Evidence of meeting #42 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I just want to flag that the interpretation isn't working for Ms. Gaudreau. Perhaps you can—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus, on a point of order.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
On a point of order, I'd just note that Madame Gaudreau said that she wasn't receiving translation. Perhaps you could repeat yourself so that she can understand what you just said.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
All right. My apologies.
Let's hope that we can get the translation going. Right now I have a growing speaking list. Members are indicating that they continue to want to speak. My obligation is to allow for members to speak. I don't know when we'll be done. I think it will be left to members' discretion as to when they want to allow for the votes to happen. When nobody wants to speak, then we'll move to adjournment.
I currently have Mrs. Shanahan and Mr. MacKinnon on the list. Madame Gaudreau is on the list as the third speaker, unless Madame Shanahan was saying that she'd prefer that Madame Gaudreau go first.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Very good. We'll continue with the speaking list.
Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you very much, Chair. This is very able quarterbacking with the group we have before us.
We are missing one person here, so in the spirit of invoking the ethics committee in all its glory and so on, I want to quote Mr. Angus, who was interviewed for that Globe and Mail article. I think it will bring a little bit more raison d'être to why we think it's appropriate for this matter to be transferred to the Board of Internal Economy.
Mr. Angus said, when he was asked, that he's not convinced the Liberals are abusing spending rules, which is nice to hear from Mr. Angus, and went on to say, “I am not sure they are using it in a way that would actually contravene rules. It would have to be established that they are turning constituency data over for political purposes. Every political party has a data wing and a constituency wing.”
I think that is the key: the fact that the data itself, as we have learned in other studies, is an important resource. Not only is it an issue whether we use a House device or premises or Hill staff or constituency staff; the fact that the data that is collected in the course of our day-to-day constituency work can be used and turned over to the political party in question for use for election purposes is of deep concern, I think, to any member of this Parliament.
That is why I think Mr. Angus, in his always very insightful way, gets to the heart of the issue. It is that on the one hand, there is the constituency work that we do day to day, the very important contact work and policy work and casework. We all know what we and our staff do every day. That needs to be managed. We each have between 70,000 and 120,000 constituents. I don't know about you, but even though I'm more of a paper person, I need software to handle that work. It's certainly well within the budget of any member to have software, and it makes sense not to have each single member ordering software, because that's expensive. No, you order one software package that works for all members of a group, which in our parliamentary system are caucus groups. That's what we have access to. I'm certainly happy with the service that's provided.
It's a completely different thing when we're talking about election purposes, voter ID purposes, donor purposes and so on. That is precious data, personal data, and we know we deal with people's most personal data when we're talking about immigration files, passports, Revenue Canada and the myriad things we deal with in the course of our constituent duties. That is important, but it should not—never, ever—be mixed with election-purpose data, which is what we do when we're on a campaign, when we're identifying our supporters and we're going out to meet them.
That is the case with our software. We're not so sure it's the case with the privately paid-for software used by the Conservative Party, which is run by Conservative donors with individual links with members and members of the leader's staff.
We have a lot more we can say about that, but in the interest of time I will leave it there and yield the floor to Mr. MacKinnon, I believe.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Before we go to Mr. MacKinnon, we've been going for a couple of hours now. We'll take a seven-minute break to allow the staff a break and then we will call the meeting back to order.
The meeting is suspended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We're going to call this meeting back to order.
We have Mr. MacKinnon next on the list. Go ahead, Mr. MacKinnon.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As the honourable member Mr. Barrett mentioned, I am indeed new to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Unfortunately, the committee is preceded by its reputation, thanks to some of the comments made by members across the way before I joined the committee.
I want to piggyback on what my fellow member Mrs. Shanahan said. She spoke about what the committee's responsibilities were and which body had the authority to examine this issue if need be.
The matter clearly falls under the authority of the Board of Internal Economy. For the benefit of my fellow members, I would like to cite the bylaws.
The Parliament of Canada Act refers to the “exclusive authority” of the Board of Internal Economy, at subsection 52.6(1). I repeat, “exclusive authority”.
52.6 (1) The Board has the exclusive authority to determine whether any previous, current or proposed use by a member of the House of Commons of any funds, goods, services or premises made available to that member for the carrying out of parliamentary functions is or was proper, given the discharge of the parliamentary functions of members of the House of Commons, including whether any such use is or was proper having regard to the intent and purpose of the by-laws made under subsection 52.5(1).
Obviously, what we have here is an exercise in extreme partisanship and politicking. The member is trying to circumvent the committee's tradition, to say nothing of the best traditions of the House and this institution. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a Conservative opposition hell-bent on disparaging those involved in the public life of their country.
I want to repeat what my fellow members said about our use of the software in question. Formally, unequivocally and in writing, a clear separation exists between our use of software to carry out constituency work and our use of software to perform partisan work, in other words, activities in support of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I did note with interest the very insightful intervention of my friend Mr. Dong, who pointed out that the Conservative Party and Conservative members utilize software that is probably very similar, software furnished by an enterprise.
This is not to minimize their involvement in public life. Supporting public institutions is a good thing, which makes me wonder why Mr. Barrett continues to engage in these activities. Donors of tens of thousands of dollars provide the very software that Mr. Barrett alluded to, that he confirmed and revealed to this committee that he uses in the course of his daily activities. That software is provided by a company called Momentuum, whose CEO has made tens of thousands of dollars of contributions to the Conservative Party of Canada and its various entities.
The president of another provider that is confirmed in Mr. Barrett's proactive disclosure, Softchoice, has been a donor to the Conservative Party of Canada on several occasions, including for the Lisa Raitt leadership campaign. That too has been, I think, pretty easily tracked down.
To take it to its logical extension, Mr. Chair, in this Parliament Mr. Barrett, it must be said, has dug a lot of dry holes. He's like the Death Valley well driller. There has been a lot of activity, Mr. Chair, a lot of moving around, without much being dug up there.
As an ethics critic, I think he has been shown to be—
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Chair, I was just wondering if finding Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau guilty of breaking ethics laws was one of those dry wells Mr. MacKinnon was talking about. I just wasn't sure.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I think that's a point of debate, but there will be opportunities, I think, for that.
Mr. MacKinnon, we are speaking to the amendment.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
I think Mr. Barrett has shown himself to be pretty sensitive. I understand that he—having worked so hard and being governed by such personal animus towards this government, its leader and many of its members—would be frustrated that after two years his efforts have yielded so little, but I digress, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
On another point of order, Chair—
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I'm wondering if Mr. MacKinnon could quantify how many findings of guilt by the Ethics Commissioner, under the act and the code, would be substantive enough for him as the opposition ethics critic, or if one is okay, or....
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. MacKinnon, we'll ask you to direct your comments through the chair in speaking to Ms. Shanahan's amendment.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, I don't know what has occurred to engender such extreme sensitivity on the part of the member. Mr. Brown—
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
That would be serial law-breaking by Liberals.
