Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 19th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

That concludes our round of questioning for today. It's been an hour.

[Some hon. members]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No, it's been an hour after the second round. That's the way it goes.

Mr. Barrett, I see your hand.

I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes. I want to thank the minister for appearing before the committee today. I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes. We're going to come back with open committee business, and I'm going to go to Mr. Barrett when we're back.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate the patience on the suspension. I'm going to call the meeting back to order. We're in open committee business.

Before we broke, Mr. Barrett had his hand up. Go ahead, please, Mr. Barrett.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I don't feel, having heard from the minister, that we're any further ahead. Frankly, we heard a lot that the minister is unable to corroborate. The revelation that wasn't offered in the minister's first appearance before the committee—that he talked and texted with Mr. Anderson on the dates in question—seems to be a basic opening statement-level detail that he would have provided in his first appearance before the committee.

I'd like to move, given today's testimony, that the committee expand its study on the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, and call related witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Was that to call...?

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

It's to call related witnesses, period.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I heard him say “call related witnesses, period.”

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

I have a point of order. We didn't hear that either.

Could you please read it out slowly?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Repeat it again, please, Mr. Barrett.

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

Given today's testimony, the committee should expand its study on the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, and call related witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. It's very straightforward.

I suspect you want the committee members to submit the names of those related witnesses, or do you want us to...?

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

As is the committee's practice, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. I accept that.

Mrs. Shanahan, I had you next, but not on the motion. The motion has been moved, so we're going to speak to the motion right now. I'm going to start a list. Mrs. Shanahan is next, followed by Ms. Khalid.

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Chair, you know, I'm still finding my feet in this committee. However, from what I heard today, and in the time I've had to review previous testimony, the work this committee has done and the clarification that....

Indeed, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has reviewed this matter. May I say that this is an independent commissioner? The commissioner is not there to score political points. The commissioner is there to review the facts and interview the person in question. The commissioner acts under a law we put in place here in Parliament to deal with these very issues of conflict of interest, either with MPs or ministers.

It's not once or twice: It's three times that this commissioner has come back with a conclusion, letter or report saying that this allegation does not stand up under scrutiny.

I think this will be interesting. I know it's coming up in a different study, but given that it's part of the mandate of this committee to review the commissioner's work, we can have a better understanding. I think it was Mr. Green who was questioning the quality of the commissioner's work and what he can and can't do, and so on and so forth.

I don't know. If we start having a court of—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It was scope.

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

It was scope. Okay. However, if we start having judicial powers when dealing with conflict of interest issues, I think it's going to be a whole other ball of wax. It could be used, for example, as a political or partisan weapon against anybody the majority decides should be on the receiving end of that. This is where I really feel that this....

You know, I read the evidence. I looked at it again. I listened carefully to all the questions that were asked. I asked my own questions. There's really nothing more to be said. It has all been clearly dealt with.

Chair, I just want to....

Sometimes my constituents ask me what committees are and what they do. They hear things, and then they ask me how they can keep an eye on MPs' and ministers' work.

I mentioned fake scandals earlier. People ask me what's going on in Ottawa and tell me there must be a way to look into allegations. They want to have confidence in their MPs and their ministers. They ask me why people are always stirring up fake scandals. They see all this and they hear about text messages and Purolator and so on.

They wonder if that's why they're sending MPs to Ottawa to get paid big bucks. We know exactly what we get paid, what our budgets are and how much we get to spend on staff. Are we being paid to look at MPs' texts about a Purolator account? This is so weird.

I'm very happy with the answer the minister gave today. I think I'll make a little clip and post it on social media. It doesn't really come naturally to me, but I do my best. People are wondering if the process is thorough and trustworthy, so I want to show them the minister's response. That way, they'll have a better understanding of the Commissioner's investigation process and see how the minister answered his questions. When I show them that the issue was text messages about a Purolator account…. I didn't get to hear Mr. Anderson's testimony, but, based on what my colleagues have told me, he's not a very trustworthy person. That may be worth looking into, but we're not talking about him, are we? We're talking about the minister, and the minister provided all his information and all his communications. I wonder what would happen if officials had the right to search everyone's phone.

I was here when the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics examined the use of parliamentary email addresses and resources by political parties. I think Mr. Cooper and Mr. Barrett were here. In 2019, 2020 and even 2021, I was still getting fundraising emails from the Conservative Party of Canada, since I used to be a member, as well as emails from some MPs that were sent from their parliamentary email addresses. It was interesting. I should have suggested that we look at the use of parliamentary resources for partisan purposes. Maybe I'll get another chance. That might be interesting, so I'll jot it down and come back to it at another time.

This motion is really just a witch hunt. Actually, it's not even a witch hunt, because there are no witches. The rabbits are

down the rabbit hole. The rabbits are gone.

There are no witches. Nothing to see. It's just about a few text messages and a silly story about a Purolator account. I think all of us have given our information and phone number to a business and then received a call telling us to forward something. It's seriously annoying. For sure, it can lead people who don't trust the process to speculate and make assumptions. The Conservatives certainly do that. I see that Mr. Green does not trust the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I would like him to explain exactly what he would like from him. Obviously, my colleagues don't think his work is comprehensive enough.

I am just a member of Parliament. I do not have a big portfolio, nor am I in business. I find that he follows up the files very well. He asks us questions, follows up, gives us deadlines to meet, and all the information we provide ends up being made public. I imagine that this makes for very interesting and relevant reading, not only for the other members, but also for all the employees who work here.

There is certainly a reason why Parliament created the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It wasn't just a matter of having a regular way for the public to find out about the profile of MPs. The public has a right to know that because we are responsible for millions if not billions of dollars. This is even more true for the people who form the government.

Also, I'm not sure when the Conflict of Interest Act was enacted. I think it was in the 1980s or 1990s. The analysts can help me with that. That was the act that created the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

[Alexandra Savoie, Analyst]

It was in 2006.

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

It was in 2006? That's great. It's quite recent. Updates can always be made. I know that there are normally reviews every five years and the act can be renewed. In 2006, Parliament felt it was important to create an independent office and not leave the matter in the hands of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That's what I read in the documents from the time of the late Mr. Mulroney, whom I was lucky enough to meet once. He was a man who may have made mistakes in his life, but he really served the country well.

Back then, the role was assigned to the ethics committee. It was like a zoo. It really wasn't appropriate or respectful. It was not the right way to provide the public with relevant information. The point of this exercise is not to crush an adversary. I think we're all in agreement that we don't do it to crush anyone. The purpose of the Office of the Commissioner is to reassure the public, that is to say Canadians and Quebeckers, that everything is done properly. When there's a breach of the rules, then it has to be dealt with. There is obviously a whole range of consequences that can be imposed.

In this case, there was no follow-up. Not just once, not just twice, but three times the commissioner found that the allegations and accusations—

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

I have just a quick point of order, Chair.

We still don't have the language of the motion in our emails, and I'm wondering if that's being sent.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The clerk is working on it right now. It's a very simple motion, but we're going to send it out to members of the committee now.

Go ahead.

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

Is it true, Mr. Chair, that we don't have the translation of the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The clerk has translated the motion. I have it in front of me, and that's what's going to be distributed to members.

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

Okay. As it happens, I too like to see things in writing. Sometimes we miss things when we hear something verbally. I think we can wait until we can get the motion in writing.

Can I ask that we suspend until we get it in writing?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's being delivered right now. It's very simple.

Go ahead.