Information & Ethics Committee on April 16th, 2024

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

If Jenni Byrne is clearly lobbying federally while unregistered.... She's inactive as a federal lobbyist, so unregistered. I'm trying to put all this together. I know you probably have an understanding that you're not able to share with us today.

[Nancy Bélanger]

When people say there's federal lobbying occurring, we need facts to that effect, and I need to determine the facts.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I wish you Godspeed in your investigation.

Again, I want to thank you very much for the work you do.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

We're switching things up. We're going to Mr. Green first.

He will be followed by Mr. Villemure.

We're going to wrap it up before our scheduled time because we have some committee business to deal with.

Mr. Green, go ahead, please.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

What would be the penalty for a registered lobbyist who provided sponsored travel to an MP?

[Nancy Bélanger]

It would likely be simply a breach of the code and a report to Parliament, so it's reputational, really.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Then it has no real teeth. You have no ability, as it stands now, for any type of.... It's a slap on the wrist publicly.

You mentioned it's a regulation; it's not a law, so there's no criminality involved. Would providing teeth to the legislation—to make it law, make it criminal—help you in any way?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Certainly giving it teeth would, yes. Making it criminal would not necessarily. I think there needs to be a level of discretion.

Even currently, I have to suspend anything I look into that's missing a monthly communication report or one communication that should have been registered that the person is unaware of. I need to send that to the RCMP.

We need a spectrum of sanctions, and that's what I would like to discuss with this committee.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm in full support, by the way. I will go on the record now and say that. Respecting the timeline, I won't do it right now, but I will be bringing to this committee a motion to have a review, per your request.

You may know that I put forward a motion at this committee—the committee unanimously adopted it—to move the question of sponsored travel to PROC, the idea being that the central budget provide two international trips by the government, with no external influences at all, at the discretion and full reporting and accountability mechanisms of the House of Commons.

Would that help you in streamlining your work so that you don't have to chase all of the paperwork and all the parameters of this code, which I would say—I don't want to call it performative—doesn't have any real teeth at the end of the day?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I fully support the motion that was adopted by this committee. I've been in the world of ethics for over 15 years, and I think it goes a long way to helping with the integrity, faith and confidence in decision-making when you remove the possibilities of undue influence.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's outstanding. I think that's all I need.

I thank you for your time and for your candour as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green and Madam Bélanger.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to use my time to raise a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Go ahead.

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

Yesterday, the committee received a letter from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada regarding its review of national security issues raised by the TikTok application. The letter notifies us of the stages of the review, which could take up to 200 days. The letter does not even specify whether, after 200 days, we'll get a response.

Since we are currently preparing the committee's report on TikTok, I think it would be problematic to go ahead and release our report and findings without knowing what will be in the department's review report. In addition, the letter's wording does not make it clear whether we will ever find out.

For the moment, I'd like us to agree to postpone the completion of our report, at least until the department completes its review, which I think is too far in the future. We can challenge the timeline, but we can't issue what I would consider a fluff report while the department is conducting its national security review. Those findings could turn out to be quite serious.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Are you moving a motion that would say we can't finish our report on TikTok until we see the findings of the department's review? Is that what you're proposing now?

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

Absolutely.

I propose that we wait for the results of the review. We should do everything we can to pressure the department on this, but we should not table our own report until we have that information. That is the motion I am moving.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

This is a very interesting situation that Mr. Villemure is proposing, and the motion is in order.

We are scheduled to deal with this report on Thursday. The committee asked us to contact ISED to come up with an understanding of when their national security review, which was announced in September, would be completed. ISED came back and said it would be roughly 200 days, but we don't know from what. Is it from when they announced the study or from the day we received the letter on April 19?

I made it clear in past interventions that I think we should hold off on the study until we see what comes out in that national security review. Mr. Villemure is formally proposing that we do that now through this motion, and I'm going to open up the floor for discussion on this.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Chair, I support the motion, but can we dismiss the commissioner?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Bélanger, I'm sorry about that. I want to thank you for appearing before our committee today and for your continued good work on behalf of Canadians. We'll see where this leads us in terms of a formal review of the act, but Mr. Green has already indicated that he's prepared to deal with it, either through himself or through the will of Parliament.

Thank you, Ms. Bélanger, for taking the time today to update the committee on the estimates.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Thank you very much. Have a great day.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That was your intervention, Mr. Barrett.

Now I have Ms. Khalid.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid, on what Mr. Villemure proposed.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I think this committee appreciates how long it took for us to finally get a report going. We've been doing a lot of work that is very offhand, and it doesn't really lead to many reports. I was quite proud of the way the committee came together to work on this.

While I take Mr. Villemure's points on the need to understand and take into account the security review, I want to make sure—and I've said this again and again—that this report sees a conclusion and is tabled in the House.

Chair, I'm sure that the clerk and you have done great work to try to get clarity and get this issue resolved. I found that we could have asked more comprehensive questions of the people we've been corresponding with. Perhaps we can ask for a follow-up and further explanation or clarification on this.

Clearly we don't know. You indicated, Chair, that you're not a hundred per cent sure. I think it would be a mistake for us to shelve this report without having done our homework and without doing the due diligence of finding out where exactly we stand on this.

As I've indicated many times before, I'm quite passionate about this report. Given the nature of artificial intelligence and social media platforms, with their implications on Canadians and privacy concerns, they are always going to be changing. They are always going to be innovating and be very fast-paced. If we start shelving reports like this, we're not going to get anywhere, because I bet you that 200 days from now, there are going to be different circumstances and we'll want to shelve the report again.

This is an ongoing issue that we need to continue to work on. I propose that we seek clarity on timelines and make sure that we go forward with this report, because it is essential. It is important.

This is interim too, because I can understand and appreciate that there will be a lot more reports coming on this exact issue, whether it's a year from now, two years from now, 10 years from now or 50 years from now. This is an evolving issue that we need to deal with as a committee, and I strongly encourage you, Chair, to not put this aside. We need to get this report on the record and tabled in the House to try to work on this issue.

As I've said, maybe this motion is a little pre-emptive. Perhaps we should first get clarification instead of just moving to shelve this. Perhaps, before we discuss and vote on this motion, you can seek some clarity and get some answers and follow-up, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Ms. Khalid.

Look, I'm not looking to shelve anything. I'm going to do what the will of the committee asks me to do.

I do have some concerns, and I think I've stated those concerns in the past. We'll be dealing with a series of recommendations, which the committee could be putting forward in the report, that could be completely contrary to or could contradict what the national security review outlines. I don't want to put something out there in the public realm and then have it come back to us after we've adopted the report and presented it to Parliament. That's my concern.

I'm indifferent either way on this report. I think it was a good study. We had some good witnesses come in. I just don't want any of the recommendations we made to be counter to the work that ISED is doing.

I will address one thing, which is the letter we had asked for. If you recall, when we came out of the previous two-week constituency break, I informally asked ISED about the timelines, because that's what the committee had asked me to do. They said they were not prepared to give me an informal response, but the committee received a formal response yesterday. In that response, they talked about 200 days.

I agree with you, Ms. Khalid, that there is no clarity on those 200 days. Did they start when the first public reports came out that said they were doing a security review in September, or do they start now? I don't know that, so I certainly agree with you on the timeline and how long it would take. It could be 200 days from tomorrow. I don't know.

I have Mr. Fisher now, and then I saw Mr. Green's hand up.

Go ahead, please.