Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 17th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I am going to call the meeting to order.

I want to welcome everyone to meeting 126 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Before we begin, I want to ask all in-person participants to read the guidelines that are written on the updated cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You'll also notice there's a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video. If you want to watch the video, I suggest you do it a little bit later, not during the meeting, please.

I want to bring everybody up to date as we start committee business.

I have Mr. Barrett and then I have you, Ms. Khalid.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You were at the back when the meeting started, and Mr. Barrett raised his hand.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Yes, he spoke to the chair before.

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

Oh, that's unfortunate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Shanahan.

I will just update the committee on some of the actions of the committee as well.

I see your hand, Mr. Cooper. You'll be third, after Ms. Khalid.

As you know, our last meeting was on July 17 with Mr. Anderson. The committee had demanded that information be provided. Over the course of the following months, the committee did receive information that Mr. Anderson had not provided what the committee had asked for. This morning, as per the motion of the committee adopted on July 17, I presented a report to the House about Mr. Anderson not responding to the committee's request that the information be provided by the deadline.

The other thing I want to say is that I have planned a subcommittee meeting for today to get direction from the committee. On Thursday, as you've seen in the notice, we will have Minister Boissonnault coming back, followed by a subcommittee meeting for approval of the work plan I hope to get to today.

Next week, just for the sake and the benefit of the committee—we haven't put the notice out, but there has been work and the clerk has notified witnesses—we can continue with the misinformation and disinformation study. As committee members know, we've done quite a bit of information gathering with respect to that study. There were some witnesses who, because of technical issues, were not able to come before committee, so I've asked the clerk to reconnect with those witnesses. Right now, they're on hold. They're aware that we want them to come, but again, it's going to be up to the committee to determine whether we maintain that schedule.

I will remind the committee that, before we broke in June, we had the RCMP information tool-gathering draft report. That needs to be dealt with and presented. The report has been written, but we haven't got to it at this point. I believe at some point during this session we will have to get to that important study and present it to Parliament with the recommendations contained in it.

Speaking of direction, I can't stress enough how difficult it was for me as chair and for the clerk and the analysts to do planning in the last session, so I am going to need that direction from committee. That's one of the reasons I put in that subcommittee part of the agenda for today. I've started with committee business in public because numerous motions have been put on notice. Effectively, if this were a game of poker, I would want you to splash your chips in, all in, and start presenting your motions if you wanted them to be debated on the floor. Through the subcommittee, we can get direction from the committee on the priorities of those motions, and we can do the work of actually gathering witnesses and doing the important work of this committee with a plan.

It was difficult, as I said earlier, to plan for anything in the last session. That's why I've decided to start today's meeting with open committee business and not just with the motions that are on notice. If anybody has anything else they want to discuss within the committee, let's get to it now and then we can start planning for the future meetings.

That being said, I'm going to start with Mr. Barrett and then I'm going to go to Ms. Khalid and then Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead. We are in committee business.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I move:

Given that the Prime Minister has appointed Mark Carney as chair of the Liberal Party task force on economic growth, and this position shields Mark Carney from Canada's public disclosure and conflict of interest laws, as he is not deemed a public office holder, and Canadians have a right to know about the financial and corporate interests of individuals shaping economic policy that impacts their everyday lives, the committee call Mark Carney to testify for three hours within 14 days of this motion being adopted.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to accept that motion as being in order.

Do you want to speak to it?

Go ahead.

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

We have a conflict of interest regime in this country that was set up so that Canadians know what interests an individual who is a designated public office holder has. Conflict of interest screens should then be set up or divestitures can be taken. However, in the case of Mark “carbon tax” Carney, we don't know. We don't have the full picture of what his holdings and financial interests are.

He's advising the Prime Minister. I understand he's going to be holding cross-country pre-budget consultations, and he's been hired by the Liberal Party. The only reason that can be inferred from this is that it is to avoid the conflict of interest regime.

Even this past week, we had an announcement from the government of a $2.14-billion loan to a company called Telesat, just days after Mr. Carney was given this new job advising the Prime Minister. Mr. Carney is a personal friend of the head of that company and has a financial interest in it. Again, this is information that Canadians need to know.

We have advocated—I have advocated—for the government to bring in Mr. Carney, have him sworn in as a public office holder and have him be subject to the Conflict of Interest Act, so that Canadians know.

Look, I wouldn't pick Mr. Carney to advise me, but that's a choice they've made. They're the government. That's their purview. However, the manner in which this has been done appears to be to subvert the conflict of interest regime. There are specific provisions in the act with respect to ministerial advisers. How do we know what the framework is for Mr. Carney's employment, his interactions with ministers and his interactions with the Prime Minister, versus his interactions with the Prime Minister who is also the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada?

It's about transparency. It's about clarity. We have some information through public, open sources about the interests of Mr. Carney, but we need the full picture. It's important for Canadians to get a good understanding of that. The best way to do it would be to have a conversation with Mr. Carney.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. It could be a bit of a challenge. You're calling for a three-hour meeting. We're going to have to check our resources to make sure that they're available for three hours, but I understand that's what your motion calls for.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor on the motion moved by Mr. Barrett.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee. We’re all glad to have you back. I also want to welcome all my colleagues.

I’d like to raise a couple of points on the motion and ask for some clarifications.

We agree that the purpose of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is to study specific circumstances. My first question is this: Do these circumstances fall within the mandate of the committee?

I would, however, like to sound a note of caution.

Mr. Carney most likely has interests, but do these interests really constitute a conflict of interest? I’m not sure. It might be worth investigating that. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of asking someone to explain themselves to a parliamentary committee when that person was hired by the Liberal Party of Canada as a consultant—I will use that term—and not by the government, just like Jenni Byrne, who was a consultant for the Conservatives.

Obviously, if this person were an elected official, or even if they’d been hired by the government, I would be more comfortable. However, when it comes to someone who is a consultant, who do you even call in the first place? Many people could potentially have conflicts of interest. It seems to me that we should be a little more specific.

The member who moved the motion said that Mr. Carney has interests, that they are known, and that they are documented. Fine. However, the simple fact of having an interest is not a crime. Not every interest is a conflict of interest. In that sense, we need to avoid engaging in unnecessary witch hunts. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t shed light on all of this, but at first glance I would say that this is somewhat out of proportion. I think we’re creating a problem here, rather than trying to solve a problem. I would urge us to be cautious in this matter. Again, not every interest is a conflict of interest.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Next on the list, I have Ms. Khalid, followed by Mr. Fisher and Mrs. Shanahan.

I did, at the top, forget to welcome some of the new members to the committee: Mr. Cooper, Mr. Caputo and, as well, Mrs. Shanahan.

Are you subbing in or are you a new member of the committee, Mrs. Shanahan?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

That will be clarified shortly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Subject to confirmation—okay.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I'm not on the speakers list yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You're after Mr. Fisher.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead, please, on the motion as proposed by Mr. Barrett.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I love to see a motion presented to Elon Musk on Twitter before it's presented to our committees. I think it's a wonderful way to conduct democracy, and a weird way, to be quite frank, to conduct democracy here.

Speaking of weird, we've had a very weird summer with Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives. It's quite strange—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

I'm so sorry, Mr. Green. I can't hear myself over what you're saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Khalid has the floor, please.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You can J.D. Vance them. Don't J.D. Vance me.

I don't want things to get weird, Mr. Chair. I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Let's have some decorum, please. Whoever has the floor is the one who's going to be speaking.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead.

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

I'll just wait for everybody to chime down, Mr. Chair, if that's okay.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

There are going to be side conversations where members are going to be talking amongst each other. I'm going to ask, if it does get loud, that you just step back a bit, if you don't mind, please.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.