Yes, indeed. I can go back to the motion that we were studying, and it did have to do with the production of records:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contribution and other expenditure policies; and that, to provide a case study for this review, an Order of the Committee do issue to Speakers’ Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau—including, in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it—provided that these records shall be provided to the Clerk of Committee within one week of the adoption of this Order.
That, Mr. Chair, was the motion we were studying. We had three meetings on that motion, which included, of course, interventions from academics on the notion of prevention of conflict of interest in organizations, and from a previous commissioner of ethics, Mary Dawson. I recall that Ian Shugart, the Clerk of the Privy Council, was also one of the witnesses there.
Indeed, this is my understanding of what we are discussing here today, which is the idea of this committee calling for the production of documents, when the Ethics Commissioner is well able to do so, and the treatment of those documents as a matter of principle.
If we do want to talk about WE, a number of political parties and members of political parties certainly had dealings with WE as an organization. I can recall to the committee that former Prime Minister Harper hosted a WE Day reception at 24 Sussex in 2013. There was government funding provided by the previous Conservative government as well to WE: in 2012, $100,000 for WE Day and WE Schools in action; in 2013, $100,000 for WE ACT; and in 2014, $300,000 to WE ACT. The Premier of Alberta at the time, Rachel Notley, spoke at a WE Day event.
When my colleague makes the remark that WE is associated only with Liberals, I do beg to differ. I think that if there's an investigation of WE.... I understand that was what the finance committee was concerned about, and I certainly heard different interventions emanating from the finance committee, but it is really the task that we have here today to be looking at this issue of production of documents, specifically from Speakers' Spotlight.
I'm not sure whether I have the latest version of Zoom. Can you hear the interpretation clearly? I'm being told that you can.
Mr. Chair, at the previous meeting, I had some comments regarding the motion under consideration, which concerns Mr. Baylis and the company that manufactures ventilators. I'll save this topic for later, because I really want to address the production of records.
I want to thank the chair and the clerk for the information that they provided at the start of this meeting. They said that the production of records is sometimes limited, regardless of goodwill and the person to whom the records belong. We must determine how we'll address the issue of the seven-year limit for the production of records related to this study.
I want to talk about the Prime Minister as an individual elected to Parliament. When he was elected as a member, he was already a public figure. He was already earning an income as a speaker. When he ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau clearly stated that he sought the approval and advice of the Ethics Commissioner with respect to his speaking engagements. He worked with her with a view to publishing anything that could involve a conflict of interest, since he was no longer a private member. I'm not saying that members of Parliament are ordinary people. However, there's a difference between a member of Parliament and a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.
When Mr. Trudeau spoke to the media in 2013, he clearly stated that he sat down with Mary Dawson and asked her open-ended questions about what was appropriate. We should all do this. He told her about his activities, which were already public knowledge to some extent. He disclosed all his activities outside his work as a member. He told her that he wanted to make sure that everything was done properly.
At the time, a column was published in the Ottawa Citizen. The column reported that the Prime Minister was receiving a salary, or rather, fees. When you give a speech, you receive fees and a reimbursement for your expenses. He already had this source of income before he entered politics. He continued to do this work even after he became a member of Parliament.
Like all the other members, he publicly disclosed his income to Ms. Dawson's office until 2009. This information is available in the archives of Parliament. The same applies to all members. They have pursued different paths, they have personal or business interests, and they receive income from other sources. This income has been properly reported.
At the time, the Prime Minister wasn't required to disclose the exact amount that he earned. Since we're still talking about this code or system, you should know that our income amounts and reporting methods have changed.
He did this voluntarily during his first four years as the member for Papineau. He said this publicly. He wanted to share not only the amount earned, but also the complete list of each event and the amount of money received. He did this for the sake of transparency with respect to his personal assets.
Personally, I've worked in the asset management business with wealthy people. There's wealth and there's wealth. Not everyone necessarily knows the type of wealth that makes us truly financially independent. I know many people who have assets, properties or portfolios. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that they can live comfortably off them.
People who enter public life are willing to lose some say in their affairs. Mr. Trudeau was very proactive. He took more steps than what was required at the time. It's interesting. I think that people don't necessarily know how many members of Parliament, past or present, still own private businesses even while sitting in the House.
Our obligations in the House are quite substantial. However, some people are able to get organized and to continue running their businesses while fulfilling the responsibilities required of members of Parliament.
According to a Canadian Press report, in 2010, 151 of the 308 members, or almost half, had other sources of income. However, we acknowledge that earning income from speaking engagements may have conflict of interest or ethical implications if there's reason to believe that the speaker is in attendance because they're a member of Parliament.
It's easy to imagine that a group of stakeholders or players in a certain sector would invite a speaker specifically because the speaker is a member of Parliament. That's why the Prime Minister, who wasn't even the prime minister at the time, made statements that exceeded the requirements. He also did this when he was the prime minister.
It's important to show that government members have recently provided documents as part of our committee meetings. Mr. Rodriguez, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, has already submitted a list of all his engagements for the benefit of all members and the public. Why is the opposition still asking for these documents? This really reminds me of a witch hunt, or at least a fishing expedition.
We can also talk about other parliamentarians who are very well known in the conference circuit. One of them was Senator Mike Duffy, a very colourful media personality. Larry Smith, whom I know personally, worked with the Montreal Alouettes. We can look at Pamela Wallin, a media personality, and Jacques Demers, who works in sports.
These people earned income from public speaking after coming to Parliament. Neither this committee nor the Senate investigated them. However, we can connect their role as parliamentarians with the invitations that they received to participate in events.
Senator Duffy's profile with the National Speakers Bureau states as follows:
“a must-have primer on the key political issues of the day.”
This means that people want to hear him talk about his current knowledge.
As well, he “combines the latest buzz from ‘inside Ottawa’ with rollicking political humour, to provide a unique and memorable presentation you won’t want to miss.”
Senator Duffy is certainly familiar with the field. He has decided to earn an income from his speaking engagements. Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, never promoted himself when he was a private member. His speeches focused on issues such as education, the environment and youth. These topics weren't political. If we're talking about ethics, I think the difference is that he never portrayed himself as someone who could divulge hidden aspects of politics. In my opinion, it's clear that his speeches concerned issues that he knew about.
The Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament doesn't prevent members who aren't government members or parliamentary secretaries from having a second job or a business, provided that there's no conflict of interest. Currently, if members are hired to speak to any group, they aren't required to report the speaking engagement. The code doesn't require the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to maintain a list of companies that hire members of the House of Commons for public engagements. I'm referring, in my own words, to comments made by Jocelyne Brisebois, a communications officer at the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Radio-Canada also conducted an analysis of the reports produced by all members of the 42nd Parliament in 2017. It's worth noting that 36 of them were receiving pensions from pension plans in addition to their salaries. According to this analysis, 20% of members were receiving a pension from the federal government or the Canadian Armed Forces. This information may be of interest to the public.
The 36 members received pensions mainly from the government or from public service jobs. Two of them received pensions from private companies. These members are NDP MP Scott Duvall who receives a pension from the steel company ArcelorMittal Dofasco, and Conservative MP Peter Kent, who receives a pension from Global Communications. The members are receiving money from various sources. This is public knowledge and completely consistent with current regulations.
We could also talk about the former prime minister, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, whom I really like. He always said that he didn't have a discussion with Karlheinz Schreiber. In the past, this committee has discussed and studied this issue extensively.
In 2007, a public inquiry showed that Mulroney knew Schreiber, who helped him fund his leadership race in 1983. In addition, he accepted $225,000 from Mr. Schreiber, in 1993-94. In his 2010 report, Justice Jeffrey J. Oliphant determined that Mr. Mulroney didn't break the law and didn't exercise any influence over the contract as prime minister. However, the facts were clear. Mr. Mulroney met with Mr. Schreiber in three hotel rooms, including one in New York, and received envelopes full of money in denominations of $1,000. Justice Oliphant's report also showed several inappropriate aspects, including the fact that there had been no bank deposit. This impeded certain audits and made it possible to avoid paying taxes.
We must look at the past to understand how our criteria for ethical and unethical behaviour have changed. The law may not have covered all activities. However, we're still satisfied with the investigation that took place at the time.
Of course, there was some interest in the activities of Mr. Trudeau, even when he was a private member, because he participated in activities as a speaker.
In 2010, Dean Del Mastro filed a complaint against Mr. Trudeau with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Ms. Dawson. As everyone is well aware, Mr. Del Mastro's story was very colourful.
My Conservative colleagues and my colleagues from all opposition parties will recall that Mr. Del Mastro was the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, which is normally a highly respected position. He was forced to leave the House for a while before moving on to another “house”. I don't want to go into details.
In his complaint, Mr. Del Mastro said that Mr. Trudeau allowed himself to be referred to as a member of Parliament in the promotion of four events in November 2009. Mr. Trudeau said that it would have been a bit odd to not be identified as a member in his biography for the speakers bureau.
Mr. Trudeau said that his clients were told that he would be participating in the events as an individual and not as a member of Parliament. He has a great deal of knowledge about the environment, youth and education, and he had things to say about these issues.
Commissioner Dawson completely dismissed the complaint. She wrote the following to Mr. Del Mastro:
I do not agree that allowing himself to be referred to as a Member of Parliament, on its own, constitutes using his position as a Member to influence the decisions of others to engage him as a paid speaker.
There is no information before me to suggest that Mr. Trudeau was performing parliamentary duties and functions when he spoke at these events or that he acted in any way to further his private interests as a paid speaker when performing those duties and functions.
Clearly, the commissioner conducted her investigation.
Do the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the commissioner's staff have the necessary tools and independence to carry out all their work? In this case, obviously the decision was made and the complaint was completely dismissed. Nothing in the complaint was well founded.
When Mr. Trudeau started giving public speeches, he said that he didn't want to trade on his family name as part of his work.
We could even say that it's often a burden for him. Of course, even though we love our mothers and fathers, we aren't those people. We are ourselves. We all must live our own lives, especially when we have a public occupation.
When Mr. Trudeau was elected to Parliament, it was quite a big deal as well. The people who read his book Common Ground know that Mr. Trudeau wasn't given any handouts at the time. The Liberal Party didn't give him a so-called guaranteed seat. Far from it. At the time, I believe that a Bloc member represented the riding of Papineau. Mr. Trudeau often tells us that he and Sophie went door to door to meet people who were often newcomers to Canada and who didn't even know the Trudeau name. This shows how he decided to make his own way without being given anything.
After he was elected, he started attending fewer events. Of course, following these events, he received fees ranging from $10,000 to $20,000. The organizations that hired him felt that it was important to have a speaker who would draw people to their events. These organizations sold tickets and received donations from participants. He was very popular at fundraising events. Over time, since he cut back on his work from 2009 to 2012—