Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 15th, 2020

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

Great. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Madam Clerk and the tech people.

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

Chair, I certainly am glad to see my colleague, Mr. Sorbara, back. I know that he is a long-time finance committee member, so I'm sure he wants to hear what I have to say about the finance department and its efforts. The letter from the finance department says:

With respect to personal information, the department is obliged to protect such information under the Privacy Act unless the individuals to whom it relates consent to its disclosure, or disclosure is otherwise authorized in certain specified circumstances or the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any resulting invasion of privacy.

The writer goes on to say:Reasonable efforts were made by the department to obtain consent. Where consent was not given, the department found that the public interest in sharing the information with the Committee outweighed any invasion of the individual's privacy.

That was Paul Rochon writing on behalf of the Department of Finance.

That is why I have confidence that the volume of documents that were produced at the behest of the finance committee in response to that inquiry this summer, which I know many Canadians.... Okay, there was COVID and then there was the WE Charity committees.

Chair, now it's all about COVID. I echo the earlier remarks of some of my colleagues about how that's what we need to be talking about now, especially how the use of digital applications and the importance of privacy and so on relate to the public health and the fight against COVID.

I do want to come back now to the Privacy Act in brief. I call it PIPEDA. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not as eloquent as some of my colleagues on these issues, but as a private person.... I believe it was my colleague, Mr. Sorbara, who talked about the reforms that are needed to the Privacy Act. I'll share with the committee, and especially Canadians who are watching, that the Privacy Act is basically an instrument recognizing that governments need information about their citizens in order to deliver programs and set public policies. At the same time, Canadians need to know that their personal information is being collected and used only according to strict rules that preserve their right to privacy. The Privacy Act is the law that sets out your privacy rights in your interactions with the federal government. It applies to how the government collects, uses and discloses your personal information. The Privacy Act protects the personal information that government institutions hold and gives you the right to access your personal information that is held by the federal government.

This something that is important for us to study as a committee. There are also reforms that need to take place. We need to make sure there are clear safeguards to protect personal information, including of those—and this is where it's related to the letters that I was referring to—employees and others who interact with the federal government.

The act that is known by its acronym PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, is a more recent act.

Again, I would like to learn more about these acts. I would like to have that opportunity in this committee to study these further and to review the work of the Privacy Commissioner. The fact this act applies to private sector organizations across Canada that collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of a commercial activity, I would suspect there is application here regarding the motion that is before us, that there is room for many questions, as one of my colleagues said previously, about how we, as a committee, as parliamentarians, may ask for any document to be produced, but there is a right to privacy as well.

There may be a lot more that needs to be said here. Maybe it's in the right line, maybe it's not. That is something I would like to better understand. As my colleagues have said, to think that anyone who's going about their business can be at risk of having their personal, professional, contractual or financial information called in to a parliamentary committee at any time, whether or not there's a link with any public office holder, consistent or inconsistent with the constraints or the appropriateness for a committee to make such a request.... I don't think Canadians expect to have a drive-by hit from a parliamentary committee when they're just going about their business.

These are individuals who are not in public life. There are certainly many ways. As we have said, if there is a suspicion or a question about the appropriateness of a public office holder's affairs, whether with family members as defined by the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons or not, members of Parliament have the avenue of writing a letter to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to make their complaint or ask a question. He or she is empowered in every way to make the determination, first of all, whether to proceed with a case or not.

Mr. Angus earlier referred to Katie Telford's husband, Mr. Silver, and what was going on there. Well, the Ethics Commissioner determined there was nothing there to investigate. That is what we heard very recently.

Do we have confidence or not in the work of the Ethics Commissioner and on the inappropriateness of setting up a parallel investigative process? I have learned so much from my colleagues. It was one of our colleagues who was working with us earlier this summer, Mr. Vaughan, who said very cogently that when we set up a parallel investigative process, it is not unlikely this body could reach very different conclusions from the Ethics Commissioner.

That calls the role of the Ethics Commissioner into question immediately. That's not a good situation. That's what's important to me as a parliamentarian. It is all about the appropriateness. That's why I talk about the mandate. That's why I go back to the act and specifically to the roles each and every one of us has to play here.

As Mr. Vaughan says, that's not a good situation. For those of us who rely on the Ethics Commissioner to clear our names or to deliver findings to us, it is not a good situation to undermine the integrity of that office while that office is doing critically important work on our behalf.

He goes on to say, “I'm very reluctant to set a precedent in this committee”. That twigged me right away, because, being a Quebecker, we're all about the Civil Code. I see my colleague Madame Gaudreau knows what I'm talking about.

Of course, the common law is precedent. That is key. Once you set a precedent, then it's very difficult to break in the common law. So, as Mr. Vaughan says:

I am very reluctant to set a precedent in this committee, which does not have a mandate to investigate any member of Parliament for any reason on a particular issue. To suddenly say that this committee would then have the power to compel any member of Parliament to attend and suffer the political consequences if they decline

—and that was on, of course, a previous motion this summer—

sets a really dangerous precedent. It sends the ethics standing committee off in a whole new direction that it was never intended to deal with.

I think I have to take Mr. Vaughan's words even further to say that the call for the production of documents, which Mr. Housefather rightfully said is flawed in that the dating of the motion predates that member of Parliament's even being a public office holder, does not refer to the WE Charity, which it purports to be about, and is not relevant in that it does not cover the mother or the brother, the section 11 that my colleague referred to in the code.

We're setting one, two, three, four, five, six new precedents. This is not a constructive and productive way. If we think something needs to be changed, then we need to do a study on that. Otherwise, it's not by one incident or by focusing on one particular situation....

We set up the Ethics Commissioner not to depoliticize what was happening—because it's all about politics, I get it—but to give us clarity in a political setting so that the Ethics Commissioner would be that independent investigator doing his or her work, regardless of what winds were blowing around. From there, how we choose to respond to the Ethics Commissioner is where this committee's work begins.

He goes on in that vein.

I will just finish, then. Our work does not start by investigating the individual simultaneously, regardless of who that individual is, whether it's the Prime Minister, his wife, his brother or his mother.

It is clear, when you read the full mandate of this committee, that our job is to evaluate those reports. If the commissioner is not doing a good job, it's up to us to say that. Then we can make recommendations to Parliament on what changes need to be made to guidelines and conflict of interest regulations so that Canadians can have confidence in Parliament.

Mr. Chair, that is where I will conclude my remarks at this time.

I feel that the collective wisdom here is going to get us to a good place.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Shanahan.

I appreciate that.

We'll now move on to Mr. Warkentin.

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

Mr. Chair, I think I'll take up the challenge of Ms. Shanahan. She suggested that we consider the collective wisdom of the group.

I would ask that we move to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You're asking to move to a vote on—

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

I think the Liberals, through Ms. Shanahan, have suggested that we would seek the collective wisdom of the committee.

I would suggest that before I try to convince my Liberal colleagues, who clearly have decided they are going to remain opposed regardless of what arguments are brought forward by my party and the remaining opposition parties to support it.... I don't think anybody's mind is going to be changed at this point so I would suggest, as Ms. Shanahan has suggested, that we go to a vote on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Is there consensus to move to a vote on the motion?

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

No.

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

Absolutely not.

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

There's no consensus, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay.

Please continue, Mr. Warkentin.

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

Well, I think that's very helpful. I think what we have seen, over the last number of meetings, is a Liberal party that will stop at nothing, having consistently brought in new members and cycled members through this committee simply to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to protect the Prime Minister at any cost.

What we are seeing reported in the news, what we are seeing by virtue of the actions of these committee members over the last number of hours, both today and in previous meetings, is that they will stop at nothing, including embarrassing themselves to ensure that these documents never see the light of day.

I intend to remain here as long as we need to, to ensure that these documents do get submitted to the committee. This is nothing new. These documents were slated to be released to the committee just hours before the Prime Minister did the unprecedented thing, having broken the promise that he made during the previous election. He promised to never prorogue the House of Commons. The Prime Minister did the exceptional thing in moving to prorogue the House of Commons to do one thing and one thing only.

Traditionally, prorogations are done for the purpose of resetting the parliamentary calendar. What we've seen in the last number of weeks is that the Prime Minister has not changed course. What we saw in the Speech from the Throne showed that the Prime Minister has remained on course on every single provision of the federal government. There is no change in their fiscal track. There's no change in their legislative track. The only thing they did by proroguing was to ensure that the investigation into the Prime Minister, and specifically the release of these documents, didn't happen because of the prorogation. These documents would have been submitted to this committee just hours following the Prime Minister's declaration to prorogue the House of Commons.

For the last number of weeks, because of prorogation, this committee has been unable to move forward to get these documents released. Having prorogued Parliament, he delayed that. Now he's offended that we're doing our jobs in resurrecting this study and ensuring that we have transparency and accountability, as is our responsibility and our job.

Quite frankly, it's not just the opposition members' job to hold the Prime Minister accountable. It's also Liberal members' job. The members on this committee are not cabinet ministers, but have a responsibility on behalf of their constituents to hold the Prime Minister and the cabinet responsible for their actions.

The Liberal members of this committee may believe that if they do the heavy lifting of protecting the Prime Minister, if they embarrass themselves by engaging in this ongoing filibuster, that the Prime Minister will give them some role of becoming an esteemed parliamentary secretary or a minister. Well, if they have to sell themselves down that road, they have to look their constituents in the eye and explain to them why they don't believe in transparency and accountability. They have to look their constituents in the eye and say they don't believe in their democratic responsibility to hold the government to account.

Now, I wouldn't want to do that, and I've been in their shoes. I've been in their shoes where, having been in government, somebody from the Prime Minister's Office suggested that I do something at committee, including filibustering and any number of other things that I thought would have been embarrassing, and I turned them down. I would suggest that they consider doing that as well, and doing what's in the best interests of their constituents by voting in support of transparency and accountability.

There is no concern about these documents floating around in the general population. There have been provisions made to ensure that these documents are held in the clerk's office and that they will only be accessed by members of Parliament and the staff of those members on this committee. If my colleagues don't trust their staff, I would encourage them not to allow their staff to have access to these documents. I trust my staff.

I believe, Mr. Chair, that the Liberals won't change their minds. I don't think it matters how long we sit here and debate these things. The national media is now reporting that there are some Liberal members of Parliament who are going to the media and saying privately that they do fear what is included in these documents.

Not only does the Prime Minister fear what's included in these documents, to the extent that he would prorogue Parliament just hours before these documents would have been released, but now we have Liberal members of Parliament who also are going to members of the media and suggesting they are afraid of what's included in these documents and how it may hurt their party.

I would suggest to Liberal members of Parliament that there is a greater hurt that can be undertaken by not releasing these documents and not doing what's in the best interest of Canadians, and that is, we're going to hurt our democratic process.

We have before us an organization, the WE organization, which was granted by the federal government, by the Prime Minister and cabinet, nearly $1 billion. This was on the heels of that same organization giving the Prime Minister and his family over $500,000 over the last number of years. We know that. That's what's on the public record. Those are not disputed facts. What we don't know is what is included in these documents.

I can tell you that if these documents were to exonerate the Prime Minister and his family, the Liberal members of this committee would be encouraged by the Prime Minister's Office to hurry up and ensure that these documents see the light of day. Not only would they be given to this committee and to the clerk, and for us to view them privately, the Prime Minister's Office would demand that the Liberal members of Parliament amend this motion to ensure that the public and the media would also have access to these documents.

We know that their fight and their filibuster demonstrates exactly how fearful they are of what's included in these documents. The bombshell included in these documents is demonstrated by the extent to which the Liberal members of Parliament will go to ensure that these documents never see the light of day.

Now, before he was the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau was fond of saying that sunlight was the best disinfectant. I would encourage the Liberal members, again, to consider that the spreading infection of Liberal corruption is in need of sunlight; it's in need of disinfectant.

The challenge with an infection is that it can be disinfected and can go away when it's a small thing. When it gets covered up, and when it gets hidden away, and when it doesn't get dealt with, it becomes more and more severe, to the extent that the remedy is far more aggressive.

Liberal members on this committee have to consider just how bad things have to get for them and their party before they'll do the honourable thing: Do what Canadians would expect to bring transparency and accountability to their own government. If they refuse, if they allow the infection to continue to grow at the Prime Minister's level, having now been complicit in that cover-up here at committee, I can tell you that the infection will become far more severe and the remedy will be far more severe. I wouldn't wish that on them, but that is a choice they have to make.

Their capitulation to the Prime Minister's Office's demands that they continue talking at this committee at length will demonstrate just how fearful they are, and the Prime Minister is, of these documents seeing the light of day. I think that Canadians will become more and more engaged on exactly what it is they're doing, and they'll fully understand why they're doing it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Warkentin.

Now we'll move on to Mr. Drouin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I heard my colleague speak vigorously and I want to congratulate him on his very good speech. As committee members, we must all look at this issue. However, I'm trying to better understand where the opposition members' motion is coming from.

I gather that they want to obtain documents dating back to 2008 because they believe that the current Prime Minister and WE were involved in some type of scheming at the time.

Nothing happened from 2008 to 2015, since the Liberal Party was in opposition and was only the third party. However, from 2015 to 2019, the Liberal Party had a majority in the House. At that time, I sat with my colleague Mr. Warkentin on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. In a way, we were trying to correct the idea that if you give contracts to our mother or brother, we'll give you contracts.

From 2015 to 2019, we sat and did nothing, until Mr. Trudeau apparently planned a global pandemic. The government then decided to award a contract to WE, supposedly to please the Prime Minister's family. I've read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and several other fiction books. I've found more truth in those books than in what the opposition parties are saying right now.

According to these parties, the Liberal members aren't being transparent right now. Let me explain how Parliament works. Often parliamentarians who have been here for a long time, such as Mr. Warkentin and Mr. Gourde, seem to forget what they've done in the past. In doing so, they apply a double standard to our parliamentary democracy.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to get a good understanding of what the opposition is trying to propose and where they're trying to go with this particular motion.

I have to say that I'm very inspired by Mr. Warkentin's speech and I want to remind everyone on this committee—and we're almost coming up to the seventh anniversary of the November 6, 2013, vote—because I think it's important, that if we are to hold government to account, or any member of Parliament to account, we ought to let the public know where they were on November 6, 2013. On the vote topic I'll have to read the particular motion of where that stands.

On November 6, 2013, it read:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be instructed to examine the conduct of the Prime Minister's Office regarding the repayment of Senator Mike Duffy's expenses; that the Prime Minister be ordered to appear under oath as a witness before the Committee for a period of 3 hours, before December 10, 2013; and that the proceedings be televised.

Mr. Chair, just to go back and bring everybody back, before prorogation we had the Prime Minister appear before the committee, which is unprecedented by the way. And we had the Prime Minister's chief of staff appear before the committee.

I know that Mr. Barrett and Mr. Poilievre sent a letter to the Ethics Commissioner and they tried to go after the husband of the Prime Minister's chief of staff but the commissioner politely declined. I noticed in the spirit of transparency that both the member for Leeds-Grenville and the member for Carleton didn't particularly share that information with their constituents. I didn't see them tweet any information about how their requests were declined and how they were ridiculed by the Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner said, Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Barrett, we've heard your concerns. We've heard your false accusation, but when you have real proof, please send it to us because it makes no sense at all. They didn't share that information and I'm wondering, in the spirit of transparency, if Mr. Barrett would share that in this particular committee, and whether he shares that in his householder to his particular constituents. Again, it's all in the spirit of transparency. I think we owe it to the population of Canadians, to all of us, as parliamentarians to be transparent with our constituents when it comes to ethics matters.

Mr. Chair, bringing us back to the motion at hand—

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

Did you want me to reply to you, Mr. Drouin?

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

Are you calling a point of order or are you trying to interrupt me?

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

You just asked me a question. Was it rhetorical?

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

I'm still speaking.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Barrett, please address your comments through the chair, but you'll have time to speak again.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Prime Minister appeared before committee and the opposition is trying to go on a wild goose chase, and since we are so close to Thanksgiving probably they are trying to go on a wild turkey chase.

I want to remind committee members of the following. When Mr. Warkentin, on November 6, 2013, had an opportunity to stand up for Canadians and stand up for his constituents and say to Canadians that he believed in transparency, what did he do? He voted against the then prime minister's appearing before the Ethics Commissioner. By the way, our Prime Minister stood up before the committee and testified before the committee and was extremely transparent before all Canadians. And it was televised, by the way.

It was the same thing with Mr. Gourde. He had an opportunity, by the way, to say to Canadians that he had the chance to have his prime minister appear before his committee. What did Mr. Gourde say? He said on November 6, 2013, that he didn't believe, because he was in government, that his prime minister should appear and be accountable to Canadians; and they voted against his prime minister appearing before committee.

That is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. The Conservatives talk about a good game of being great about transparency and whatnot, but when it comes to action about being actually transparent to Canadians, actions speak louder than words. Mr. Warkentin and Mr. Gourde were not there and were not present when they had the chance to speak and to put action before words.

It is not just the actions of Mr. Warkentin and Mr. Gourde. We have Mr. O'Toole, for instance, who's now the Leader of the Official Opposition, crying foul on how the Liberals are trying to cover up a big scandal. What did Mr. O'Toole do on November 6, 2013? He did the exact same thing as Mr. Warkentin and Mr. Gourde, and all Conservative members. I see the numbers: 148 Conservative members voted against having their prime minister appear before a committee to show transparency, to show to Canadian people that he was ready to show transparency to Canadians.

I'm looking at this motion, Mr. Chair, and it is pure hypocrisy.

This brings me to my next point, which is about how we deal with family members. I want to thank my hon. colleague Francesco Sorbara who spoke about this.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I want to rise on a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Following the comments made by my colleague Mr. Drouin, I believe that, as great democrats, we should proceed to a vote. If Mr. Drouin is brave, he'll agree to let us vote now.

When we make these types of statements before the committee, we must expect to defend our democracy. However, to defend democracy, we must be able to vote one day. I hope that the party currently in power will agree to finally let the committee members vote and continue their work properly.

Mr. Chair, I would like to proceed to a recorded division.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

I can always seek consensus, but on a point of order it would be very difficult to do that, Mr. Gourde.

I see a lot of heads shaking, so I don't think there is any consensus in that regard.

You can continue, Mr. Drouin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This brings me to my next point, on how we treat family members and how we treat designated public office holders. As members of the Conservative party would know, because they brought in the new Lobbying Act—and this was an act that was pushed by the Prime Minister's own chief of staff, Guy Giorno—the Lobbying Act doesn't differentiate between the Prime Minister, an assistant deputy minister, a member of Parliament, a parliamentary secretary, a deputy minister or the chief of defence staff. It treats us all the same.

Therein lies the question that I ask members of the opposition concerning whether or not they ought to in fact publish all of their parents' financial information. If they're asking the Prime Minister...in order to hold him to a higher standard of ethics, then I would hope that Mr. Barrett would have the same ethical standard, and even go higher, to publish his own parents' information, if they're still alive.

Mr. Barrett, with all due respect, I don't know your family situation, but this is a serious discussion as to whether or not all 338 members of Parliament in this House should publish their brothers' financial statements, their sisters' financial statements, and/or their mothers' or their fathers' financial statements. If the opposition is serious about this motion, then I would hope that they would proactively publish the financial statements they themselves are asking for in this particular motion.

In 2013, it took one leader to have a proactive disclosure for MPs to publish their own personal expenses, and that wasn't driven by the Conservative Party of Canada; this was driven by the Liberal Party of Canada, even though they were the second party of opposition. They were stuck in the corner, where the NDP is now. It took Mr. Trudeau, now the Prime Minister, to drive that particular innovation in transparency, and then the NDP and then the Conservative Party of Canada followed through. I think that's an important point to make with respect to this particular motion.

Speaking of transparency, I know that Mr. O'Toole, the leader of the official opposition, recently won the Conservative party nomination, and I, too, am wondering how transparent the policies are. Mr. O'Toole has presented plenty of policies to Canadians, and I only wish him well, but one particular policy he's proposed is to defund the CBC. Defunding the CBC, to me as a French Canadian, is unacceptable, and I think my French colleague would agree, but even my English colleagues who have zero presence of private media other than the CBC in their communities, especially rural communities.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we are going to be raising the bar on ethical standards, we should be aware that Jeff Ballingall, the chief marketing officer for The Post Millennial, has worked actively on Mr. O'Toole's campaign. One question that I have for the opposition is, how much influence did Mr. Ballingall have on Mr. O'Toole's policy to defund the CBC? Defunding the CBC, as we know, would be of direct financial benefit to The Post Millennial. Again, I'm not the one saying this, but the former leader of the opposition stood up during leadership night and said, you should not be watching Global News; don't watch CBC. You should be watching The Post Millennial.

Again, I'm not making this up. I'm just wondering if Jeff Ballingall registered to lobby a designated public office holder. Should the ethics committee be looking at this?