Chair, I think it's important that we recognize that the Standing Orders of the House allow for the chairs of committees to use their prerogative to call meetings when it's necessary and within the mandate of the committee. As an opposition-chaired committee, it's incredibly important that this is an accountability committee. Often, we see there are members who don't recognize the need for all members, including all backbenchers, to hold the government to account. Members on all sides of the House need to make sure that the executive is kept in check.
When the Standing Orders have been adopted by the House and allow for the chair of a committee to call a meeting, the committee must not act contrary to those Standing Orders of the House. It's a power that is used sparingly or rarely, but I think that it's important that it's one that's preserved.
When we look at the work this committee has done, and you look at the issues that have been in front of this committee, whether it's the $60-million arrive scam and a government that says, “There's nothing to see here,” and, “This was necessary in the context of the pandemic; therefore, all expenses were justified and everyone should move on”....
It's taken incredible lifts by the committee and an awful lot of energy just to get committees to lift this off the ground. Once it was off the ground, we seemed to find new information that revealed this government's lack of respect or fiduciary responsibility to Canadians.
We have $60 million for an app that saw massive subcontracting, and 30% of those subcontracted fees were for people who did no work on the app. That's not acceptable, especially in the context of Canadians struggling to pay their bills and struggling to just get by.
This committee has been seized on multiple occasions with ethical scandals involving the Prime Minister. Again, there was important work done by this committee on the “Trudeau Report”, when the Prime Minister was found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act. It was not just in one instance. He broke multiple sections of the act—I think it was four—by taking illegal vacations to “billionaire island”, where he was joined by the then president of the Liberal Party, who's now a Liberal MP, by the labour minister and by Mr. Pitfield, the gentleman whom he just relieved of a real estate burden at the taxpayers' expense.
That came from the work of this committee. We were able to expose and challenge the narrative that the government was putting forward.
Again, with the “Trudeau II Report”, much work was done at this committee. The ability of the chair to call meetings outside of regularly scheduled slots is sometimes necessary in order to fulfill our mandate.
In that case, it was the Conflict of Interest Act again, and it was the Prime Minister who was found to have interfered in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, a firm that had illegally funded the Liberal Party of Canada but also was found guilty of bribing Libyan officials in the Gaddafi regime to the tune of $48 million and defrauding the Libyan people of more than $100 million.
We saw—related, of course, to the Prime Minister—the “Trudeau III Report”, in which another member of the Prime Minister's cabinet—in that case, his then finance minister, Bill Morneau—was found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act.
These issues are part of the work of this committee. The billion-dollar green slush fund—because we're not duplicating the work of other committees—is being addressed at the industry committee, but it has also seen hearings here and in government operations, and I think in public accounts, but this was important for this committee to introduce, to examine and then for the committee to get.... It ultimately got housed elsewhere, but when important issues come forward, the committee needs to be able to do its work, and that's what the Standing Orders allow for.
It's not infrequent that we find ourselves dealing with issues that touch on members of the executive and their obligations having been breached and what that looks like in terms of the erosion of Canadians' confidence in our public institutions.
The president of the King's Privy Council, Minister LeBlanc, was found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act in the clam scam. That was on lucrative contracts that went to a family member of the minister's spouse. Again, work that's not part of the scheduled work plan but needs to be part of the consideration for when the chair exercises his role in calling meetings.... Minister LeBlanc was found guilty of breaking the act in that case, and it was not part of our regular work plan.
Previously, I mentioned former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau, sometimes referred to as “Bill no more”, having broken the conflict of interest code and the Conflict of Interest Act. The code violation was, of course, the forgotten French villa—who among us hasn't forgotten to declare their French villa?—and with respect to the scandal, the WE scandal involving the billion-dollar Canada student service grant going to Justin Trudeau's buddies, the Kielburgers. Bill Morneau was found guilty of breaking the act three times for his private interests and failing to recuse himself from decisions relating to the WE organization.
I should circle back to Minister LeBlanc, because we hear from, as part of the mandate of this committee, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Now, when Commissioner Dion resigned and his role wasn't filled, the government, of course, appointed an interim commissioner, and that interim commissioner was the sister-in-law of the minister, Minister LeBlanc.
Part of our role is to hold the government accountable, because the appearance of a conflict can be as damaging as a real conflict. The appointee and the minister can say, “Oh well, we weren't involved in the decision”, but what does it look like to the public? That's what we talk about here and that's what we examine here at this committee.
Of course, when we have the regular work plan for the committee, the regular sitting calendar for the committee, sometimes we're able to insert items into that. Sometimes we have meetings that are called pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), at which we can deal with an issue.
We also had the issue of Liberal Trade Minister Mary Ng, who was found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act, under sections 6 and 21, when she gave her best friend, Amanda Alvaro, contracts worth tens of thousands of dollars. Those were not tendered, but she had a comfortable relationship with a Liberal insider, a former Liberal staffer, and thought, “You know what? This is the right fit for me.” She was not concerned with the appearance or the reality of that for taxpayers. Would she have spent tens of thousands of dollars on that service if it weren't to her friend? Would Canadians have been on the hook for that expense when she already had ministry staff and member staff to fulfill that function?
It's interesting now, because the Speaker is an elected Liberal member, but he was then the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister and parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, and he was found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act by using his position to try to influence the CRTC to the benefit of a personal interest of his.
This is something that is important. Mr. Fergus, who is now Speaker and was then a Liberal parliamentary secretary, was a member of this committee, but once he had that role and once he swore that oath, it became the responsibility of all parliamentarians to make sure that accountability function was being exercised, because that's what Canadians expect.
The Standing Orders allow for chairs—not just of opposition-chaired committees but also of government-chaired committees—to do certain things, such as scheduling a meeting, calling the meeting to order, suspending the meeting, adjourning the meeting and responding to those Standing Order 106(4) meeting requests. We have seen government chairs and opposition chairs employ all of those powers to call meetings outside of the regular time.
We know there have been instances in which it has been essential that this committee step up and respond to something that has been in the public interest at that time and to examine the issue. Sometimes where there's smoke, the fire has gone out, but sometimes we find that where there's smoke, there's actually an inferno, and that is very often the case. I would be uncomfortable abdicating my responsibility, as an opposition member, for having the tools in the tool box available, or if the chair called a meeting and I were not there or there wasn't someone there in my place.
I don't want to presuppose what the next 90 days are going to bring, because I don't know. Every time I think there's going to be nothing that touches the mandate of this committee during a recess period, we find ourselves unpleasantly disappointed to see that we have to come back and deal with an issue that has cropped up. The appearance of a conflict can even rise to that test.
We saw an example of that in January, when the Prime Minister ended up taking another one of his vacations at a luxury resort. Yes, there was a great expense to taxpayers for the Prime Minister's security, but the stay at this luxury resort was also a gift.
What does it look like to Canadians when someone who's involved in the Trudeau Foundation, which of course is an issue that we've examined at this committee, and the Trudeau Foundation's many ties to the government...? This is a Trudeau Foundation booster or member who's giving the Prime Minister a substantial gift.
We need to be able to exercise our mandate, so I'm not comfortable with the limiting of powers that are afforded under the Standing Orders. I'm not actually sure that, by motion at committee, we can do that. I would be interested to hear from someone from the law clerk's office as to whether there is any precedence for committees limiting powers that are given under the Standing Orders. We can pass whatever motions we want, but what is the effect? What is the force of that motion?
I'm not comfortable with this. I am curious as to whether there's any nuance available, because we've just had a case that demonstrates why it may be necessary to have meetings. Those were the hearings with Ms. Poon and Mr. Anderson with respect to Minister Randy Boissonnault's involvement with those two companies and the questions that have come up about that. That's pushed our agenda now into July.
It's important that we keep all of the tools that are available to us in the tool box. I think it's an open question as to whether or not the committee has the ability to limit powers that are given under the Standing Orders. I'll take a look at the motion and listen to what the other members have to say, if anyone else has anything to say about it, but at first blush, based on the important work that we have done and the work that we can do, I don't think that I'm comfortable supporting this motion.