Information & Ethics Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

As Mr. Chair explained, it's a vote on the ruling by the chair.

The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Madam Clerk. The decision of the chair has been sustained.

We are now on the motion that Ms. Damoff has moved.

Monsieur Villemure, go ahead, please.

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

While I may agree that we are studying a very important subject, perhaps even more important than we originally thought, there are two issues I would like to raise.

One is that we seem to have a bit of a problem getting witnesses, at least at the right time. The second thing is on the Winnipeg study. Having previously participated in the proceedings of the Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship, I can attest that the motion passed here does not aim for the same objective as that other committee. I do not think we need to go further because of the study by that other committee, but rather because there are grounds for investigation.

That said, I am concerned about the availability of witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.

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

I move to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have a motion to adjourn debate. It's non-debatable.

Do we have consensus to adjourn debate?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Madam Clerk. Take the roll.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

The motion to adjourn the debate has been defeated, so I have Mr. Green and then Monsieur Villemure.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As I, with good intentions, mangled the analogy about not having a horse in the race, I think that as a committee we have to get to the completion of some of our studies. I'm very aware of the timelines until the end of the session. I am not interested in going down every rabbit hole that comes before this committee. I'm also not of the mind that there's such an urgency on this particular study that it must be completed in sequence right now. I say that to say that I do think that this is a study that requires greater depth and longer analysis.

I will share with you—and it's not to the detriment or to the character of the witnesses who were present—that we need to get to a place where subject matter experts are willing to provide us with recommendations. We need to start to find the types of people who will take political positions on providing recommendations, whether it's using global comparators or academic research or whether it's using subject matter expertise from the industry, because I think that as a committee, in light of an election, we need to get this right.

I'm even willing—and I share this with my Conservative counterparts so that they understand where I'm coming from—to say that this needs to be extended. I don't necessarily agree that it has to be next week. I don't agree that it has to take the order of precedence, but I think that we do have to get to better results, better recommendations and better clarity.

Mr. Chair, I'm not a huge fan of chasing a new thing and a new headline every week and doing the same thing in three or four committees. I say, only partially in jest, that having the same people at the same committees saying the same thing is not a great use of our time. Taxpayer resources are our mandate within the course of this committee.

With that said, vote by vote on all the issues that are brought before this committee, I will determine my vote based on that, knowing that regardless of whatever decision I make, some folks are going to say I'm complicit here, I'm there or I'm going to end up on somebody's fundraiser. I don't care. I just know that what we're trying to do in this committee is the right thing for the good and welfare of people.

I will say that yes, I support an extended version. I would also say that if that happened in September, I would be okay with that. If that meant we went out and got the world's best subject matter experts on this issue who could come in, educate us, inform the general public and provide strong recommendations that we could report, that's where I would go. I'm not doing this so that we're bumping off other things that could be dealt with at this committee between now and the summer.

That's the context in which I'll be making all my decisions on a move-forward basis, vote by vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Just to remind you, there have been some motions that have been adopted by this committee that need to be dealt with.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, there have been lots.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

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

I agree with my honourable colleague. I think we need to move forward, but I do not think there is any urgency.

I have a suggestion. Given the limited availability of witnesses, we could set aside two or three hours and choose the best time so that we can hear from those experts. We cannot have an unlimited number of witnesses, but we must work very hard to have the best possible witnesses, given the importance of the topic.

Last week, Mr. Joel Finkelstein's testimony was compelling. Having been the one who proposed the study, I knew that the situation was serious, but I realized that it was even more serious than I thought. So it is certainly very interesting to hear from this type of witness.

We cannot start 12 projects at a time, but we have to give ourselves a deadline to hear from quality witnesses and perhaps also give ourselves a time limit.

If we put all that together, I think we can do a good job in the public interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

We have a bit of a problem with expanding the current witness list, because there are only a few witnesses who are able to appear before us for the study we are doing.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff. Then we'll go to Mr. Green.

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

Thank you.

I have no problem with what Mr. Green and Mr. Villemure are proposing, in the sense that it doesn't necessarily have to be consecutive.

I might even suggest that our analysts in their spare time— which I know they have none of—might be able to do some digging to see if there are some witnesses. I know we submitted quite a few. I don't remember exactly how many. I have no issue whatsoever with it, even if it goes into the fall if that's what's required.

In fairness, I think what we're saying is that this is a study that has actually sparked more interest than we initially determined, so giving it the proper time and attention, and with so much focus on what's going on in society in particular, what's going on with us as politicians and the impact that it's having on our lives and on our work as politicians, I do think it merits a proper study.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Green, go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You'll note that in my recent interventions I always go right to the point. What are your recommendations?

I'm wondering if in your communication and invitation to this committee, we could preempt that and ask them to come with opening remarks and any recommendations in advance. It would be so much more helpful for me and, I'm sure, for others—I'm seeing nodding of heads—if we had witness testimony that included their recommendations, which we could then engage with, question, challenge, support and explore. I think it would be better for the analysts.

I'm just wondering, through you, Mr. Chair, if you can answer that. Is there a mechanism by which, in your invitations, you could request that from them?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just looking over at the clerk now and discussing it, there's no question that it's the kind of thing that we can do in the invitation, Mr. Green. We can advise the guests that the committee will be looking for solutions to the challenges that exist right now. We can certainly do that, sir.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think we should do that for all committees, by the way. I mean all studies moving forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Good. All right.

I don't see any further discussion.

We are on Ms. Damoff's motion to extend.... I've heard the committee about timelines.

Madam Clerk, what did we discuss this morning?

We have upwards of seven or eight meetings that are left on the schedule to deal with everything. As I've mentioned to committee, I have asked for divergence to find available slots, just so that we can complete our work before the summer break.

Ms. Damoff's motion is to expand it by three, and then we'll figure out the scheduling on that. The only thing I'm going to ask is for more witnesses from committee members as well.

Do we have consensus on that?

[Some hon. member]

Agreed:

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, perfect. Thank you. That's noted.

Mr. Barrett, please go ahead.

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

Are you sure?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I am sure, sir. Go ahead.

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

I gave proper notice of motion, Chair, and I'd like to move a motion now.

The motion is:

That pursuant to standing order 108(3)(h) and in light of new media reports, the committee undertake an immediate study into Minister Randy Boissonnault’s allegations of fraud and contravention of ethics and lobbying laws; that the committee invite Minister Randy Boissonnault for three hours, Kirsten Poon, Stephen Anderson of Global Health Imports, and the Ethics Commissioner to testify individually in addition to any other relevant witnesses; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

Chair, the motion is incredibly important. We heard from the minister yesterday when he testified at the Standing Committee on Human Resources. He first said he wasn't paid and then he said that he was paid. We know that the minister is having a real tough time keeping his story straight. This speaks to of course questions of the Lobbying Act. It speaks to the Conflict of Interest Act. It speaks to the Conflict of Interest Code for members.

When we're talking about a minister of the Crown, it's incredibly important that Canadians know that they've arranged their private affairs in such a way that they're not furthering their own private interests. We see that in Minister Boissonnault's case there are a whole lot of question marks on whether he did that. In registering one name with the Ethics Commissioner that was not the trading name of the company, it looks like there's some subterfuge happening. It looks like he's trying to hide what he's doing. A company that is paying a minister while they're in cabinet, and that company is simultaneously lobbying that minister's own department and lobbying the government, and his efforts, his company's efforts, did get more than $100 million for his client, in one case a $10-million project. The minister even announced the project while he was collecting cheques from the company that did the lobbying work.

In another case, with Global Health Imports, his other business interest, we of course have the questions raised in Global News about the fact that the minister was listed as a director. This company is getting contracts with municipal and provincial governments, and big players in that space are wondering how it is that this two-man shop that's reselling personal protective equipment is able to land contracts that they're not able to.

Having a federal cabinet minister listed as a director for your company seems to get results. For that company, of course, there have now been allegations of fraud and wire fraud made against the minister's partner there. These are incredibly troubling allegations that have come forward, and it behooves us, based on the mandate of this committee, to of course address that.

This witness list could be addressed over a couple of short meetings and would give us the opportunity to provide transparency to Canadians where that seems to have failed, both in the minister's most recent appearance at committee and also in his disclosures to officers of Parliament.