Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 13th, 2021

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To inform you, I have submitted to the clerk, in both official languages, the motion that I'm going to be presenting.

I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee undertake a study into issues of conflict of interest and the Lobbying Act in relation to pandemic spending, provided that (a) the evidence and documentation received by the Committee during the First and Second sessions of the 43rd Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the Committee in the current session; (b) the Committee adopt the report entitled “Questions of Conflict of Interest and Lobbying in Relation to Pandemic Spending”, originally adopted as the Committee’s Second Report in the Second Session of the 43rd Parliament; and (c) dissenting or supplementary opinions be submitted electronically, in both official languages, to the Clerk of the Committee, within 24 hours of the adoption of this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Okay. This motion is in order. Thank you, Mr. Brassard.

The motion is debatable. Is there any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've asked the clerk, and it's been six months since this committee has convened.... Obviously, there was important work that was being done in the last Parliament relating to pandemic spending and conflicts of interest, and I'm asking for the committee to re-establish the report. We know that there's been almost $500 billion in pandemic spending, and I think it's important for Canadians, and indeed, for this committee, to have the confidence that the pandemic spending has been done in an open, transparent and accountable manner. I'm asking for the committee's support for this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Brassard.

I have Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There are two simple things I can say about the motion.

First, this was debated in the last Parliament, when I was on this committee. We wrote a report, we passed it, we tabled it in the House of Commons, and then the House of Commons passed it. It makes no sense for us to waste our time with it here.

Furthermore, the issue of facial recognition technology is very important to me as a parliamentarian and as a member of the Black community in Canada. In the last Parliament, the committee passed a motion to conduct a study on this matter, but because of intense debate on issues that did not really reflect the priorities of Canadians, we were unable to proceed with the study. I hope that, in this new Parliament, we can do a better job for Canadians, take action and study this very important matter that affects almost one‑third of Canadians.

I hope my colleagues will vote against this motion. With all due respect to my colleague Mr. Brassard, I think people are still trying to make waves when we should be moving on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my colleague Mr. Fergus that we do need to move on. I know that this issue has been hashed and rehashed. We've discussed and over-discussed it. A report has already been published on this. I really do think it's time we focused on things that are important to Canadians, that are for the well-being of Canadians.

My colleague Mr. Fergus talked about facial recognition and its impact on racialized minorities. I really would like to explore that concept. I would like to see how facial recognition, how artificial intelligence...and as a government, as private companies, move towards more and more artificial intelligence, how business is conducted, how government is conducted, and how public service is conducted. I really think there's an opportunity here for all members of this committee to focus on this. How do we protect the privacy of Canadians? How do we make sure that whatever services are being provided are being done in an equitable way?

I think we have a really good opportunity. We have the time. All I would ask our members to do is have the will to make sure that we are working on issues that are important to our time, that are important to Canadians and that impact Canadians' lives each and every day. I would really like to move forward on that. I really encourage our colleagues around the table here to come together and focus on those issues that Canadians are really concerned about and that I know that members of this committee are also really concerned about. I'm happy to work with my colleagues to draft such a motion or to revisit other motions that were not able to see fruition in the past Parliament.

This, on the other hand, has been hashed and rehashed again and again and again. I think it's time we moved past this, put it aside, and really focused on issues that Canadians care about and that we as parliamentarians should be very, very concerned about in this committee on access to information, privacy and ethics.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Monsieur Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A study was already done on this topic in the last Parliament, so I wonder what could be done differently this time. The scope of the motion is so broad that I have difficulty understanding the intent behind it.

The committee's mandate must be kept in mind. There are indeed other important issues to be considered, such as facial recognition technology, as Mr. Fergus and Ms. Khalid were talking about, or the capture of personal information by foreign powers such as China, which is currently using this information against Canadians.

In this context, short of rehashing the past, what would be the point of revisiting a study that has already been done? What else could be added to it? I do not understand the validity of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As someone who's new to this committee and familiar with the report by the previous committee, I feel I need to reiterate my intention in coming to this table with all of you from all sides of the aisle in the House to do important work for Canadians on key issues that many Canadians feel vulnerable about in terms of privacy and access to information. My colleague, Mr. Fergus, mentioned facial recognition.

Canadians expect us to do that important work here. They don't want us to be rehashing what we've already come to a conclusion about and wasting valuable time. I have to say that I'm really asking that we don't entertain such motions that stir the pot on reports that we've already reviewed, quite extensively, by way of the broad motions on the table now that really don't allow us to do the important work that got tabled last time and that colleagues and members and Canadians are asking us to do this time around. As someone who is new to this committee, I'm really not comfortable in bringing up old reports that have already been concluded. I'm looking forward to moving forward on the work in this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I respectfully disagree with my colleagues. I think it is important. Obviously when the last session of Parliament ended, it ended unceremoniously with the June summer break and then the election being called.

I expect that there should be members around this table who look to us to determine this level of accountability, transparency and open government when it comes to this type of spending. Some of these measures have continued over the summer, and the work this committee was doing in the past Parliament looking into the conflict of interest and lobbying is the role of the ethics committee.

I'm asking that not only do we look back at the report, but also at what's happened in advance of the election being called and then subsequent to that. I think this is important information.

Similarly, if you look at what we did in the House of Commons when the government reintroduced Bill C-4, it passed through all stages of the House, went back to where it was before and the Senate passed it. So I think there's already precedent as it relates to that piece of legislation for this committee to look back to determine what new information is available to us and then allow us to consider not just the information from the past, but also any new information to be presented to Canadians.

That's what this is all about and I think it's important given, as I said, Mr. Chair, the amount of money that has been spent, the level of lobbying and the potential of conflict of interest. That is the role of the ethics committee, and I think we could spend at least a few days looking into that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like my honourable colleague to tell me what he is looking for that is different—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have a point of order. Could the member speak a little bit slower? The sound is inaudible and we would like to hear translation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We had a comment first from the translator, so do we have...?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

No problem. I will do that.

I would like our colleague to clarify what he is thinking. What is he looking for that is different? It is true that a lot of money has been spent, but what is the intention behind this? What does he want to do with it?

I find it difficult to understand the purpose of redoing a report. There may be a couple of new facts, but that's not enough to convince me to do it again.

Please tell me specifically what your intention is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Brassard, you have the floor.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I can, Mr. Chair, and not to restate what I stated earlier, I think there are some issues, new issues, that can come forward. If there are not, that's great, but we have the ability through this committee to call witnesses to talk about pandemic spending—again subject to accountability, making sure that Canadians are aware where that spending has gone, of any conflicts of interest that may have arisen over the period of the last several months the committee hasn't been constituted, as well as looking into the Lobbying Act. We'll have the ability to call witnesses. We've got a lot of information and it's been acknowledged that we have a lot of information available to us as a result of the previous Parliament. What new information can we add to that?

That is the intent of what I'm proposing by this motion, and I don't think I can be any more clear than that, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm at the end of my speaking list. Are there any other members who wish to speak?

I now have Mr. Green, Mr. Villemure and Ms. Khalid.

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to get a sense from members around the table if there are interesting early indicators of the direction we might be taking within this committee.

It serves us to be reminded of the massive amount of money that was transferred from the government over the course of COVID. One of the interesting discoveries that I made as a new member of Parliament was just how lax and opaque our lobbying registry is. It serves all Canadians to revisit what has been the largest procurement process since World War II. It's significant. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone out.

I'm unclear, given where we are with COVID, if there is a more germane issue to this committee than what's before us today. It's significant. I hope that we have an appetite to create a gold standard for procurement, lobbying and pulling back the veil on any potential for insider dealings or any types of improprieties. What I hope for from the government's side in this process is that they would be able, every step along the way, to provide a rationale and solid evidence to assure Canadians that the hundreds of billions of dollars that went out the back door are well accounted for.

I was on the government operations and estimates committee and served on it with some members around this table. I can share with you that, from my observation of procurement, the breakneck speed with which this government and, indeed, the world had to respond to COVID provided a very unusual set of circumstances, given the volume, size and scope of COVID-related procurement coming out of the federal government. These are things that were rushed to the line for the defence of Canadians.

It's important for this committee to demonstrate over these next months—perhaps even a few years—a retroactive, honest and earnest accounting of the money that has gone out over the last two years. If we can't do that in this committee now, or if we prefer to gloss over it and somehow magically turn the page because the Prime Minister wanted to call an election—having prorogued and made a whole other set of ethical transgressions—it will be deemed fairly problematic to the Canadian public.

We've been returned to this Parliament with almost the exact same composition, with the direction from the Canadian public to continue our work to make sure we are holding each other accountable and to the highest standard of governance, ethics, transparency and accountability. That's what I'm here for. That's going to be my focus, notwithstanding the very important issues that have been raised around the table.

I share interests. In fact, I have a similar motion prepared on this as it relates to AI. I'm very interested in that, but let's not get caught in a false dichotomy that we can't continue the important work with a retroactive view of what has happened over the last two years, particularly given the start and stop of the last session. I should not have to remind members around this table that it was not a consequence of actions by members on the opposition side. It certainly wasn't our choice.

If we had had our choice, we would have continued the good work. That's what I hope to do in this committee today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Go ahead, Monsieur Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My colleague's argument is certainly interesting. Of course, one cannot be against virtue. However, there may be a need for a compromise that lies somewhere between not being against virtue, and undertaking a monumental task. For example, we could have two meetings on this topic. In my opinion, being against virtue is not a good idea, but starting a whole new report is not a good idea either.

I therefore invite my colleagues to think about a minimal number of meetings that could be held on this topic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.