Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 9th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau.

Relevance is always important, and I would just remind members to try to make sure that they continue to focus on the motion at hand.

Go ahead, Madame Shanahan.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague.

The dates are very important. At the start of the meeting, we learned that the issue concerned dates for the production of records. That's why I'm looking at the chronology of events.

According to Mr. Trudeau, in 2009, he had 10% fewer engagements than in the previous year. In spring 2012 or so, he stopped accepting engagements because he was considering running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

All this may be old news, but it's public information. However, for some reason, the opposition is somewhat fascinated or even obsessed with it. Opposition members are trying to take advantage of the fact that the Prime Minister worked and agreed to give public speeches when he was a private member and up until he became the party leader.

He isn't the only one who has done this. Other offices or agencies, aside from Speakers' Spotlight, work with people who are involved in public and political life. As we've seen, the amount provided can range from $100 to $150,000. I'm thinking in particular of former prime minister Mr. Harper.

This is his bio on the Speaker's Bureau website:

Stephen Harper is a Canadian politician and member of parliament who served as the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada for nine years. He was the first prime minister in history to come from the modern Conservative Party of Canada. Harper has been the member of parliament for the riding of Calgary Heritage in Alberta for fourteen years and counting.

So he was still a member of Parliament. It continues:

Previously, he was the MP for Calgary West, representing the Reform Party of Canada. Harper is now an opposition backbench member of parliament.

Of course, we know that he is no longer in Parliament.

I'm not sure how much of anything Mr. Harper made from this company while he was a member of the opposition, but I'm sure that he cleared it with the Ethics Commissioner because I know how important ethics are to the Conservative Party—I have many good friends in the Conservative Party—and that he publicly disclosed his earnings.

The motion that is before us talks about the production of documents from Speakers' Spotlight.

Lastly, I want to point out that the motion has been defeated twice by this committee. I really wonder about the motives of some committee members.

Given all the major issues that we must address, why is it so important for these members, who want to do meaningful work for Canadians, to get involved in some type of fishing expedition? We should instead be discussing motions that concern facial recognition, a topic that we've already addressed, or the need to have a digital identity. I know that my colleagues on both sides also have important questions for us. We'll be hearing from them soon.

Mr. Chair, I wanted to talk a bit about the motion regarding Mr. Baylis, but I'll address it another time. Thank you for giving me time to talk about my opposition to the amendment to the motion regarding Speakers' Spotlight.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

The speakers list stands thus: Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Dong, Mr. Barrett, Madame Lattanzio, Mr. Sorbara, and Mr. Fergus.

Now we will go to Madame Gaudreau.

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

Good afternoon. I see that it's my turn to speak.

I'm very fortunate. I'll speak slowly so that the interpreters, who are doing an excellent job, can follow what I'm saying. As usual, I won't take up much time.

I want us to take a few moments to review the chronology of events leading up to today, November 9. As you may recall, summer was quite busy. We've been working on building trust and enhancing the integrity of our experience as parliamentarians. We've found that this doesn't involve you or us, but it does concern the events surrounding a student scholarship. This issue was brought to light. Unfortunately, just as we were getting down to business, there was a six-week break and we lost some time. That said, our constituents' issues are serious in every respect.

In terms of ethics, I must say that I'm very concerned about privacy issues dating back to before the prorogation. After the prorogation, a request was made. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics first requested that we create a special committee together for the following two reasons. We wanted to finish what we were in the process of completing. This involved integrity and maintaining the trust of all our constituents. We then wanted to continue the work that concerned us greatly as 2020 draws to a close. We're seeing a great deal of fraud and identity issues. Of course, this motion hasn't been adopted yet.

On a Conservative opposition day, we raised essentially the same issue, which is shared respect for democracy. As I said before, we must do our job. We must help Canadians and Quebecers and shed light on issues that are unclear. The sad thing about these events is that, when we reconvened in August, we had to spend countless hours on a request. We reached agreements—I'm very proud of this—to respect privacy as much as possible.

There were many amendments. When the final vote took place, an error occurred. There was an error and I want to point this out. I attended every hour of the meetings. Several of you, if not the majority, had replacements. I was there with you from the start. For 12 minutes, I was replaced. We asked that the decision be repealed. We weren't asking for an interpretation of what I believed. We were asking for a review of the decision.

What I am hearing is that no one is allowed to make mistakes. Have you never been a first-time member? Have you never been the victim of a translation issue during this virtual Parliament? I urge you to go back and listen to the French audio, not the floor audio. I urge you to make the connection between what you hear on the telephone and what you hear on ParlVu.

For hours upon hours, we listened to people go on about terminology and give history lessons. For a few moments, when someone was standing in for me, there was a breakdown in communication. We submitted a request. Other committees are more accommodating—I checked. Anyone who has not been on other committees should know that they are more open to being accommodating than we are. What happened? The motion was defeated because of a mistake, not because of a change of heart. That is important.

Since we do things properly, we asked that the error be corrected, but our request was denied. We were told to put forward what we had to put forward, with the necessary amendments. What happened? I don't know. Others changed their minds, but we are the ones being accused of that. It's a good question.

We have been talking about this for four months now. A motion was put forward, and once again, the amendment to the motion was adopted. We are here until 5:30 p.m., but I could stay until tomorrow morning. Something has to be done. By the way, I want to thank the technical support team.

We took the time to find the information and do the work that a special committee could have done, according to everything my fellow members have said. The initial objective was for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to consider the ethical issues and for a special committee to complete the work we began.

I wonder about your good faith and integrity as parliamentarians. You will tell me that you have orders, that you have to follow the guidelines or that you have to save someone's skin, and I recognize that. You made a commitment to study ethical issues as a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

I told my children that, when people drag things out, either they are trying to protect someone or they want to keep the truth from coming out. What are they afraid of? When people are sure everything is hunky-dory, they have no problem doing things properly, but when people have doubts, they draw things out. That is what has been happening for hours upon hours now.

People are out there struggling and they need our help. Today, we should be delivering results. There was no change of heart; that is borne out in the chronological sequence of events. We absolutely must show our constituents that we have integrity and are worthy of their trust.

Regardless of partisanship, regardless of one's level of commitment, this can go far, very far. I have been a member for a year now, and I'm disappointed to see the ethics committee engage in so many political games. Other standing committees encourage active listening and consensus-building among their members, so they can actually achieve their objectives.

We would not even be talking about this today had we given consideration to amending the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's powers, so as not to go through this again.

I am speaking to those people, those members, those individuals who are trustworthy. It's time to wake up and take action. It's time to think about our constituents. With all of our efforts and all of the compromises we have been able to make, I cannot understand why we aren't making things better right now. You will bring up what came before, but this is now, so we must take a forward-looking approach.

As I said in the beginning, the first time I had someone stand in for me, a mistake was made, but I wasn't even given a chance to change my vote. I appreciate my fellow member replacing me for 12 minutes. Now, there are two strikes against the Prime Minister, and the third…. It's time to do something about this, please.

I welcome your history lessons and all the information you have to share. I am learning things, and that is wonderful, but enough is enough. Everyone knows what's going on. Our own children are watching us in action and saying very clearly that this would not even happen in school.

I hope the next speakers will take less than 10 minutes. We are bound by rules everywhere but here. It's very unfortunate. I urge you to get to the bottom of this and to fix what needs fixing. Today is November 9, and we need to deal with the motions that were put on notice. It will be a four-week sprint to the end of the year. This is an appeal to your conscience.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Mr. Dong, it is your turn.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Watching the time, I note that I may be in the same situation I was in last week, but thank you. I'm very happy to still have the opportunity to complete my remarks from our meeting last week.

You can imagine how surprised I am to be here on Monday morning of a constituency week discussing pretty much the same motion again. I was definitely under the impression after the defeat of this motion two weeks ago and again last week that we might finally be moving on from this matter to the matters that concern Canadians during COVID.

I was listening to the comment of my honourable colleague Madame Gaudreau. One thing I do agree with her on is that enough is enough. This was voted on two weeks ago. We all take this committee business very seriously.

When this came to the committee again last week, it received another decision, but now in front of us the same motion has been put in the form of an amendment, effectively stalling the progress of Mr. Angus' motion. As I said, it had received a decision.

I do have concerns, as I was saying last week, about the precedent being set here, Mr. Chair, so I look forward to hearing from you on this topic. My argument last week was that after being voted on twice, the same motion made its way back, so what if it fails again? Is the honourable member going to try for the fourth and the fifth time?

She used the analogy of being in school. I think it could be viewed from another perspective, that the honourable member is, obviously, upset that she's not getting her way. A committee consists of members from all parties, so I humbly ask that the rights and position of other colleagues be respected as well. Again, I look forward to hearing from you, Chair, on the issue of the precedent being set here.

Last time I was going back through the history of our committee since February of this year, when we met for the first time after the election. We had gone through the list of motions, and they had been brought forward by Mr. Barrett, Mr. Kurek, Madame Gaudreau and Mr. Angus. I think we had left off talking about a motion by Mr. Fortin, who, it should be noted, is not a permanent member of this committee, and it was promptly defeated.

Following that was a motion by Mr. Green, also not a member of this committee. He moved that we conduct a study on conflict of interest and that we call witnesses from PCO and the PMO as well as ministers. Oddly enough, none of those witnesses was the Ethics Commissioner. And, by the way, I think it's a big part of this committee's job to study and review and discuss the findings of the commissioners, and to provide our recommendations, and make sure that the recommendations in those things studied by the commissioner are being followed through.

I view that as the main job of our committee, rather than running a parallel investigation, by doing which, we heard from witnesses last session, we would be running the risk of contaminating or interfering with the commissioner's work.

Finally, Chair, in that session we had a motion from Mr. Kurek asking the committee to write letters to all members of cabinet again.

Now fast forward to this session of Parliament. I am sure all members here are familiar with how things have played out. In our meetings we started with the motion from Madame Gaudreau that the committee recommend to the House a special committee to review the Canada student service grant. After some debate, Mr. Barrett moved that we adjourn that debate so that we could get to one of his motions again. Mr. Barrett then moved that the committee issue an order for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged since October 14, 2004, and so on. After much debate, that motion was defeated last week.

Next up was Ms. Gaudreau again, this time moving a motion that the committee request Speakers' Spotlight to produce a document of all records relating to speeches organized since October 14, 2008. I'm sure my dear colleagues are familiar with this by now. This motion was defeated for a second time.

Finally we come to Mr. Angus's motion, which we are debating right now, that this committee undertake a study into issues of conflict of interest and the Lobbying Act in relation to pandemic spending, and so on and so forth. It was amended by Madame Gaudreau to include a request to Speakers' Spotlight to produce a copy of all records relating to the speeches organized since October 14, 2008.

Why the history lesson, Mr. Chair? Since this committee first met in February this year, in what feels like a year ago with everything going on with COVID-19, there have been 14 motions—14 motions—put forward for debate, with 14 MPs called upon to move their motions to study the issues they think are the most important ones to Canadians. Of those 14, four have been from Mr. Barrett, three have been from Mr. Angus, and two have been from members who do not even sit on this committee.

How many motions have been allowed to come forward from the Liberal side, Mr. Chair? Zero; zero motions.

That does not come from lack of effort. My colleague Ms. Shanahan provided notice on at least three motions in our last session. I gave notice of motion on digital currency weeks ago. Here we are debating the same motion for the third time in a week, when no one on this side of the table has even been given a chance to move a motion yet this year. That's not right. In my opinion, it is not fair to members from all sides...to be recognized, to bring forward their ideas on this committee.

One of the ideas I've been trying to bring forward, Mr. Chair, is about digital currency. It's been a popular topic and has received a lot of attention recently. I will quote an excerpt from a speech in 2019 by the Governor of the Bank of England, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, entitled “The growing Challenges for Monetary Policy in the current International Monetary and Financial System”.

This is important because we've seen increased online activities during COVID, so the whole discussion and study of digital currency is an urgent matter. I'll spare the members the whole speech, but getting to the core part I think might be of interest to the members of this committee. You'll understand why I see it as a priority that we must look into it in terms of privacy and access to information, which this committee has the responsibility for.

The quote starts with this: “Even if the initial variants of the idea prove wanting, the concept is intriguing.” It continues: “It is worth considering how a [synthetic hegemonic currency] in the [international monetary financial system] could support—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

On a point of order, Mr. Angus, go ahead.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes. I have been sitting with my colleague Mr. Dong for a couple of months, and I've found him to be very, very good at points of order and prevarications and denials, but the fact that he's now trying to talk about international currency while obstructing our work at our committee while filibustering is bizarre.

We are not here to discuss his theories of international currency. We are here to discuss a motion, and he can either vote for the motion or vote against it, but I ask him not to waste our time talking about things that have nothing to do with the study.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Angus has been given a wide berth for outlining the ongoing feud between the Kielburgers and Canadaland, and also for stories about Israeli disinformation, whose relevance to the motion we are talking about I was quite puzzled to understand. He was shown respect and nobody interrupted him. Nobody raised a point of order—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It was because I was speaking to the motion.

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

I'm not arguing with Mr. Angus. My understanding—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I was speaking to the motion. You're speaking about something that is totally irrelevant.

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

I have the floor and I will get to the point—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

You need to talk to the motion.

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

—Chair, where he will understand the relevance to the motion of what I'm talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Please, members. When we get multiple speakers, first off, no one can hear even the language that you're speaking, and certainly no one can translate.

Mr. Angus, thanks for the point of order. I have reminded some of our colleagues to try to stay concise around the motion.

You can continue, Mr. Dong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will continue:

A [synthetic hegemonic currency] in the [international monetary financial system] could support better global outcomes, given the scale of the challenges of the current IMFS and the risks in the transition to a new hegemonic reserve currency like the Renmimbi.

That is the Chinese currency right now. I'll continue:

An SHC could dampen the domineering influence of the US dollar on global trade. If the share of the trade invoiced in SHC were to rise, shocks in the US would have less potent spillovers through exchange rates, and trade would become less synchronised across countries. By the same token, global trade would become more sensitive to changes in conditions in the countries of the other currencies in the basket backing the SHC.

The dollar's influence on global financial conditions could similarly decline if a financial architecture developed around the new SHC and it displaced the dollar's dominance in credit markets. By reducing the influence of the US on the global financial cycle, this would help reduce the volatility of capital flows to [emerging market economies].

Widespread use of SHC in international trade and finance would imply that the currencies that compose its basket could gradually be seen as reliable reserve assets, encouraging EMEs to diversify their holdings of safe assets away from the dollar. This would lessen the downward pressure on equilibrium interest rates and help alleviate the global liquidity trap.

However, for all the positive aspects outlined by the governor, there remain a lot of questions about this evolving technology. We know, as has been reported, that China has been looking at this idea since 2014, and their early experience shows that there's actually quite a bit of risk to privacy. An article in The Economist in April of this year says, “China began exploring the concept in 2014 because of technical upheaval in its current financial system.”

It says:

But the bigger prize for China is the new powers that would come with a [central bank digital currency]. China's version will be a centralised currency, rather like the anti-bitcoin. Officials will be able to track all digital cash in circulation, making it much harder to launder money or evade taxes. The central bank could also use coding to control how the money is used. For example, if it issues [the central bank digital currency] to a commercial bank for lending on to small businesses, it could ensure that the money is activated only once transferred to a small firm. And China might find it easier to make nominal interest rates negative: cash would no longer be an alternative to bank deposits because negative interest rates could apply to digital cash itself.

These powers are still some way off—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I'd like to know how a possible motion relates to what we are supposed to be discussing now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Gaudreau.

Mr. Dong—

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

I'll be very quick and to the point.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the point of order, but this is very important. What I'm trying to put forward to my colleagues is that, first, there were 14 motions allowed. Of all motions allowed to be brought forward by members of this committee, including the chair, so far none of the 14 have come from our side, from a Liberal MP. The point I'm trying to make is that there are very important issues that, if we missed a chance to study right now, we would be entering a whole new world in which we would always be a few steps behind.

Bear with me for a second. I will come to what the Bank of Canada has done on this central bank digital currency technology, and I'm sure you will find it fascinating. I'll bring it to my final point.

In Canada the Bank of Canada has been looking at this idea as well. In June this year they published an analytical note called “Privacy in CBDC technology”. Here are some of the key messages:

There are many cryptographic techniques and operational arrangements for fine-grained privacy design. These demand knowledge of detailed requirements around privacy and disclosure.

The Bank could engineer a CBDC system with higher levels of privacy than commercial products can offer—but with trade-offs. Some combinations of requirements will not be feasible or may lead to high operational costs and excessive complexity and risk. Also, the user's overall privacy will depend on factors such as user behaviour and the privacy policies of other entities in the CBDC ecosystem.

Techniques to achieve cash-like privacy are immature. They have limited deployments, none of which comply with know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulations.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we do have some rules at this committee. One of them is about relevance.

Again, this long-winded discussion about financial currency does not speak to the motion. We're speaking to a motion that the Liberals are obstructing. If he has nothing to say to speak to the motion, then we should go to the vote. We have to have some manner of rules here. If he wants to speak to the issues regarding the motion, he can speak to those, but he can't just start to speak on cryptocurrency. Next he might speak on the history of the Romanian language or some other subject that might be very interesting in another time but that here is obstructive.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

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

Mr. Chair, the last time I talked about the importance of anti-Asian racism I was interrupted multiple times by Mr. Angus. I'm trying to bring to the member's attention the fact that 14 motions, including those last year and this year, have been allowed to be debated in front of this committee and that none of those came from our side.