Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 15th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

You are correct, I think, on your assessment that you've been here the longest. You beat me by 18 months, by the way.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Now I have Mr. Turnbull on the speakers list.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's really great to be here. It's my first time joining this committee and having an opportunity to speak. I want to thank Mr. Simms, too, for his remarks. I know it was more than entertaining; I found it insightful. Thank you. I really appreciate your being here as well.

I'm subbing in for one of my honourable colleagues. I certainly share some of the concerns that other members of my team have expressed, but, you know, my hair doesn't stand up like this because I was overly shocked, Mr. Chair. I have seen motions like this at PROC. I also sit on that standing committee. We saw a quite lengthy motion that was perceived to be out of order eventually and deemed so by our honourable chair, who is also here tonight. It's really great to see Ruby Sahota here as well. She's done a wonderful job on the procedure and house affairs committee.

I say I'm not shocked by this motion, but I'm really concerned about it. I have a bit of background in an area that's relevant to this committee; I studied ethics. I'm one of probably very few people in Canada proud of having two philosophy degrees at university. I taught ethics and have a bit of background that might be relevant to this debate today.

I look at this motion—I have it here in front of me—and I think some of the concerns that have been expressed are deeply concerning to me as well, certainly the privacy issues that put the Prime Minister's family in a situation where documents would be disclosed about their speaking engagements. I don't see how this is relevant to the issue at hand. I know the opposition, quite rightfully, wants to dig into this supposed scandal. They keep saying it's a scandal. I have studied the facts of this issue. I've really paid attention to all the documentation. As an ethicist, I really do not feel like there's anything more than a very minor misstep with regard to this issue.

I really feel that this is a big overstep. One of the things that we learn, if we study and read the Conflict of Interest Act, is that a conflict of interest only occurs when an elected office holder, member of Parliament, or a reporting public officer holder acts in a way that furthers their own private interests or that of their family members. Family members are defined as a spouse, essentially. In this case, the only people who are really relevant here would be the Prime Minister and his wonderful wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau.

I think, from the testimony that I've seen, that Sophie Grégoire Trudeau has already disclosed all of her speaking engagements—or volunteer activities, I believe is more accurate—with regard to WE Charity. I believe that the Ethics Commissioner approved those in advance, well before any of the Canada student service grant was even entertained. It wasn't even an idea; it hadn't even been formulated yet.

The extension to the mother and brother of the Prime Minister is a very large overreach, because it's not relevant to even a potential conflict of interest, if there was one. If we look at the facts, I don't think there is anything more than a perceived conflict of interest. Let's just think about this for the moment. If there was a conflict of interest, as I said, you have to further your own private interests. How did the Prime Minister, if he were to sway decision-making towards WE Charity on this...?

We've heard repeatedly, time and time again, that the public service made a recommendation to go with WE Charity because of their due diligence. We've seen that they made a very clear recommendation. I know that other members here contest that. They think the public service didn't do their due diligence. But in fact they did. I did a lot of work in the charitable sector for many years, and I've seen the fact that WE Charity, for its faults—it had some, as all organizations do—certainly was well positioned to implement this type of program.

I can see how the public service, doing its due diligence, landed on a recommendation to go with WE Charity. Given the context of a pandemic, how can we really fault this decision and say that this binary decision in the Prime Minister's testimony...? He clearly indicated that this was a binary decision: either move forward with the Canada student service grant with WE Charity or not. How can you have a conflict of interest when you're making a go or no go decision? There were no other options to sway the Prime Minister's decision-making and to say that—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Gaudreau has a point of order.

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

The member's comments are very relevant. I am very mindful of anything having to do with ethics, but I would like us to keep our eye on the ultimate goal, which is to discuss the motion and anything closely related to it. The committee has already spent numerous hours on the details surrounding WE Charity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau. Relevance is always key.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that comment from my honourable colleague. I am making, I believe, a relevant argument, which is, why is this particular motion coming forward at this time and what is it predicated upon? What is the theory?

I actually believe this is an attempt—and I think my colleague Mr. Sorbara said this before me—at a fishing expedition. What I've seen is that the opposition party asked questions, rightfully so, and got testimony and had witnesses come forth. They didn't like what they were hearing, so now they're digging for other information that would somehow essentially smear the Prime Minister and his family.

I get, again, that it's relevant to talk about the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister make this decision or sway decision-making for his own private interests? His wife was volunteering and got her expenses paid. How does that constitute a conflict of interest? There's absolutely no.... It's nonsense. I'm sorry. It's absurd to think that that constitutes a conflict of interest. There's no private interest there.

Furthermore, WE Charity, in terms of its contribution agreement.... Contribution agreements are used all the time by the federal government. They've been used multiple times throughout this pandemic. People keep calling this a sole-source contract, as if this was awarded to WE Charity with no process and no due diligence, which is absolutely false. We've heard this numerous times. So what are we fishing for here?

In philosophy.... I study philosophy, so bear with me here. I know you might fall asleep, but I will try to keep it interesting. The sophists were actually the first lawyers in ancient Greek society, and they were criticized by Plato, Socrates and Aristotle for being masters of rhetorical devices. They were good public speakers. Essentially, they taught other members of the Greek polis, but they were masters at what we call logical fallacies.

In this case, I think we're actually seeing the Conservatives use a logical fallacy that's been around for 2,000 years, so kudos to them. It's called ad hominem, and it's when you can't make an argument that will stand up to the principle of sufficient reason so you attack the person instead. You smear the person's reputation and name and their family.

Is that morally just? Is this motion morally just? We're sitting here debating this in the middle of a global pandemic. We've never seen a global pandemic, not in a hundred years, at least, since the Spanish flu. It's the second wave of the global pandemic. People are dying, and we're debating a motion that has no substance, that is morally bunk as far as I'm concerned, and it's all because the Conservatives didn't find what they were looking for, something that would be enough to make a headline so they can win some votes.

I just feel so strongly and passionately about this, Mr. Chair, because I just don't understand how we can continue to debate this when Canadians want us to be doing meaningful work, and for a government....

Look, there are other ethical theories we can talk about if we want to talk about ethics. Let's talk about leadership and ethical leadership. What I've seen in this pandemic—and I say this in a totally heartfelt and honest true-to-myself way—is true ethical leadership by our Prime Minister and our cabinet. I am proud to be Canadian, and I've been overwhelmed by the fact that our government has stepped up time and time again. We're not perfect. We don't ever claim to be. We always say there's more work to be done.

We designed programs within two or three weeks and launched them to support Canadians, and we refined them. The opposition party and the members within the Liberal caucus were part of that process, and we value that. That's the kind of dialectical process that democracy is founded on, but that's contrary to the sophistry that we're experiencing today. I'm sorry, my friends, but that has a negative connotation.

I don't mean to disregard the arguments that may be in opposition to this, but I really feel this is an attempt to smear the Prime Minister's name and his family, and I don't think it's justified. If I did, I wouldn't be here today. I would not be here.

I would also like to talk about some of the other contribution agreements.

Just think about the $100 million that was given to food security organizations. Did anybody ask for a study on that? Maybe the Conservatives could look into that as well. What about the money that went to the Red Cross, United Way Centraide and Community Foundations of Canada, which was distributed to non-profits and charities across the country? Is that a conflict of interest, too? Is every contribution agreement now under scrutiny, because the government has decided to strategically partner with the charitable sector to deliver a program and a service that Canadians need and rely on? They're better positioned to do so in many cases—in most cases, I would say. Most of the charitable civil society organizations I've worked with would say they are better positioned than government. They would sometimes like government to work with them, enable them, and then get out of the way.

It's just misleading. We're misleading Canadians with this type of production of documents. There's no scandal here. It's a reach.

The other distinction that is really important for this debate is the difference between a perceived and an actual conflict of interest. I brought with me today a document that I'm really proud to have read several times over the years. People I know, professors, have actually published some of these documents. It's The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics. These are probably the most pre-eminent scholars—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Gaudreau has a point of order.

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

I know it's late, but for goodness' sake, think of the interpreters. There is an echo, so it's important that people continue to speak slowly.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau. That's a good point. We all have to remember that interpretation is doing a stellar job.

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead. Just be careful with regard to the cadence of your voice.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'll be mindful of that. I'll try to slow it down.

I'm getting an echo in my headphones.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

The echo is getting really bad. I don't know if it's just me, but I'm hearing everything double time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I see the clerk working on it right now with the technical crew. We'll see if we can remedy that right away.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I think it might be resolved.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You sound good now, Mr. Turnbull.

Go ahead, and if there's a problem, I'll ask you to pause.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and I'll go slowly for my colleague. Thank you for that reminder.

In PROC, we studied the virtual Parliament and the many implications for our interpreters. Some of them included injuries that they could get in their ears—from acoustic shock, I think they called it. I'll try to be more mindful of that. My apologies to the interpreters.

I was referring to The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics. In particular, I think it's interesting to look at the chapter on conflicts of interest. As a term, “conflict of interest” actually hasn't been around very long. This is not that relevant, but it's important for us to understand that it's a morally peculiar concept, and that's what the scholars in this particular text talk about.

There are different levels at which we can consider this morally peculiar concept. One thing I would point to is that it originated only in the 1970s in organizational conversation, and only really got a full-blown definition many years later. It really hasn't been around that long, in terms of Canadian history and organizational history.

Even within the lifetime of someone such as the Prime Minister, conflict of interest was not something that was necessarily talked about. This is not me making any comments about whether he should or shouldn't have known the definition, etc. It's in the Conflict of Interest Act, and everybody knows we all agreed to it when we became members of Parliament.

What I think is interesting is that the scholars argue that one can be in a conflict of interest just by virtue of the position they find themselves in within a certain occupation. In essence, if you think about me managing a company, I can be in a conflict of interest just by virtue of the fact that I'm the CEO of a company and my position makes me responsible for certain things, and I've had relationships in the past. I've taken on that position, and all of a sudden something occurs that puts me in a conflict of interest, unbeknownst to me. You can become embroiled in a conflict of interest, or a perceived one, without necessarily knowing it but just by virtue of the position you hold.

This is well documented in the text I refer to. Maybe I can read a few passages out of this. This one in particular is, I think, important. Actually, I think it is by someone who may have even appeared as a witness at some point. Wayne Norman and Chris MacDonald wrote this chapter in the Oxford handbook. They say:

Most careful definitions [of conflict of interest] place a primacy on picking out a particular kind of situation. A person has a conflict of interest because of the kind of situation she finds herself in, not simply because of the actual state of her own desires, interests, motives, and so on.

This is interesting. It means that conflict of interest is actually situational. It's not that you're a bad person because you find yourself in a conflict of interest.

Now, of course our Conflict of Interest Act tells us what individuals are expected to do if they find themselves in a conflict of interest, but I would argue that we have to become aware that we're in a conflict of interest first. If we're in that situation unbeknownst to us—if our mother or brother had done some speaking engagements and somehow we didn't know it—then we could find ourselves in a conflict of interest unbeknownst to ourselves and not necessarily have the awareness of the information we would need to identify that we're in a conflict of interest.

This is a perfectly plausible, rational explanation for how the WE Charity issue or misstep—I would call it no more than a misstep—could have happened.

If you look at this text even further, there is another.... Let me just go back for one second. I know you are not finding this riveting, but I am. I am nerding out here, showing my true colours. This is really relevant to this motion and understanding what conflict of interest actually is.

The text reads: “At the end of the day, an employee or professional may be expected to exercise moral restraint to prevent her own interest from clouding her judgment, but before then she will generally be expected to take concrete steps to escape the conflict, disclose it, have it managed” or as a last resort recuse herself. These are normally expectations that go along with certain positions where conflict of interest may arise more frequently.

Managers and leaders within organizations are generally expected to exercise judgment. I would argue, though, that they would have to have a support system around them in order to identify when they may be in a conflict of interest unbeknownst to them. This is the importance of culture. Within ethical theory, organizational culture has become the most prominent topic of conversation. People realize that you can't have ethical leadership without having an ethical culture and cultivating a kind of ethical culture within your organization.

I want to read another quote, which is probably the one that had the most influence on me and is really the most relevant piece of information out of this particular text. I have more, but in this particular text, this would be the quote I would go back to over and over again, because it really speaks to just how easy it is for a leader as important and responsible for so much.... When taking on a role that has so many overlapping duties and such a high degree of responsibility, conflict of interest would actually be happening quite often.

We heard this in Katie Telford's testimony, where she said numerous times that she had regular contact with the Ethics Commissioner and his office. They went back and forth many times. It was also disclosed by the Prime Minister that his wife had volunteered with WE Charity and had been reimbursed for her expenses. This was out in the open. This was long before WE Charity and the Canada student service grant.

I'll go back to this quote, and I'll slow down. I apologize. I tend to speed up when I've been talking for a while. I just forget.

This quote is really impactful:

The minor revolution that took place in the latter half of the twentieth century was the recognition that responsibility for managing what we now call conflicts of interest cannot merely be left to the honor and courage of the professional or public official. It is not that professionals suddenly became dishonorable, cowardly, or corrupt. The cognitive bias literature confirms intuitive suspicions that “interests” really do interfere with the judgment of even honorable and courageous professionals.

What this means, my honourable colleagues, is that you can be honourable and courageous as a professional and still occasionally make a mistake around a perceived or even an actual conflict of interest. In fact, it's the culture of organizations that needs to provide support systems around our leaders and managers to ensure that they flag these, that they recognize them and then deal with them appropriately.

Putting all of the blame on and demonizing the Prime Minister and his family and trying to tie them into this conflict of interest, or supposed conflict of interest—because I really don't see that there actually is one.... Again, when you look at the fact that it's a binary decision and you can't sway the decision-making from one proponent to another, there's no latitude to sway decision-making.

Also, what private interest was the Prime Minister furthering? Was it his own? He wasn't making money off WE Charity. Was WE Charity, even in the contribution agreement, able to hire speakers? No, they were not. There was no budget line for speakers.

Furthermore, within a contribution agreement, there is always a conflict-of-interest clause, so with the fact that WE Charity was signing on to an agreement, obviously that agreement never got fulfilled due to this supposed controversy, but it's a shame that the charity, imperfect as it was—and it certainly, I'm sure, had some internal flaws—has closed up shop in Canada. I know full well that it did quite a lot of substantial, impactful work on the ground in communities. Schools and students are worse off because that charity has now left our country as a result of this matter that, in my view, is not a conflict of interest.

Going back to this text, which I think is one of the central texts if anybody is interested in really, truly understanding organizational culture and how it impacts conflict of interest and how we manage conflicts of interest, to look at this is really important.

If we were studying how we can improve the culture within the public service and even within the offices of ministers and the elected officials in cabinet, to flag these things earlier and deal with them more effectively would be something that I would be interested in working on and supporting, and so on, but that's not what we're here to talk about today. We're here to talk about a motion that, for all intents and purposes, just seems like a fishing expedition with no logical....

I operate on the principle of sufficient reason, which is what philosophy taught me from very early days. I learned in first-year philosophy class as the fundamental principle of debate that if you can't make a good, rational, logical argument, don't use the logical fallacy of the sophist to try to get your way. Don't attack the person.

I would never attack Mr. Warkentin, never, ever. It's not in my blood. I might disagree with you to the end of time, but I will not attack you as a person. I won't; I just won't. Therefore, why is that okay for parliamentarians to do? It's not appropriate. I'm sorry, but I just have to draw the line there and I really feel passionately and strongly about that.

What else was I going to say? I had a couple of other points.

Oh, yes, this is another important point—

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

On a point of order, Chair, just to the member opposite's point about attacking or getting into it personally with another individual, Mr. Drouin was talking about whether my parents were alive or dead and whether we should be ordering their financial documents. Now his colleague is saying that it's inappropriate to engage in commentary about individuals when the motion at hand, which is what we should be discussing and not receiving a lecture, is about the Prime Minister of Canada and members of his family who received half a million dollars in payments from an organization that was asked to administer a half-billion dollar contribution agreement.

It just seems as though there's a bit of a disconnect, so I wonder about the relevance of even that point, which almost seemed to be an olive branch to my colleague Mr. Warkentin but is absolutely contrary to what Mr. Drouin was saying.

Therefore, I wonder if we can get back to the matter at hand, which is the documents.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Please continue, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet. I do appreciate it.

Mr. Barrett, I extend that olive branch to you as well.

I don't believe what you just said is true. I can't speak for Mr. Drouin, but I don't think he was attacking you as a person. He wasn't smearing your name. He may have been disagreeing with something you said, but I didn't hear him do that. I won't speak for my colleague, but maybe he'll address that later in his remarks.

I would also take issue with something you just said, that the Prime Minister and his family were paid half a million dollars. I don't know of any evidence suggesting that's true.

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

Let's take a look at the documents.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

If it were true, it would be—

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order regarding the interruptions by Mr. Barrett, I understand that he's trying to bring up some points, but at some point I wish you'd intervene.

Mr. Barrett has been bringing up some points of order that are not actually points of order. If we are to keep decorum in this committee, I would ask that you intervene. When Mr. Barrett is speaking—without even saying, “Point of order”—I would ask that you intervene to ensure proper decorum in this committee.