Information & Ethics Committee on July 12th, 2021

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Brown, his predecessor, engaged in no such activity, I would note. Mr. Barrett is, of course—as we all are—free to exercise his prerogatives as a member of Parliament.

Here we are today. Here we are in a committee room on Parliament Hill, meeting on something that I've just pretty clearly outlined is not within the competence or the scope of this committee's lines of inquiry. It's something that, again, has been established pretty clearly as being outside the parameters of what Mr. Barrett should be preoccupied with.

It's also very clearly, Mr. Chair, something that every party does in service of the members of Parliament that it has in Parliament by supplying technologies that equip us, help us and train us to serve our constituents in the most efficient and best manner possible.

As a result, Mr. Chair, I am perplexed as to why there's this mass mobilization of MPs, on an emergency basis, back to Ottawa during the month of July to explore yet another of Mr. Barrett's fantasies driven by his personal animus toward the Prime Minister and toward members of this government. I don't understand that, Mr. Chair. It is not becoming. It does not befit the honourable members of the House of Commons or of this committee to act in such ways.

However, if Mr. Barrett wishes to pursue this line of inquiry, then I think it only fair that we pursue the line of inquiry to its logical conclusion and examine those Conservative donors, who are clearly very wealthy Conservative donors, as shown by their tens of thousands of dollars of contributions to the party. It's only fair that we examine links between them, the software they provide and the possible population of Conservative Party databases.

Madam Shanahan described her experience in trying at all costs to extricate herself from this web, this data trap she's been in for the last 10 years. I think it might befit this committee, in its line of inquiry, to inquire as to how that could possibly occur. It may befit this committee, in its line of inquiry, to ask the leader of Mr. Barrett's party about contracts using parliamentary funds that are let to members of his leadership campaign team, those people who volunteered, presumably, or maybe were compensated, to work on Mr. O'Toole's leadership campaign and now find themselves to be contractors to the Office of the Leader of the Opposition or the Conservative Resource Group, which of course are both entities that are funded with the tax dollars of hard-working Canadians. It may behoove us to look into those ties and those connections, because some of those people provide software consulting services or IT consulting services or the like.

As you know, Mr. Chair, these things get a little fuzzy. As far as we can tell, some people who were engaged in partisan software management—maybe for Mr. O'Toole's leadership campaign, maybe for the Conservative Party of Canada—are now providing IT and database and other consulting services to a public entity, which is the Office of the Leader of the Opposition or the Conservative Research Group. That, of course, may also warrant the prolonged gaze of the members of this committee if we are to be logical and consistent in applying the very rigorous tests that Mr. Barrett has laid out for the members of this committee.

Mr. Chair, I think it's important that we remember all of these facts. It's important we remember that what we're really doing here is indulging Mr. Barrett's personal animus and hatred for the Prime Minister, as well as that of the Conservative Party. We're calling back members of Parliament from all over the country to indulge that—

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

Chair, on a point of order, I would say that Mr. MacKinnon is invoking some highly inflammatory language with respect to his assumption about how I feel about another member of the House. While I couldn't agree less on matters of policy with Mr. Trudeau, the Right Honourable Prime Minister, I have never, in this committee, demonstrated anything other than a respectful tone, though members opposite may not like the questions that I have asked.

It does a disservice to all members of this committee and to Mr. MacKinnon himself to use such inflammatory language. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I don't believe that type of language with respect to a characterization of how one member perceives another member is appropriate in this venue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'd encourage Mr. MacKinnon to work in a way that not only reflects our respect for one another but also addresses the issue at hand. Mr. Barrett was not involved, I don't think, in the drafting of Ms. Shanahan's amendment. That is currently what's up for debate.

Mr. MacKinnon, I'd suggest and ask that you move to debate with regard to the amendment.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Clearly, I am happy to keep debating the amendment by my esteemed colleague Mrs. Shanahan.

She gave the committee a very constructive way forward—the only way forward, really—refer the matter to the Board of Internal Economy. If Mr. Barrett likes, I could reread the mandate of the Board of Internal Economy for his benefit. The matter before us today is without a doubt under the exclusive authority of the Board of Internal Economy.

Let me assure the Conservative members who are following Mr. Barrett's lead and helping him carry out his personal agenda: all contracts entered into by Liberal members or by the Liberal Research Bureau are duly approved, in accordance with the rules of the House of Commons and Parliament of Canada. Those contracts are performed in the context Mrs. Shanahan described; in other words, there is a complete and utter separation between the system data we use to carry out constituency work and the data contained in any other system, regardless of who designed it.

I want to conclude by saying that we disapprove of this witch hunt. We disapprove of today's meeting, which was apparently called to fulfill the personal wishes and agenda of Mr. Barrett and his fellow Conservative members. I encourage the members of the other parties not to join Mr. Barrett on his periodic escapades to dig up dirt. He has been trying to do precisely that since the beginning of this Parliament. It reflects poorly on all parliamentarians and on the House of Commons, I might add. Mr. Barrett's relentlessness is not flattering to the institutions of Parliament. I would say that has repeatedly been verified by various commissioners, who are officers of Parliament.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I will yield the floor.

I urge the committee members to support my fellow member's amendment. My hope is that we can put an end to the Conservative Party's latest antics to dig up dirt.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Madame Gaudreau is next.

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

Do you have anyone else on the speaking list after me, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes, there is one.

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

All right, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Madam Shanahan is on the list again.

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

It is now 1:35 p.m. The meeting has been going on since 11 a.m. this morning. I'm just taking the time to get myself set up, since this is my first speech.

Just like you, we have activities in our ridings. The people who are listening to us today have the opportunity to see us in person and see that we are hard at work in Ottawa. Yes, we are working. I should give them a bit of background about what is going on, however.

Under Standing Order 106(4), we can sign a written request to call a meeting when, unfortunately, we are unable to obtain certain answers on a given issue. As indicated in the wording of the request, the reason why I supported my Conservative colleagues in making this request is that, unfortunately, I could not get the answers to my questions.

During the last parliamentary session, I was constantly amazed at how much room was left for different interpretations. In life, I have always been told to get to the bottom of things to make sure whether what is being said is true or false.

In the last hour and a half, according to what has been put on the table—and this is a perception, I want to emphasize that—there seemed to be nothing wrong, nothing to worry about. We told ourselves from the outset that everything was perfect, that this meeting would be so uncomplicated, for once, that we could take the time left to us to work in our ridings and meet the people we have only seen virtually all year. Personally, I found that reassuring. I thought it would be a simple meeting, since the colleagues opposite had absolutely nothing to worry about. I thought it would be a two-hour meeting to shed some light on the subject of the written request made under Standing Order 106(4).

We were asked what was the point of doing this at this time, between two parliamentary sessions. In fact, the work is still going on. The House of Commons is actually open. I'm very happy that we can see each other in person, that feels good. I was told that I was dancing behind the screen. What we're experiencing right now is a bit like what I have experienced. I was introduced to this along with all of you. For hours and hours, we have heard speeches that often ran counter to the proposals before the committee, just to kill time. We keep hearing people saying we don't want to waste time, but we are wasting time. They say they want to get to the bottom of this, but they don't want to allow us the opportunity to ask questions.

In fact, what we should be asking is why things are so complicated today. Anyone who has nothing to hide or fear should be willing to go ahead and get to the bottom of things. Sadly, someone made a speech saying that they felt threatened. That's a defence mechanism. I will say to the people who are listening to us that this is perfectly normal, this is what happens in committee.

However, here is what it's like in real life. It's summertime. We are not sure what's coming up. According to my schedule, I will be back with you on September 20, in person. That will be very exciting. In the meantime, I don't want to repeat what we did last summer. I am convinced that none of you want to do that.

Some people feel that if you open the door once, you'll have to open it the next time too. The proof is in the pudding: We have already opened the door, based on an item we had. There were no worries, everything was perfect, we were going to meet the following week. There may be other proposals; it depends on what people want to do.

Trust and transparency issues fall under the purview of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We are an oversight committee. Every committee has its strength. Ours is very considerable, and equally important.

It is easy to say that we are trying to look for dirt and dig where there is nothing to dig up. Beyond all that, we are demonstrating something to people. Essentially, technically, the results shouldn't be a big surprise. We simply saw, and I will reiterate, that 95% of the Liberal MPs paid $30,000 to Data Sciences and the Liberal Party paid $1 million to NGP VAN. Accordingly, we want to ask the founder of Data Sciences some questions. If things look good, this will be over; if they don't, then something else will happen. People need to know what's going on.

People say time is precious. I'm sure some of my colleagues have meetings scheduled in their ridings in an hour. I myself have one at 5 p.m. People want to see us. They also want to see that we're not wasting our time. Well, we have just shown them that we did waste our time. At this point, I think that by 2 p.m. we will have finished hearing from everyone who wanted to speak. We are ready. Everyone has spoken. We all know how the vote will turn out. Let's vote on the amendment. Soon, when we feel comfortable and we are in agreement, we can vote on the motion.

Why should we do this? I think that the clerk has the right to enjoy her summer, too. We can do our work and our planning efficiently and effectively.

You know where I stand. We still agree on the basic wording. The work will resume on September 20. There will be requests then, but we will be able to stay focused.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mrs. Shanahan, I have you on the speaking list, followed by Mr. Fergus. Please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't planning to speak, but I will. There is a reason why we are meeting today. Obviously, we did not request this meeting. We are here to explain why our committee is not the right place to consider this issue. The committee does not have a mandate to investigate conflict of interest. Other people have already looked into that and into other cases. That work is done by the commissioners, that's their job. When the individuals involved are members of Parliament, it is Parliament's Board of Internal Economy that looks into everything.

That is why I proposed the amendment. Everyone here must recognize the reason why it is the Board of Internal Economy that deals with these matters. Members of all parties sit on the board, and things are done in a confidential manner. From what I have heard, since these meetings are not held in public, the exchanges between members of the various political parties and the MPs involved can be very frank and honest.

We still have the same goal, which is to ensure that our democracy remains based on political parties and groups. We are not in small villages where everyone can represent themselves, far from it. Citizens rely on political parties to represent them. As we know full well, in our system we do not vote for a prime minister but for MPs, each of whom represents a political party. In most cases, voters hope that the leader of the political party of the candidate they voted for will become Prime Minister. I also understand that sometimes the leader makes it very clear that they don't want to take power, but I think they have an interest elsewhere. I do not want to veer too far off topic, but as we know, the leader of the Bloc Québécois was previously involved in politics in Quebec. It is certainly very interesting to make a career in another level of government to then come back to Quebec and perhaps even lead the province. Why not? It's because we are in the public eye, right?

The parliamentary resources that we all use are very important. If they are being used for smear campaigns here and there—and I'm talking about all parties in general—the public needs to know that. Every MP has more than one office and hires three, four or five people to work there. Some may have as many as ten staffers, some working part-time. It is important for people to know what these staffers do. Constituents would not want to find out that employees are being hired for purposes other than the work being done in the riding with respect to federal policy and federal cases. People need to understand exactly what work is being done with their tax dollars.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm recognizing Madame Gaudreau on a point of order.

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

What my colleague is saying is very interesting, but I'm trying to see how it is linked to the amendment we are debating. Maybe she can explain to me what the link is or actually arrive at her conclusion, because I'm having trouble following her.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes, I appreciate it. I think that's a point of order with regard to relevance.

I was going to just encourage members.... I know there's been a fair bit of debate that's been outside the scope of the amendment. Members have now had the floor multiple times. If members have run out of things to say on the amendment, I would suggest that we go to a vote. Then members could speak to the motion, as amended or not. That might be the more appropriate time to continue with these ongoing debates.

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

Actually, I have something else to say about the amendment.

Just to bring the point home—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Is it on the amendment?

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

—on the amendment, the Board of Internal Economy is the place to discuss all of this use of Hill resources and parties have a great interest that it be done in the Board of Internal Economy, but you know what? We could do it in public.

Honestly, I have some very interesting things before me that could well be looked at. I hope that Robert Fife is listening, because he might find some interesting things here. We can certainly make them all public.

I think this is the first time you have heard me talk like this, because I'm usually the quiet, unassuming lady who tries to work within the rules and the mandates of the committees. However, in this case, I feel that this exercise exceeds the limits of the committee. Some of the members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics here seem to think that they can use our committee as a forum to make all kinds of allegations and to summon citizens who are not even part of our political world. They are politically engaged citizens, and they have every right to engage in politics. In fact, we encourage them to do so. On the other hand, there seems to be a perception that this committee serves as a forum or a kind of star chamber, as they have in the United States. I don't think anyone wants to apply that model in Canada.

To put it simply, what could come out of that would be very interesting.

I will close with that. I think we're here precisely to defend parliamentary tradition and procedure and to uphold people's confidence in the political system. The proper place to study this matter is the Board of Internal Economy. If certain members prefer to do this in the public arena, then we will be opening a can of worms, won't we?

With all due respect to my colleagues, I think there are other ways to deal with this issue. That is what concerns us. My amendment outlines the way to do this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We're turning to Mr. Fergus, the next speaker on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I listened very attentively to my colleagues, especially Madame Gaudreau. I think I might have a way to bring this to an end that would be satisfactory to Mr. Barrett and other members of this committee.

I was wondering if I could ask the chair for his indulgence for two minutes. It's to have a two-minute pause so that I could pursue this idea to see if there's support among all the parties for a way forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm not opposed to that. If there's no opposition, I will suspend the meeting for a period of five minutes. I'll give you an additional three minutes if you're able to come up with a solution.

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

That's very generous of you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'll suspend for five minutes. The meeting's suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I call this meeting back to order.

Mr. Fergus, we'll go back to you.