Information & Ethics Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No. They're separate.

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

Does that also then remove the civilians, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

This was Mr. Villemure's amendment—to not have those other witnesses—but Mr. Green had talked about, in his subamendment, to not have the commissioner but also have those witnesses and the minister appear. On Mr. Villemure's amendment, it's the minister and the commissioner, period.

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

I will add some of my thoughts on this, Chair, if that's okay.

I do find it a little bit strange. I'm not sure if there is a review or an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner going on right now on this specific issue. I know that the minister has appeared at other committees to talk about this exact same issue, so I'm really not understanding what the objective is here in this committee.

If we're trying to explore, as Mr. Green had said, where the grey areas are within the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest Code, etc., how would these two witnesses help us in identifying that at all?

Mr. Green has also indicated that the Ethics Commissioner, as we all know, may not be as forthcoming in a direct kind of scenario in terms of the questions that would be posed to him, so I am questioning....

Also, Chair, we have had the conversation many times about a lot of things on the docket and a lot of things on the go. Effectively triaging the importance would be helpful for the work that we're doing, and I would like to see us come up with some report or some positive impact on how we lobby or are lobbied and how we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians under the code. I'm really not sure how this furthers the objectives of the committee in and of itself.

I will leave that there, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Damoff, did you have your hand up, or was it Mr. Fisher?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I did quickly just want to ask until what time we have resources. I have a meeting waiting in my office.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're getting close to the end of resources, but I will see how this goes before I make that determination.

Go ahead, Mr. Fisher.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

There are a few of us on the Conservative team who have very significant commitments at this hour, and I'm wondering what that means in terms of whether we're running out of time.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just call for the adjournment of debate, then. Whatever.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The options are either to move to adjourn, or I can probably move it in the next five minutes or so. We have about five minutes' worth of resources left, just to be clear.

I'm going to go to Mr. Fisher.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was looking across the room at Mr. Villemure. That's not exactly what I got when the clerk read that off compared with what you said. Can you just chime in as to whether what you heard the clerk read back was indeed what your amendment stated? With our back-and-forth there, you looked like it wasn't, but you might be okay with that.

I'm seeking some clarity, if that's fair, through you, Chair, because I don't think that's exactly what he said.

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

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

In a few words, the purpose of the amendment is to hear from Mr. Boissonnault and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for one hour each, instead of the people who were mentioned in the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think I was clear on what Mr. Villemure was proposing.

We're on the amendment. I don't see any further discussion. Do we have consensus on the amendment? No. Okay.

We'll have a recorded vote on the amendment, please, Madam Clerk.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

The amendment carries.

We're now on the main motion, as amended.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I really do appreciate that the minister and the Ethics Commissioner would both come to one meeting, but I'm wondering—and I'm sure I'll have conversations with my colleagues about this as well—what the objective is here. Are we going for a gotcha moment? Are we looking for objectives for specific areas of the Lobbying Act or the Conflict of Interest Code to see where those gaps are? Are we trying to figure out if there have been violations?

I'm sure the movers of the motion can help us understand, and if Mr. Villemure, through you, Chair, can help us understand that a little bit too, I'd really appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Villemure, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will gladly answer my colleague.

Since I have been on this committee, I have never tried to catch anyone off guard. I think that the public interest should prevail.

There is a question, and I do not assume that anyone is guilty. However, I think the people who are at the heart of this are Mr. Boissonnault and the Ethics Commissioner.

I know that if the Commissioner has launched an investigation, he will let us know. However, I believe that if we do not want our study to be aimed at catching someone with their hand in the cookie jar, we must shorten our list of witnesses to include only essential ones so as not to assume anyone's guilt. That is why I put forward my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Ms. Damoff, you have your hand up.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I did watch part of Minister Boissonnault's testimony yesterday. I know he's going to come here and provide us with the facts in the case, which I think is sorely lacking in the social media clips that have been generated. I just want to reiterate that I do think the Ethics Commissioner should be able to do their work on this, if that's the case. I'm concerned that we're constantly going down these rabbit holes of “gotcha” moments to try to derail studies, like the one that we've been doing on misinformation and disinformation.

I know my colleague from the Bloc is an honourable person, and I appreciate where he's going with this, but I do have concerns that we're constantly going down the lobbying.... I have the utmost respect for my NDP colleague, but rather than doing it with different news stories, why don't we just do a study on the act itself instead of trying to tie it to individual situations? I believe his concern is genuine about the grey areas in the act—then that's what we should be looking at, not individual cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

I don't see any further discussion on this.

Do we have—

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

I'm sorry, Chair, but I just want to pick up on something that Ms. Damoff said about creating a study on this topic. I think that would be a really good idea if we are able to take it back with us to see if we can—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I invite you to put a notice of motion, then. If you do want to do a study on this, you can certainly do that.

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

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

I don't see any other discussion on this, so do we have consensus on the motion as amended?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Then we'll call for a vote.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.