Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 17th, 2024

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

By allowing him to get away with this....

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Let me ask you a fair question. Do I know what he's going to say until he says it? Does anybody in this room know that? I can only deal with the words that are spoken and with the actions.

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

Right, and once they are spoken—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm dealing with it as best I can. I've asked everybody for some calm. Let's get through this motion as best we can, without name-calling on all sides, not just on one side. That's how I'm dealing with it. If you have a better suggestion, then let me know.

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

I will say that no one on this side has said anything close to offending Standing Order 18, as has been said by two of the three—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Fine.

Ms. Shanahan, go ahead on your point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I find it surprising that you claim that you don't have the power, the authority, to bring decorum to this committee, because indeed you do. You can demand that the member withdraw his comment. You asked him to apologize, and he refused to apologize. That's a direct challenge to you. You can then go further and can ask him to withdraw his comments. If he refuses to do that, then I think you need to take the next action, which is for you take it from there. If I were in your place, I would ask your whip to remove him as a member of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that intervention.

I'm asking for decorum. I expect decorum from this point forward. I am not going to accept anything less than that. I'll deal with it if I have to.

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

I have the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead. You have the floor—

I see Mr. Maloney's hand up. I don't know what that's for.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I was going to get involved in this point of order, but just add me to the speaking list, please, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid. You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Since I was interrupted, I would like to clarify that at the beginning of my remarks, I said I was going to start by countering some of the points Mr. Cooper made in his remarks. It was Mr. Cooper who was talking about the Conflict of Interest Act, not me. As he was talking, I was making notes on exactly all of the instances in which he was being quite hypocritical in his remarks. If I'm ignorant and he's hypocritical, it is an eye for an eye and we'll make the world blind.

I'm trying to get through this meeting. I'm trying to have a respectful conversation and take partisan politics out of the work we do. We have, in so many ways, stepped away from the true meaning of this committee.

Mr. Villemure and I have had these conversations many times. All I'm trying to do, Chair, is see how we can better ensure that parliamentarians—all of them—conduct themselves in the manner a parliamentarian should. That doesn't just mean obeying all the rules of the House; it's being respectful, not name-calling, and making sure conflicts of interest—not just actual, but also perceived—do not happen. I have said this many times before in this committee: We need to do a thorough review of how this happens, instead of a piecemeal review here and there, depending on whose political objective is being achieved, because that's not the role of this committee at all.

I think we can do better. Again, I'm quite embarrassed by what Canadians have watched today as a result of the conduct of my colleagues here.

I'll park my comments there, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor. Go ahead.

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

Well, thank you, Chair.

I want to put on the record that when abusive comments are made and unparliamentary language is used by members, it's not the individual members who are affected: It is the honour of this House. It is the honour of our Westminster parliamentary system, which relies on people being able to speak with each other.

They must address each other in a respectful manner.

We are not here speaking on our own behalf. It's not our own particular interests we are bringing forward. It's the interests of the people we represent and Canadians as a whole.

That is why, Chair, I must say that I am disappointed that you have not taken a firmer hand in the conduct carried out.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mrs. Shanahan, I have two options if the meeting is disruptive: suspend the meeting or adjourn the meeting. Those are the only two options I have at that point. I've chosen not to do that, hoping we can get through this motion. I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I'm exercising my authority as chair the best way I know how, and I'm not going to accept your challenging me on that. I'm doing my best here.

I've asked for decorum, so I expect decorum. That's the way we're going to proceed. If we don't have it, I'll think about those other two options.

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

Indeed, Chair, your role as chair is primary to that respect occurring. I would appreciate all colleagues here, when you ask for decorum, respecting that decorum, because, again, it's not about you personally, but the role you occupy. I will park those comments there.

Moving to the motion at hand, there appears to be a question here of ordering PavCo, which I believe is a ticket distribution company of some sort—I don't know, since it's been a while since I bought concert tickets—“to provide to the clerk of the committee, within two weeks, all records” and “providing of tickets for any of the Taylor Swift concerts at BC Place”, etc. Members have the motion before them.

As I said in my discussion regarding the amendment, I have questions about why.... if we're concerned about—I guess this is what we're concerned about—undue influence being wielded by the offering of Taylor Swift tickets, I guess times have changed, but maybe not so much, because we heard how it was a question in earlier Parliaments of Justin Bieber tickets and a question of hockey game playoff tickets and whatnot for members, and not because members were themselves special people but because the role they occupied would have been accorded some kind of special favour or privilege.

When we hear that any member of Parliament or any senator is potentially in that role, it might be worth exploring the records of each and every parliamentarian, whether it be around a specific event or enlarged and spread out.

I want to think about that a little more, because it's not really my cup of tea to do that kind of thing. In fact, it is the role of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to investigate if and when there is a complaint, either by a member of this Parliament or by a member of the public vis-à-vis the conduct of a member here. This is why we are advised—and we heard it from the commissioner himself on several occasions when colleagues were going down another rabbit hole—to consult with the Ethics Commissioner as often as we feel the need to when we are faced with a certain situation.

This is because any member at any time can be offered something that may be questionable during the course of their duties. It may be okay or it may not be okay, and it's not every member. What you think would be an open-and-shut case or a black and white situation is not always so.

We are very fortunate that we have the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to consult. Apparently, that was the case for Minister Sajjan when he attended, I believe, some kind of fundraiser in support of a food bank. He made a donation, the tickets were offered and he consulted the Ethics Commissioner, who said there was no problem with that and he could go ahead, but other people had plenty of problems with it, and Minister Sajjan declined the tickets in question.

Again, it's something that.... I look to a colleague like Mr. Villemure.

There are principles and regulations. Often, however, regulations don't fully reflect the principles. I agree that in some cases it's better to act beyond reproach. That was the minister's decision in this situation, but it took away the opportunity for some of our colleagues to question him and to take advantage outright of a very high-profile situation, since these were tickets to a Taylor Swift concert.

If it were a question of receiving a set of coffee cups or something, I don't think that would have received the same attention. They could have been very nice coffee cups. They could have been Tim Hortons coffee cups, which can go for a pretty penny sometimes, but no, that would not be of interest to colleagues who were seeking to take advantage of a grey zone situation.

I have to say that I am really of two minds about whether this is something that is useful for this committee to look at. Is there sufficient concern or risk to our institution? That's really what we're talking about when we talk about issues of conflict of interest and ethics on the Hill in both our Houses, although here, of course, we just deal with the House of Commons. The question is, are we looking at a situation that could cast any doubt or bring a shadow over the institution in question? That is what really needs to be addressed, over and above any particular details of whatever that situation may be.

As I said before, clearly, if I had been offered Taylor Swift tickets, I would not have taken them. Maybe I could have sold them on eBay; I don't know. Maybe I would have had some takers here, even in this room. That was not a situation that I was faced with, but it can be imagined that parliamentarians would be faced with a number of situations that, again, are in that zone. They're not out-and-out brown paper bags filled with cash. It's not that. It looks different, and there can be some question as to whether it is something that could cast a shadow over our institutions. That's where I am on paragraph (a).

On part (b), Chair, I always have a problem with “within one week”, “three days”, “48 hours”, etc., especially when we're heading into a period when we know that Parliament is closing down and there's a holiday period, or people are on vacation, and so on and so forth. To me, we have to give an opportunity to the people who do this work to do it properly.

As I say, I'm not really aware of what's involved. It's not like pulling up your own bank account and seeing what you pay for, although on that note, Chair, I wish people would pay more attention to that sort of thing, because they would then be more aware of their own financial situation. I'm alluding to something that happened to me earlier in the day, but that's neither here nor there.

Again, on the two minds, if we were to go down this road, what are we looking for? If we're going to look for it, we should look for it with a net wide enough to provide helpful information and result in something that can be used to better protect our institutions. If that's not the case—if, really and truly, the commissioner is sufficiently enabled to take the means necessary to protect the institution through his investigative powers—this is of no merit whatsoever and is not something I would support.

I'm going to leave it at that, Chair. However, can you put me back on the list? I want to come back with some of the other thoughts I've parked for the moment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

I have Mr. Fisher, Mr. Maloney, Mr. Housefather, Mr. Barrett and Mrs. Shanahan.

Go ahead, Mr. Fisher.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you also for your efforts to keep decorum in this committee. However, I will still state my disappointment that there have been no repercussions for breaking Standing Order 18. I find that very disheartening. I'm sure there's something in your chair's handbook that allows you to ensure that either repercussions or an apology are forthcoming over comments made towards Ms. Khalid. I can't imagine a situation in which the chair could just say, “Stop”, “What?” or “I'll tell you to stop again.” We've had these conversations at this committee before, because it's all about the clip.

René, you and I have talked about this before—the clip. You get your 30 seconds. You get your little clip that can go on Facebook, where you're refusing to apologize, so it looks like you're refusing to apologize to a Liberal member. However, Standing Order 18 is one of the Standing Orders that ensure we show decorum to other members.

Frank, you and I had a conversation about this before, when we were travelling on committee business. “Wouldn't it be great if we treated each other better in our committees and in the House?” Well, it's great to say that in private. It's great to say it when there are no cameras. It's great to be friendly when it's an in camera meeting. However, it's very distressing to see that lack of decorum among people who are elected to represent their communities.

I'm not a hyperpartisan person. You've probably never seen me be super-partisan, and you probably won't. I understand there is somewhat of a game to the business of politics, when we do everything we can to score political points and make the other people look bad, and I get it; I've been here for over nine years. I've seen it. I've seen it done well. I've seen it done well by some of the Conservative members in this room, but it's not done well when you lash out at somebody, make a negative comment and refuse to take that comment back. That's not what we should expect of people in this committee.

I will tell you that when I first joined this committee, I felt like.... Mr. Chair, you called it a “shooting fish in a barrel” committee, and everybody chuckled. I thought, “This is going to be nice. We're going to have a nice committee where people respect each other but hit hard and score political points.” For several weeks now, we have actually had meetings like that. It's been quite good for some time, but I can't get past the decorum standing order—Standing Order 18.

I'm going to say something people may not agree with here: Abuse at this committee is almost always directed towards Ms. Khalid. She's no shrinking violet. She will fight back. I'm sure I don't need to be fighting on her behalf right now, but I say as her friend and as a friend of members on the other side of this room who are also virtual right now that I'd like to think that I'd stand up for them as well. I honestly would like to think that people know I would stand up for them.

Getting back to the motion, I think there's value in having a really good, fair discussion and we're not calling people liars, absurd or preposterous, a discussion in which we could check this out, have this conversation and talk about past news stories that don't become motions at this committee because a prime minister was in Boston for an NHL game seven or because PM Harper went to Scotiabank Place to see Taylor Swift in 2010. I'm not really that concerned about it, but if we're calling apples “apples” and oranges “oranges”, maybe we need to find out. Did he get a free ticket? Did he pay market value for that ticket for a Taylor Swift concert in 2010? I have no idea.

I think Mr. Cooper said that Canadians need to know and are demanding answers. I checked back with the constituency office, and I've not had one person ask about Taylor Swift concert tickets—not one. I'm not sure, with all of the important things that are going on in the world right now, whether this is the top-of-mind issue that Mr. Cooper said it was.

I would say that having a full conversation on what we want to accomplish, including members of Parliament, ministers from the past and prime ministers from the past, is maybe a worthwhile discussion, but it's a rabbit hole, and I'm not sure it's a rabbit hole that we necessarily need to go down.

I think these types of cases should get sent to the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner should rule on them. That's why we have these commissioners, but we've seen in the past that when we've had the Ethics Commissioner come back with a ruling that said, “There's nothing to see here, folks”, then there was another motion saying that we'll bypass him because our job is to get to the bottom of this, regardless of what the Ethics Commissioner—who is an integral part of the ethics committee—says.

I'm happy to hear again what other people think about broadening this and adding some things to this motion to see if we can actually get to the bottom of this.

That's all I have at the moment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher

Next on the list, I have Mr. Maloney.

Go ahead, sir.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Look, I may be the only person in Canada who woke up this morning wondering how John Diefenbaker got tickets to see the Beatles at Maple Leaf Gardens in 1967. I suspect fewer people woke up this morning wondering how any other politician, either now or ever, got tickets to a concert.

This motion is a colossal waste of time. It's unproductive. It's embarrassing for anybody watching this, if there is anybody other than staff members. If Canadians were to watch the debate that's taking place today during this committee, they would just shake their heads in shame, regardless of which party's talking.

I signed on this morning to help out one of my colleagues who couldn't attend. Then I see you, Mr. Chair, and I see Mr. Cooper—two people whom I've worked collaboratively with in the past and for whom I have a great deal of respect—and I sit back to watch the meeting, and what do I see? I see a bunch of name-calling. It looks like a schoolyard, as Mr. Fisher has pointed out. Ninety-five per cent of it is directed at one of my colleagues. She is no wallflower and she could defend herself, but the behaviour that I've witnessed at this committee is absolutely shameful.

I'll repeat myself: Anybody who watched this would think it's a disgrace. I think anybody who's been behaving in this way should just stand up right now, raise a point of order and say, “I'm sorry, that was really pathetic.”

If you look at this motion—I will end with this—it's so ridiculous, because nobody cares. It comes from Mr. Barrett, so I guess I shouldn't be the least bit surprised, considering his greatest contribution to Parliament that I've seen is baseless character assassination.

Mr. Chair, in the interest of preserving decorum, I would hope you would adjourn this meeting and put an end to the misery that we're all experiencing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that advice, Mr. Maloney, but I'm not going to do that.

Mr. Housefather, go ahead.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was still looking forward to having you lead us in Christmas carols.

I think that rather than taking the opposite tack, I'd prefer to take the tack that we are in a holiday season. We're in the Christmas season. We're in the Hanukkah season. We're in the season of probably other festive holidays from different religions. I'm hoping that we can put a Christmas truce in place here, because I also am somewhat disturbed by the type of language being used. I really hope we can remember that we're here to be productive. We're here to be colleagues. We're not here to insult one another. We're not here to fight with one another. We can disagree, but we can disagree, as Scott Aitchison and I have always said, without being disagreeable. It feels like too much that has happened today has been disagreeable.

That being said, let me come back to the substance of the motion. The main purpose of this motion is difficult for me to understand. We're ordering various productions related to Taylor Swift concerts. As my colleagues have pointed out, for umpteen years different politicians have gone to concerts like this.

PavCo is the company mentioned here:

(a) Order PavCo to provide to the Clerk of the Committee, within two weeks, all records concerning the offer or providing of tickets for any of the Taylor Swift concerts at BC Place to any federal ministers, officials, or ministerial exempt staff, including copies of any related communications; and

Well, PavCo is a provincial Crown corporation. It is not a federal Crown corporation. It is a provincial Crown corporation. PavCo has said that its standard practice is to make these offers, and it continues to want to do so in the future. That is what I've read in multiple articles from the CBC and CTV and other sources.

If there is an issue with PavCo and PavCo's practices, should it not be a committee of the B.C. legislature that looks at PavCo and its practices and determines whether or not on an ongoing basis this is a correct means by which PavCo continues to promote its concerts at BC Place or other venues? I fail to see the link to the Parliament of Canada in the practices of PavCo.

Then you get to the fact that minister is covered by the conflict of interest and ethics act, which means that this committee has jurisdiction over the minister, Minister Sajjan, in his decision to accept a ticket or two tickets to the concert. However, we also know, from all the information we have, that Minister Sajjan didn't accept free tickets. He made a $1,500 donation to a food bank, which was what BC Place had suggested or PavCo had suggested—making a donation to a charity. He checked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner before doing so.

Now, all parliamentarians deal with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It's not just ministers or parliamentary secretaries like me and Ms. Khalid. We all, as parliamentarians, deal with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We should be able to rely on the advice we receive from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It's not correct that if the minister is told by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner that this is in compliance with the act, the committee should then be able to discredit the advice given by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and pursue a different level of inquiry.

Maybe politically it's not smart to take tickets and maybe it's not a smart political decision, but it's not a violation of the conflict of interest and ethics act, which is what the committee's jurisdiction is. It's fair if the Conservatives want to criticize the minister for taking the tickets and say that it was silly politically, but it's not a violation of the act. The commissioner actually gave him advice that he could do this.

I'm less and less convinced that this is the committee's responsibility. If we have a problem with what the minister did, we should ask the Ethics Commissioner to look into this matter. If the committee wants to pass something to ask the commissioner to look into what happened, I have no problem with that.

However, I find it problematic to ask a provincial public company to produce documents in connection with a file for which the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner gave favourable advice to the minister.

I think we're prolonging this discussion because there's a new motion today. It shouldn't be before this committee and certainly doesn't meet the needs of Canadians right now.

Mr. Chair, I'll give the floor to the next person.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Ms. Shanahan is next questioner.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank my colleague for providing clarifications regarding PavCo. I now have a better understanding of the situation, particularly why we were talking about fundraising and food banks.

I think that kind of thing still happens quite frequently. As I was saying earlier, if there are problems with PavCo, it's up to the government of British Columbia to deal with them.

I don't know if it's the practice of committees to call provincial public companies, but I think that would be quite bizarre. I don't think there's any precedent.

Let's imagine that Loto-Québec gives tickets to a show. I don't know which artist is popular right now. Mr. Villemure could certainly give us a name or two. I'm more from the time of René Simard, but let's take the example of Céline Dion, who is back and whose performance in Paris I greatly appreciated.

If this crown corporation was giving tickets to a Céline Dion concert, and if federal ministers were among the people who received them, I don't think the Government of Quebec would want a federal parliamentary committee to start asking questions about its procedures. This question almost discredits the proposal, in my opinion.

I also think that talking about the price of a ticket that a minister, a member of Parliament or a federal public servant agrees to pay leads nowhere, and only satisfies people's curiosity about the tastes of certain parliamentarians. I don't think that would help us do our job and protect our parliamentary institutions.

Either it applies to all possible concerts, which opens up a whole universe to explore, or we'll just leave it at that, because as my colleague also explained, that's the commissioner's role.

If a ticket exchange for any concert were to result in some kind of contract, that would be called influence. That's not at all what we're talking about, and the commissioner has all the powers needed to do that work.

Mr. Chairman, since I'm still thinking about all this, I'll give the floor to my honourable colleague Mr. Villemure, but I would ask you to put me back on the speaking list.