Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 1st, 2024

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

On a point of order, Chair, I just received this from the clerk. It looks to be exactly the same as what Mr. Barrett sent on September 20, but it's not what he read today.

I'd reinforce the fact that we'd like a paper copy.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I was going to let Mr. Barrett finish and then clarify that there was a minor change to the motion.

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

The motion should be quite different.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

There is one change that needs to be addressed, which was the timeline. We're going to get you a clean copy of that.

It was sent out in error. I apologize for that, Mr. Fisher. We're going to make sure you have it.

Continue, Mr. Barrett, please. You have the floor.

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

I was just about done, but I think that with all of this in the public domain, and though the moniker of carbon tax Carney fits very well, he very much appears to be conflict of interest Carney.

That's why this committee needs to take a look at the avoidance of the Conflict of Interest Act and disclosure rules that, of course, are the purview of this committee. It's very important, especially in the context of all that our country is facing today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I want to make sure that every member has a clean copy of what we're discussing here, so I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes. We'll be back.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thanks, everyone, for your patience on that. I really wanted to make sure we had a clean copy in front of everyone, which I think we do now, somewhat.

When we left, Mr. Barrett had concluded his comments, and we're going to go to Mrs. Shanahan now.

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Thank you very much, Chair, although people may not be thanking me.

Chair, what is there to say about this motion? There are so many things going on here that I just really wonder, if it wasn't for the fact that the member brought it back a second time—I take it he's reread it at least once—it seems like it was written on the back of a napkin, maybe a napkin from a Quebec convention centre or something.

There are a few things about the motion that I question, but I'd like to get to the business of clearing the decks on the standing order front. I'd like to hear from the clerk on Standing Order 108(1)(a), because my reading of that standing order is that it has to do with business that's referred to a committee from the House. In fact, let me just see, as I think I might have it handy. Standing Order 108(1)(a) has to do with “Powers of standing committees”, which is what is referred to here in this motion.

Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House—

I just don't know if we have heard from the House on this. It continues:

—to report from time to time, and except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to sit jointly with other standing committees, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House.

I would like to hear from the clerk on this, because it seems to me that it's a mistake, a misprint or a typo, or maybe there's something that I'm not understanding here. I would love to be enlightened on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mrs. Shanahan, to your point, if I read that:

...shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time, and except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers....

I think it speaks more broadly to the mandate of the committee, so I think that may be where the confusion lies a little bit.

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

You can see why I'm questioning that wording, because typically what I've seen in other resolutions, and goodness knows I've seen quite a few of these motions, it usually has to do with that kind of residual power where the committee can just decide to study whatever it wants to study. I'm looking for that in the excellent briefing note that we had, which is later on, on additional powers of standing committees.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You may be referring to 108(3)(h), then.

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

Yes, that sounds familiar.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It speaks to the general powers of the committee.

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

I would really like to know from the proposer of this motion which one he's referring to, because I think that clarity of terms and definitions will tell us what we are really about here. Otherwise, it feels like someone just pulled this together with a whole bunch of copy-and-paste or something. It's possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Maybe I can clarify it, then. The standing order that's referred to in the motion, 108(1)(a), speaks to the general powers of the committee. Standing Order 108(3)(h) speaks to the specific powers of the committee. Overall, I think that 108(1)(a)—and 108(3)(h)—as it's referenced in the motion that was presented by Mr. Barrett, actually encompasses all of the powers, general and specific, of what the committee is able to do.

The specifics of 108(1)(a) speak to the general powers of the committee, which we're dealing with, and that is very much.... Well, it's what you read. Isn't that right? It's that:

Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House—

In this case it's not. It's being proposed by a member.

—to report from time to time, and except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting....

You can cut it both ways, but in overall terms the general powers of the committee are reflected in this particular motion. I don't know whether that clarifies it for you, but from my standpoint, I think that referencing the general powers of the committee is sufficient, and then, the specific powers, as I said, are covered under Standing Order 108(3)(h).

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

Chair, far be it from me to stand on points of grammar, but there does seem to be something odd about that formulation, that the House may do something or the committee may pick up something that the House refers to it. It seems like there's a subject, an object and a qualifier there, and that does not seem to be the case. It does not seem to have anything to do with the motion that's in front of us. However, as I understand, the proposer is no longer with us, and I don't see that anyone on the Conservative side is jumping up, with their hands, to provide an explanation.

I can see that, maybe, it was just cobbled together. I accept your attempt to clarify that, so I will continue—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Just to clarify even further, it's not unusual, Mrs. Shanahan, for these types of motions to come back with this specific number in it. It speaks to the general mandate of the committee, so it's not that unusual.

In reference to Mr. Barrett no longer being here—and I'm sure he's busy somewhere else—Mr. Williamson is here in his place and is fully substituted in as a member of this committee.

I'm trying to clarify the difference as best as I can. From my standpoint, one is as good as the other in terms of the general mandate and the specific mandate. This motion is in order, and it does speak to the general mandate of the committee. That's what Standing Order 108(1)(a) speaks to.

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

Certainly, Chair, I think we're on the same team as far as trying to clarify what this motion is attempting to do.

I could have an issue with some of the other wording, which may be, again, more of.... How many of us wear different hats, Chair, in our roles? For example, I'm the member of Parliament for Châteauguay—Lacolle, soon to be Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville. I'm also the chair of the national Liberal caucus. I'm also a member of this committee. We have different roles.

In the same way, the Prime Minister has different roles. His role, vis à vis the Liberal Party, is as leader of the Liberal Party. When the text refers to Mark Carney being recently appointed, he's appointed by the leader of the Liberal Party as an adviser and as a chair to the Liberal Party's task force on economic growth.

I salute the member for getting the name of the task force right because we know there are a number of different task forces, committees, forums and so on. Sometimes those names can be easily confused.

On that note, Mr. Barrett has the right name of the Liberal Party's task force on economic growth, but he does not have the right title. It is the leader of the Liberal Party. It's not the Prime Minister in his role as Prime Minister, but the leader of the Liberal Party.

If we get to the meat of the motion, what is Mr. Barrett trying to do here? I gather he's very concerned about conflicts of interest. He's very concerned about conflicts of interest amongst those people.

We are fortunate in Canada that we have many experienced people who provide their advice and who have extensive education, expertise and, most importantly, real-world experience in a number of different areas. They're not elected, necessarily. They are advisers. They are appointed to different forums or task forces. They can be a staff member.

If they're a staff member, then we can see where the rules, regulations and legislation concerning conflict of interest can come into play. If they are an elected member, we can see where our rules, regulations and legislation around conflict of interest and ethics come into play.

I think Mr. Barrett brings up a valid concern. What about people who are acting in a volunteer, ad hoc, periodic or regular advisory role to any leader of any party? Any leader of any party is lobbied and is under constant scrutiny and pressure, so it's reasonable to have questions about the background, the profile and the nature of the people surrounding a leader of.... In this case we're talking about federal parties. We're not going to get into the provinces. That's another story altogether.

Is it the purview of this committee to be considering, to know more, to understand better and perhaps be in a position to make some recommendations that would better protect the integrity of our way of governing and of our democratic system, which are reliant primarily on democratically elected representatives of Canadians across the country?

It's good to know the people around leaders, who wield tremendous influence and have the ability to move matters. It would be good to know more about them and what, if anything, should be done by this committee or recommended by this committee.

In that regard, Chair, I would like to move an amendment. I think I have it here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead with your amendment, Mrs. Shanahan.

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

You're lucky I didn't give you this copy, because it's all written up the sides of the previous page.

I move to add, following the line with “six-month high”, “and that Jenni Byrne, who is the well-known special adviser to Pierre Poilievre as well as a registered lobbyist for grocery multinational Loblaws at a time that the Poilievre Conservatives are voting against every Liberal government measure to make grocery prices more affordable for Canadians; Jenni Byrne, who regularly attends caucus meetings and daily morning strategy calls, is not listed as an employee in Pierre Poilievre's office to shield her from public disclosure and conflict of interest laws; Jenni Byrne established a second lobbying firm working from the same office as Jenni Byrne + Associates to circumvent federal lobbying laws”.

It would then go to read, “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a)”—I'm still not in agreement with it, but that's what it is—“the committee call upon Mark Carney and Jenni Byrne to testify for two hours each before the committee within 14 calendar days of the adoption of this motion.”

Chair, did you want to add the 14 calendar days, because you made that specification?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Do you have the text for us, Mrs. Shanahan?

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

I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You can send that to me. I'd like to have a look at it, if you don't mind.

Okay. I'm going to ask that you send that. In the meantime, I am going to suspend until I get a chance to have a look at it.

If you can send it to the clerk, that would be terrific. Thank you.

We're going to suspend for a minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're back, following a suspension.

All members now have the amendment as proposed by Mrs. Shanahan.

Madam Clerk, do you want to pull up the retyped motion that you just sent to everyone?

When you cut through it all, which I have, what we're dealing with is an amendment to Mr. Barrett's motion to have Mark Carney come before the committee. Madam Shanahan has moved an amendment to have Jenni Byrne testify before the committee, adding a time of two hours each—and we're all in agreement—based on the motion of 14 calendar days. Cutting through all of the preamble, all of it, that's what we're dealing with right now.

On the amendment to have Jenni Byrne appear before committee, Mrs. Shanahan, go ahead.

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

I thank the clerk for putting this together fairly quickly, but I think that, grammatically, it makes more sense where.... We say “and that Jenni Byrne”, that first bolded part of the amendment—“and that Jenni Byrne”, “and that Jenni Byrne”. Otherwise, I don't think it makes sense with just a semicolon.