Yes, it's really quite something. Did somebody go to jail for that as well? Listen, I'll let another member talk about that, because I can't remember everything. I was doing other things at the time.
Our mandate is to be the committee that oversees those four critical independent commissioner roles, which, again, form the basis for us having confidence in our parliamentary system. As we saw the other day, the Commissioner of Lobbying makes sure that people registered as lobbyists are not at the same time acting as political advisers and vice versa. I won't go over that. I'm sure that's all on record from the last meeting. There's also the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and, of course, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
At the same time, Mr. Chair, you've reminded me that my fellow citizens are very interested in the work we do here. So I'd like to emphasize that this role of Commissioner is an interesting one. If I'm not mistaken, any member of the public or any member of Parliament can write to him with a complaint about something that has been observed. The Commissioner will then conduct an independent, fully confidential investigation.
We also don't want frivolous complaints or complaints sent out willy-nilly by opponents who just want to attack a colleague because he or she is a member of another political party. This is not at all the purpose of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Rather, his role is to give instructions to MPs. I think every member here is very concerned, in December or January, when they receive a certain email. It's an email we don't want to miss because, if we miss the deadline, we'll get a call, won't we? We'll be told that our financial report is overdue.
It's safe to say they're pretty meticulous about how this information is reported. What's more, I imagine that there are journalists, MPs, researchers, employees and members of the public who will take a very close look at this. For example, if they see that a member of parliament has shares in a particular company, they'll wonder whether the company has any contracts with the government. I think this gives work to quite a few employees on the Hill. But that's the system we have to have in order to make sure people follow the rules.
When the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner finds compromising information, he issues his findings in a report, and obviously, a fine may apply. I think the fine goes up to about $200. At the same time, the Commissioner will clarify exactly what happened, whether or not someone violated a regulation, and it's up to the member to correct his or her behaviour.
We're not talking about a sham tribunal, where a jail sentence is applied, or anything like that. It's just that I think my colleague is overreacting when he talks about guilt in a case which, frankly…. Don't you think I'm right?
As I said earlier, it can happen to anyone to forget an account, such as a tax-free savings account, a TFSA, for example, and for this information to become public.
In this case, I imagine the Commissioner could have refused subsequent complaints after the first complaint was filed, after the first investigation or the first time he concluded that Mr. Boissonnault had not violated any regulations. The Commissioner has other things to do. I imagine his time is limited. He's got a lot of work to do.
That's not how it happened. I think this just goes to show how conscientious the Commissioner is. He agreed to a second investigation, after which he produced a report saying that he had found nothing. Even the third time a complaint was filed, he said he'd found nothing.
He still testified about it, here, before this committee. On this side of the room, we're in complete agreement that when an incident raises questions, or we have the slightest doubt that the Commissioner isn't playing his role, we're going to question him about it.
I think that's what happened when Mr. Barrett made his first motion, when the Commissioner was conducting his investigation. It seems that it wasn't quick enough for Mr. Barrett's liking. Maybe that's not the right expression, but I think Mr. Barrett wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted both jobs. In my opinion, our role is enough for us and we should let others do what they have to do.
In addition, we heard testimony from Minister Boissonnault, who appeared before our committee, and I believe it was in June that we heard the Commissioner's first testimony. I wasn't at that meeting, but I think it's a sign of transparency to invite an officer of Parliament of this calibre to come and answer our questions very clearly.
In fact, the Commissioner made it very clear that the minister in question complied fully with the regulations of the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament.
The minister met all the requirements of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament with respect to the companies that were the subject of Mr. Barrett's complaint and motion. There was no need for the committee to conduct a study.
We should be careful about duplicating committee work and not prejudge what the Commissioner will find. I see that other committees are trying to do the work of an officer of Parliament. It's a bit peculiar. The risk is that a committee will put obstacles in the way of the Commissioner in question. I don't think that's anyone's objective here.
I'm thinking of all the work done by the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer. These are individuals and professionals who are very capable of carrying out the tasks entrusted to them. Parliamentarians, with all their privileges, can interfere with the work of these professionals. But I don't think that's the objective of anyone here.
The Conservatives were certainly not satisfied. In particular, Mr. Barrett was back at it again. Text messages were mentioned. Once again, we can ask the Commissioner to examine these text messages. I think all the members of the committee showed good faith. The minister proactively sent all his cellphone records and messages sent during the period in question. We received these same documents at the committee.
We saw clearly that Minister Boissonnault had not received any WhatsApp calls or text messages from Mr. Steven Anderson, who had a connection with the GHI company.
Certainly this was not Mr. Barrett's goal, but the Conservatives wanted to continue the attack anyway. They didn't want to let the facts compromise their story. When the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner reviewed all these documents, he said he found no evidence that the minister was involved.
In another committee—indeed, apparently it's not enough to monopolize the time of a single committee—the Commissioner made it very clear that Mr. Boissonnault had offered to give him all the information concerning his communications on September 8, i.e., his exchanges, telephone conversations, emails, etc. He said that he and his team had looked at everything that had been offered and that it was clear that there had been no contact between the minister and Mr. Anderson. I think that's pretty clear. I don't know if we want the Commissioner to testify at every meeting, but that's pretty much the case. Apparently, he has to be told the same thing over and over again.
Then Mr. Barrett continued. He asked the Commissioner if there had been any other messages or text messages. The Commissioner replied that he had asked the minister if he had any further information and that, should he receive anything else, he would be able to determine whether Mr. Anderson—and it is Mr. Anderson who should be targeted in this case—had used Minister Boissonnault's name in vain or whether there had actually been any conversations. Apparently, in a third committee, the Commissioner confirmed that there was no investigation concerning the minister. So they want to keep repeating the same story, no matter what the Commissioner said.
If anyone here ever wanted to question the competence, professionalism and quality of the Commissioner's work, I think I'd have a problem with that. I'm not saying that's the case, but I think it would be really unacceptable. We have a supervisory role here at the committee. We can call to account officers of Parliament who have a link with the committee.
However, Mr. Cooper, don't tell me that you were the one who, at one point, in another committee, yelled at the Commissioner asking why he wasn't investigating. Please tell me it wasn't you who did that. Frankly, that would be beneath you. I know you have qualities and I don't think you're the kind of MP to attack an officer of Parliament, independent of government, in the performance of his or her duties.
Mr. Chair, I think I'll stop here. I hope that my fellow citizens now understand my position and the reason for our work here.
I know they found the report from our study on misinformation and disinformation very interesting. It's something people are concerned about. They love Facebook and being connected with friends, family and all that, but they're much more aware now of the risks of relying too much on social media.
This is work that has been done by the members of this committee and I salute everyone who worked on this study.
I heard behind the scenes that Mr. Villemure might have an interesting motion for us and I'd love to have the opportunity to look at it, but we surely can't waste our time with repetitive motions like the one Mr. Barrett has tabled here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
