Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 1st, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Both proposals are very wordy, and obviously trying to capture everything. I think that if we were to capture this, the last line would capture it all, the preamble notwithstanding.

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

In the French, you see that the “que” is there.

It reads: “That Jenni Byrne, who…attends…”

The “and that”.... It all flows from that original “Given that”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Good. We'll make the correction. We'll send it out.

The premise of the motion is that Mark Carney comes for two hours on the main motion. The amendment says that Jenni Byrne comes for two hours within 14 calendar days. That's the basis of what we're dealing with right now.

On the amendment, Mr. Fisher, go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the clerk for her efforts in putting all of that together. It's never an easy thing to combine things on the fly. This looks very close to what I heard from the floor.

I'll support the amendment. It's interesting. I'm sure every party has advisers. Every party has advisers who have other things going on in their lives and other business prospects. Certainly this is something that's worth supporting. I would urge members to support the amendment and then see what these folks have to say.

I don't really have much more to add to that. I'm just reading this over because it was spoken to. Again, I thank the clerk for this. It looks like what I heard from Mrs. Shanahan is articulated very well here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

For the benefit of the committee, we're trying to calculate, with all the suspensions.... The clerk is in the process of doing that right now, of figuring out what time we have resources to. Right now it looks like that's 6:32.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm happy to speak to the amendment as presented by Mrs. Shanahan and also to be here until 6:30. It's always a pleasure to spend lots of time with all of you guys.

I really appreciate your bringing it down to what the value of this motion is and what this motion, practically, is trying to do, including the amendment. It is to ensure that political parties and governments of the day—or what have you—have the ability to make sure that checks and balances are in place with respect to whoever advises the political party of the day or the political party of concern.

For me, the broader question is about what kinds of checks and balances are missing from this process. Whether it is the Liberal leader appointing Mark Carney to the Liberal Party of Canada as the chair of the Liberal Party's task force on economic growth or whether it is the leader of the Conservative Party appointing Jenni Byrne to advise on.... I really don't know what she advises on, to be honest, other than running campaigns. That's beside the point.

I think the point that we're trying to make here is that removing partisanship is really important for us to improve the potential of conflict of interest and the removal of the potential challenges that political parties could run into while also ensuring that, where expertise is available, expertise should be used. Where expertise is lacking within any organization, whether it's in the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Bloc or the Liberals, we should actively seek out where we can fill that void of expertise.

We need to do that in a responsible way. We need to do that in a way that respects the values of our democratic institutions, makes sure that there aren't any conflicts and makes sure that there are checks and balances in how we conduct ourselves, not just in the way that we operate as members of Parliament but also with our partisan hats as well. We need to make sure of what roles and responsibilities and checks and balances we should have in place within our political system.

I think that Mrs. Shanahan very rightly pointed out that it's about the perception of democratic institutions. It's about the perception of holding what we are trying to do here in this place to account and making sure that those checks and balances are not just in existence but are also being fulfilled. It's also that the onus is not just on the government of the day. The onus is on each and every single political party that operates in this place in a partisan way.

I know that we spent the first hour talking about foreign interference. We have been going into this major study of misinformation and disinformation. I think understanding and appreciating how the perception of conflict of interest can play a role in the value of democratic institutions and how democratic institutions are perceived by the general public would be a good study for us.

As Mr. Villemure has said, we need to be more efficient with our time, and that's why I support the two hours piece to this amendment.

Now I will talk a little bit more, because I know that Mr. Barrett, while he was here, spoke at length about why he was bringing forward this motion. I will perhaps add as to why Ms. Byrne needs to be added to this motion. It's because of exactly what I was outlining, that perception.

Ms. Byrne is the current chief adviser, political strategist and confidant to the Leader of the Opposition, or the leader of the Conservative Party, while she is also an active lobbyist. Recent media coverage has confirmed that a lobbying firm run by Ms. Byrne has established a second company that's housed out of the same office, so there's a bit of a perception issue here.

Obviously, we take everything at face value and want to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, but we are talking about the perception of conflict of interest and, ultimately, how that leads to deteriorating trust within our democratic institutions.

It would appear that Ms. Byrne's firm is actively lobbying at the federal level, and that includes current Conservative members of Parliament, while she's taking steps to hide that activity. That is what has been reported in the media. All of my information is coming from open sources and from what has been reported in our news.

As I was saying, this raises some serious questions as to what extent Ms. Byrne is personally involved in that federal lobbying piece and whether or not she's in compliance with the laws that are related to ethics and with lobbying in this country.

As we're kind of drawing parallels here, we need to have a broader picture and a broader understanding of how we can amend our rules and regulations to ensure that this kind of perception of conflict does not occur. This amendment makes this motion very balanced, and it removes the partisanship from this motion to talk about a very serious issue.

I will park my comments there, Chair. I do want to support this motion, and I think that the more we can do to ensure the partisanship is taken out, the better a position we will be in to ensure our democratic values and ensure that the perception of conflict of interest does not exist, regardless of hyperpartisanship, whichever party it comes from.

Thank you, Chair. I'll leave my comments here for now, but I do reserve the right to get back on that list.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

I'm going to go to Mr. Caputo next on the amendment, followed by Mrs. Shanahan and Mr. Fisher.

Go ahead, Mr. Caputo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

I really appreciated Ms. Khalid's soliloquy about partisanship and hyperpartisanship, because it is against that backdrop that I'm really happy to move an amendment, which I have sent to the clerk, that would clean up a lot of the language.

It would read, “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee call upon Mark Carney, Gurratan Singh and Jenni Byrne to testify before the committee for two hours each within 14 calendar days of the adoption of this motion.”

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Hang on, Mr. Caputo. You're proposing to strike the preamble of the motion and deal directly with the motion. Now you're adding, as a subamendment, Mr. Gurratan Singh, because we've already had an amendment moved to include Ms. Byrne.

The main motion was to—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

This would be a subamendment, I guess, or an amendment to the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Caputo, we've dealt with this before at committee and the clerk just reminded me of this.

We're currently on an amendment that includes Ms. Byrne. What I'd like to do is dispose of that amendment and then—whatever happens with the amendment—rather than proposing a subamendment you come back with another amendment that would include Mr. Singh, which I heard you say.

Rather than accept that as a subamendment, I'm going to give you an opportunity, once this amendment is disposed of, to come back and deal with it as an amendment to the motion as amended, if that provides any clarity.

Mr. Williamson, I'll put you on the list.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'll yield my time to Mr. Williamson.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have a list. I am going to come back to you, Mr. Caputo, when the time is right.

I have Mrs. Shanahan, Mr. Fisher and then Mr. Williamson.

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I have a point of order.

I think some clarification is needed from Ms. Khalid, who said she reserves the right to be added to the list.

It's not quite clear that she'd like to be added to the list. I think you need to seek that because Ms. Khalid and I had a disagreement on another committee about her—

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

It was very different circumstance.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

It's not at all. You are a generic—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to stop both of you right now.

I try, to the best of my ability, to see who's raising their hand and who wants to intervene and have some discussion on this. We're going to maintain that same standard.

I have Mrs. Shanahan, Mr. Fisher and then Mr. Williamson on the list.

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan, on the amendment, please.

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

Yes, it's on my amendment. Thank you.

I did want to add something just to clarify. We hear a lot of pejorative language being used when people's names are used in motions and amendments. That's not what I'm about.

I want to make it very clear. I do not know Ms. Byrne. I may have met her briefly at a Progressive Conservative leadership convention back in the 1970s when I moved in those circles. Yes, it could be. No, probably.... I think she's a little younger than I am.

I do not know her personally and I am not someone who would ever approve of or be party to the kind of denigration that I have seen other members partake of when they talk about members of the public, whether or not they are advisers or linked to any particular party or what have you.

That's the only comment that I wanted to make there, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Wonderful.

Mr. Fisher, go ahead on the amendment, please.

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

Thank you. I was grasping for the thought I had when I was speaking last time on the amendment. I just wanted to touch on my thoughts on that.

The Conservatives have voted against every effort to do whatever we could in the House of Commons to reduce grocery prices. The connection of Ms. Byrne to Loblaws makes it a question that I certainly would love to ask of her.

Again, going back to my comments earlier, I would support the amendment. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Go ahead on the amendment, Mr. Williamson, please.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

With your ruling recognized, I'd like to move an amendment to the amendment. This is largely to remove the description of both individuals, just so we really get down to the core of what we're debating here. I hope members would agree that this is what we're trying to get in this.

I move that we strike what is on offer and debate the following: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee call upon Mark Carney and Jenni Byrne to testify before the committee for two hours each within 14 calendar days of the adoption of this motion.”

I think you'll find that's in order. It just clarifies what in fact we are debating, without additional language or additional baggage, which I think both sides are struggling with.

We have a clean motion that really gets to the heart of what we're debating here. It does not take away from either the motion or the amendment to the motion, but wraps it up, shortens it and cleans it up.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The challenge with that....

I get where you want to go with this, Mr. Williamson. I think I made my position on this clear. We're dealing, effectively, with the last line. Part of the amendment that we're dealing with is the addition to the preamble over and above what the main motion is.

Do you understand what I'm saying? The amendment that was proposed starts after “a six-month high”. We're dealing with an amendment that has three paragraphs in it and then the addition of Ms. Byrne in the last part of that motion.

The challenge for you in proposing this is that it doesn't accurately reflect what you want to do. That's why my suggestion is that we dispose of the amendment. We can continue to have debate on this and then come back. If it's the will of the members to delete the preamble and just deal with the heart of what this motion is all about and what the amendment potentially is all about, then we can look to add to that amendment, which includes the deletion of the preamble.

You're only dealing with half the issue right now. That's the problem. You're not dealing with the top half, which was moved in the main motion. You're dealing with the second half, which was moved in the amendment. I appreciate where you're going with this.

I don't have any other speakers on the list, so I am going to move to the amendment.

Do we have consensus on the amendment? Do you want votes?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Yes, let's have a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to move to the clerk now to take the roll on the amendment, which everybody has clearly established, to add Ms. Byrne, notwithstanding all the preamble, as well as “two hours” and “14 calendar days”.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])