chair, it's certainly high time for this to come to a vote, but we'll look forward to many more hours of hydration and pontificating and texts that are readily available to folks being read into the record.

I'd like you to poll the committee, if you could, to see whether we can take this opportunity to bring it to a vote.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Barrett, I don't see any consensus. I already have shaking heads—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

I think it's a great idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We have a few on record who think it's a great idea and others who don't, so there's no unanimous consent in that regard.

We'll go to Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The last time we chatted, we were about to go to AIPAC in Washington in March, and the whole world changed. You probably made a very wise decision in deciding to stay home at the time. You were probably a couple of weeks ahead of everybody else, and I congratulate you for that.

I congratulate you on being chair of this committee. You're always a very dignified and a very fair member. I appreciate your chairing this committee and I appreciate the opportunity to intervene and be part of this committee in this important discussion.

I was also very moved by what Ms. Gaudreau said. I do believe that partisan behaviour is not needed at a committee meeting and that it's very important to steer clear of it.

For the same reason, I would like to present arguments as to why this proposal is highly partisan and why it should be amended before the committee votes on it.

At the end of the day, this proposal is not going to reach consensus. We're going to be here all evening, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, because some committee members, particularly Liberal members, feel that this motion is very unfair. I hope that everyone will listen as I explain why I think it's unfair. I hope that I can get everyone on board.

As I'm getting to that, I'm going to switch back to English for a moment. This morning, I had the pleasure of being on a discussion with Elizabeth May and Garnett Genuis to talk about faith in politics and how we need to get away from partisanship. I'm hoping—also in English—that my colleagues will listen to some of the arguments that I present, including you, Mr. Chair, in terms of the receivability of this motion and looking at the way the motion is drafted. I think there are some serious flaws with respect to the motion.

Let me start by going to the Conflict of Interest Act.

I'm going to read one section, because I think it's really relevant. In the Conflict of Interest Act, “reporting public office holder” is the term that covers the people who are covered by this act. It means a public officer holder who is:

(a) a minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary;

(a.1) the Chief Electoral Officer;

(b) a member of ministerial staff who works on average 15 hours or more a week;

(c) a ministerial adviser;

(d) a Governor in Council appointee, or a ministerial appointee whose appointment is approved by the Governor in Council, who exercises his or her official duties and functions on a part-time basis but receives an annual salary and benefits;

(e) a Governor in Council appointee, or a ministerial appointee whose appointment is approved by the Governor in Council, who exercises his or her official duties and functions on a full-time basis;

(e.1) the Parliamentary Budget Officer; or

(f) a person or a member of a class of persons if the person or class of persons is designated under subsection 62.1(2) or 62.2(2).

Let me explain.

The motion before us requires that documents be produced going back as far as October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau. The Prime Minister of Canada has only been subject to this section of the act since his election as Prime Minister in October 2015. From 2008 to 2015, he was not Prime Minister. From 2008 to 2012, he was a member of Parliament, and from 2012 to 2015, he was leader of the third party in the House. For seven of the 12 years for which documents about his family are requested, he was not subject to this legislation.

If I were committee chair, I would consider this motion to be out of order, as it requires someone to produce documents when they were not subject to the legislation at the time.

I don't even need to get into the question of his family members during that time, because the principal individual wasn't covered by the act for seven of the 12 years for which documents are being requested. I don't think that's right.

I believe in parliamentary committees. I do. I'm one of those people in my party who is always talking about the importance of committees and the powers of committees. I do believe that the committee has a wide power to compel the production of documents, to seek government testimony and to hold the government accountable. I do believe that.

However, I don't believe, where the motion strays well beyond where the act requires the Prime Minister to disclose information for himself and his family, that it's fair to go back. Otherwise, as Mr. Sorbara has said, we could be asking for literally anybody who is not covered under the act to produce documents for themselves and their families. I don't think that's fair, and I'd hope my colleagues would take that under advisement and into consideration when they're considering why I cannot support this motion.

There's a second question. I don't believe that it's always unacceptable.... Here, I'm going to diverge from my colleagues on the Liberal side. I don't believe it's always unacceptable to refuse...or that a committee can never ask for information about someone's relatives. I think there may be times when it is reasonable for a committee to make such a request. With respect to the WE Charity, there may well be justification for requesting information about Alexandre Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, because we know already, from public information, that they have spoken for and been paid by this charity and affiliated organizations.

Mr. Chair, I want to know the following. If the goal here is to look for information on WE and its affiliated organizations, why isn't the name of the organization included in the motion?

I'll read the motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), an order of the Committee do issue to Speakers' Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining ...

I want to point out the words “all records pertaining.” This isn't about records pertaining to WE and its affiliated organizations.

... to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008, ...

I already explained why the date of October 14, 2008, was an issue. The Prime Minister wasn't subject to the Conflict of Interest Act between 2008 and 2015.

... for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau— including, in respect of each speaking appearance, ...

I want to point out that the motion says “each speaking appearance” here, without referring to the appearances pertaining to WE.

... an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it— ...

Clearly, the goal here isn't to look for information regarding Alexandre Trudeau and Margaret Trudeau in relation to WE. The goal is for someone to find something pertaining to speaking appearances made by Margaret Trudeau, Alexandre Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau and Justin Trudeau for one organization or another between 2008 and 2015. In my opinion, there's not enough evidence for a committee to conduct an investigation, search for documents, and require the production of documents other than WE documents.

I believe that I've already outlined two major issues with this motion.

First, we're talking about years during which the Prime Minister wasn't subject to the Conflict of Interest Act.

Furthermore, the member who spoke just before me—I won't name him, since he thinks that 25¢ is received each time his name is said—argued that the rationale for this motion is to prove that some of the other information disclosed during the WE investigation isn't accurate. If that were the case, the motion would have stated that only documents pertaining to WE and its affiliated organizations must be produced. However, this isn't the case, and we should really wonder why. This is the second issue.

I'll also explain a third issue with this motion.

Again, Mr. Chair, because I have the document in front of me in English, I'll switch back to English in order to read it.

There is indeed, in the act before us, the Conflict of Interest Act, a distinction made between family members. I'm going to read what family members are:

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.

That does not mean that there is not another section or other sections in the act that do not deal with the wider circle of relatives. Relatives can indeed include the mother and the brother of the public officer holder, but when we come to relevant provisions of this act that deal with the ability to, for example, speak to another organization and not disclose what it is you are paid or who you are speaking to, those provisions are only dealing with the immediate family members, which are the spouse and the dependent children. They don't deal with the brother and the mother.

I'll refer you to section 11 of the act, which states:

No public office holder or member of his or her family

—and the act defines the members of his or her family as the spouse and the dependent children or the common-law partner—

shall accept any gift or other advantage, including from a trust, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the public office holder in the exercise of an official power, duty or function.

Then there are exceptions.

Therefore, this entire issue is that certain opposition parties, and not others, have made this claim that I think is a stretch, that the amounts paid to Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, and certainly to Alexandre and Margaret Trudeau, somehow are a means of influencing the Prime Minister and therefore currying favour of the WE Charity to make us, the government, give a contract to the WE Charity and is thus improper.

However, the relevant section of the act on gifts and other advantages refers only to family members. It does not refer to relatives, which is the wider section that would have been referred to would it have been intended to have this committee run off and ask for the production of Alexandre Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's speaking fees. That's another mystery, and I again point to that in this act, it's very simple, there are multiple sections where you refer to the mother or brother of the public office holder.

For example, with regard to a government department, the act states:

No public office holder, other than a minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary, who otherwise has the authority shall permit the public sector entity for which he or she is responsible, or to which he or she is assigned, to enter into a contract or employment relationship with his or her spouse, common-law partner, child, sibling or parent except in accordance with an impartial administrative process in which the public office holder plays no part.

That is clear. In that section, you're talking about the whole family that is mentioned, but again, going back to the section on gifts and other advantages, I'll repeat section 11(1):

No public office holder or member of his or her family shall accept any gift or other advantage, including from a trust, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the public office holder in the exercise of an official power, duty or function.

Then you go back again to the definition of “Family members”, and in this act, the following are the members of a public officer holder's family for the purposes of this act: his or her spouse or common-law partner; and his or her dependent children and the dependent children of his or her spouse or common-law partner, which makes it seem to me that when the Parliament passed this act it deliberately, in its wisdom, after going through committees and going through Parliament, decided not to include the mother and the brother in that relevant section of the act.

Now I think I've presented you three flaws in this motion. One, the deeds go beyond the deeds that the Prime Minister was even covered by the act. Two, the fact is we're not referring specifically to the WE Charity, so that goes against the raison d'être of the motion previously advanced by the mover of the motion. Number three, the relevant section of this act doesn't cover the mother or the brother.

I believe I have made that case cogently, Mr. Chair. As a result, these reasons I believe that this motion is out of order because it goes beyond the powers of the committee and strays from the Conflict of Interest Act.

But Mr. Chair, let me also go to another question that I think is quite relevant.

We're all now talking about going after the current Prime Minister and his spouse and his mother and his brother and not tied to the WE Charity. If this motion had been tied to WE, I could have understood it better, but it's not.

It is not unusual in Canada, Mr. Chair, for prime ministers and members of their family to start going on speakers' tours after they leave office or before they are in office. For example, Mr. Chair, let me mention that the Right Honourable Stephen Harper is a client of Worldwide Speakers Group. Stephen Harper, on the Worldwide Speakers Group website, says that he is willing to travel from Canada to anywhere in the world for an arranged fee, that you need to inquire for details, and it says that “The Right Honourable Stephen Harper led Canada through the world's most complex geopolitical, economic and security challenges as the country's 22nd Prime Minister. During his tenure in the world's top forums such as the G-7 and G-20, NATO and the United Nations, Prime Minister Harper was known for a frank, assertive leadership style defined by principled diplomacy, disciplined economic policy, a strong stance on international peace and security, and passionate defence of freedom and human dignity.”

Mr. Chair, I was able with your permission to extol former Prime Minister Harper in his own words of how he likes to be sold as a speaker, and I have a whole lot of respect for him. But Mr. Chair, what would stop me from proposing an amendment to this motion, because it's not tied to WE in any way, would be if we were to ask for all the information related to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Laureen Harper, who also has been booked as a speaker, or Rona Ambrose also booked by Speakers' Spotlight?

Another example would be Caroline Mulroney who, as a minister in the province of Ontario, had the opposition ask for a committee to subpoena for all of the speaking engagements of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who I as a Montrealer have great respect for. He is a client of the Washington Speakers Bureau, and the Washington Speakers Bureau says this about him: “Charming, humorous, insightful, informative and a distinguished world leader, Brian Mulroney is the architect of international commerce who transformed Canada into an economic and political influence in the world.”

While I guess Lester Pearson and Pierre Elliott Trudeau and others might dispute that only Brian Mulroney transformed Canada into having political influence on the world, again, I applaud former Prime Minister Mulroney. I think he has done great things since leaving office, and I think he's a very fine man, and his wife is a very fine woman, and his family, Mark and Caroline and Nick and Benedict. I like all of them, but that does not mean that Caroline and her brother Ben should have to produce his records of what he's earning when he's on CTV. It doesn't mean that her father should have to produce records either.

All I would need to do is to move to amend this motion one after the other all night long in adding the names of former Conservative politicians who accept money from speakers' bureaus. I am prepared to have a debate on each one, but that is why I believe this motion has strayed far away from something that's collegial, where we are looking for information on WE, where I may have been more sympathetic to looking for what my colleague, Mr. Sorbara, called a “fishing expedition”. I'm not going to call it that. I'm just saying it's wrong.

When I explain to my colleagues and my counterparts why I think this is unfair, I hope that they'll listen to me and look at this issue in their role as a member of Parliament, regardless of their party. I hope that they'll consider the consequences of a motion to require the production of documents pertaining to the family members of a person who wasn't even subject to the legislation in question at the time set out in the request. That's the first thing.

Second, the goal of the motion is to require the production of documents when the individuals involved aren't subject to the section of the legislation that underpins the motion.

Third, they're referring to the legislation and saying that all this is related to WE. However, the motion fails to include the name of the organization or its affiliated organizations.

Fourth, are we really headed down a path where we'll require anyone to provide all their documents to the committee? Let's say I'm a speaker and I've been paid by various groups for my services. If I've also been a member of Parliament or I will be one in the future, or if someone in my family is a member of Parliament, will I be required to produce my documents? I think that this goes too far.

I hope that we can find an offline solution. It would be more useful to end this meeting and take another opportunity to discuss the issue among ourselves and find a solution, so that we don't have to stay here all evening.

In the hope of that happening, Mr. Chair, I move that this meeting do adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

A motion has been put on the floor for the adjournment of the meeting.

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

Could we have a recorded vote, please, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, we'll be asking the clerk to take over that function.

We've been changing clerks, by the way, to give our permanent clerk a break. This happened right in the transition.

Madam Clerk.

[Aimée Belmore, Committee Clerk]

Hello, everyone. My name is Aimée Belmore, and I am filling in for Miriam Burke, your clerk.

I have a request for a recorded division on the motion to adjourn the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That is correct, Madam Clerk.

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

We will continue the debate.

We'll move to Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Before I get started, could you clarify the speaking order for us?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes. Thank you, Madam Shanahan. You always keep me accountable on that, and I should have refreshed it. You're quite right.

After you will be Mr. Warkentin, Mr. Dong, Mr. Drouin and then Mr. Simms.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Chair, I must say that I am very much heartened and enlightened by the interventions we've heard today, because I think it goes to the heart of the matter as to why the motion before us is unacceptable, certainly to me. I thank my good colleague, Mr. Housefather, for his articulate and detailed exposition of exactly what the flaws are in that motion.

Indeed, I want to pick up on one of the flaws, and that is not referring to the WE Charity because, oddly enough, earlier today Mr. Angus was very much concerned about the WE Charity. He was talking about the WE Charity at length: about the documents and about testimony that had been given to I think particularly the finance committee and elsewhere concerning WE.

I'm sorry that he's not here, but I'm sure that Mr. Green will pass this on to him. I would like to remind Mr. Angus, who had a great concern about the quality of the documents, about the redaction process, about transparency and who was telling this committee what—or other committees. I had that opportunity at our previous meeting to read out to this committee the different letters from the ministries—from Finance, from the Treasury Board, from Innovation, from PCO and the Clerk of the Privy Council—about the care that was taken in redacting in providing those documents. Because indeed, the redaction process is an important legitimate process that is designed to protect—there's a certain screening that has to happen—different elements that are important to Canadians, the first, of course, being national security.

In each letter, I'll remind members of the committee, the writers made it clear that national security was not an issue in the redaction, but that the privacy of individuals concerned, as well as cabinet confidences that were unrelated to the issue at hand—the student grant program—were certainly considered carefully and those that were unrelated were taken out, but others—cabinet confidences—in the quest for transparency were included in the documents. I won't say it in my words but in the words of the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Ian Shugart, a highly respected public servant, who has served both sides of the aisle and who has the highest integrity.

Mr. Shugart was able to say in a letter, “With respect to Cabinet confidences, you will note that considerable information on the Canada Student Service Grant that were Cabinet confidences, is being provided to the Committee.” A little later on, he further explains:

In this package, I have also chosen to disclose certain personal information contained in the Privy Council records relating to individuals working in ministers' offices, as well as personal information of individuals who work for WE.

I have decided to disclose this information because in my view because the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy. I have notified the Privacy Commissioner of my intention to disclose this personal information, as I am required to do under the Privacy Act.

I'm going to come back to that, because it is key that this type of work was done by qualified public servants with every due consideration. So, I'm going to object strenuously to the characterization that Mr. Angus made earlier today, that somehow the redaction was overdone or that it was not done in good faith for the purposes of this committee.

We find the same thing from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. This is from Mr. Simon Kennedy regarding the delivery of the documents that were requested by the finance committee earlier this summer:

It should be noted, however, that in the preparation of this package, care was taken to obtain consent to disclose certain personal information from exempt staff referenced in the material and, in collaboration with other government departments, the staff from WE Charity in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act.

A little later on, he continued:

...you will note that...information on the Canada Student Service Grant that were Cabinet confidences is being provided to the Committee. This is in keeping with the public disclosures of information on this matter made by the members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. A principled approach was adopted to this information to ensure a non-selective application.

We find the same thing when the Secretariat of the Treasury Board of Canada. This is from Peter Wallace, referring to the finance committee's motion that cabinet confidences are to be excluded from the package, who confirmed the following:

...no information is being withheld on the grounds of national security, since the information does not so pertain. With respect to Cabinet confidences, you will note that considerable information on the Canada Student Service Grant that were Cabinet confidences is being provided to the Committee.

So, where is information being hidden from the parliamentarians that need to see it?

The information concerning the WE situation was all provided. I for one have confidence that all of this was done in the proper manner to make sure that, over and above the request made by the finance committee, the documents pertaining to WE were provided.

Again, the secretariat in this case makes reference to the principled approach that was taken. It was not a lackadaisical approach. It was not an arbitrary approach. It was not that everyone did as they saw fit. There's a principle that is followed. We should expect no less. It says:

This package includes information being made available as a result of a limited waiver of solicitor client privilege as it relates to the information that is being provided by Employment and Social Development Canada.

Again, this was an approach over and above what was requested.

Think of the work that went into the production of those documents. We all heard that over 5,000 pieces were delivered this summer prior to the prorogation. Everyone had a lot of time to pore over them. They were provided to the maximum possible, given the principles of protecting personal data and cabinet confidences, and as I say, really pushing that envelope.

Of course, we heard also from the Minister of Finance's office on that same note. Having been a member of the public accounts committee in the last Parliament, I can remember how critical that was, the financial information, information that could affect private interests, competitive information, sensitive trade information, market-moving information. How important it is to maintain that privacy. I dare say, I can't reveal some of the discussions that we had in camera at the time, of course. We were dealing with some quite extensive audits of different government agencies. We're talking about billions of dollars that were being managed.

I was delighted to serve with the likes of David Christopherson from the NDP, and others. I believe Mr. Poilievre was with us for a very short while. Because the public accounts committee is known for its unanimous approval of reports, everyone understood how important that financial information was and how the keeping of cabinet confidences from one government to the next is an important principle.

The finance department also confirms that considerable information on the Canada student services grant, which was the issue at hand contained in cabinet confidences, is being provided to the committee. A principled approach was taken, with respect of this information, to ensure a non-selective application of the protection afforded by cabinet confidentiality. Information not related to the Canada student services grant that is contained in cabinet confidences is withheld and identified as not relevant to the request, as it should be. We would expect no less. As time goes on and different Parliaments are formed and different governments are formed, that is a principle that must be maintained.

With respect—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, on a point of order.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm allowed to speak here at the committee. To the techie people, I asked to be allowed to have my video started. The host has stopped my video. Can we get that fixed, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam Clerk, could you have technical services...?

Oh, here we go. We have the video on.