Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 17th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Shanahan.

Mr. Fisher, you're next.

Mr. Villemure, I saw that you had your hand up.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm looking at this motion, and I'm thinking about.... Brenda touched on November 2012, when PM Harper awarded Justin Bieber the Diamond Jubilee Medal and then attended the concert with his family that night. Obviously, that's something we'd want to add, assuming we can go back that far. Obviously, there's the NHL game that Stephen Harper attended at the TD Garden in Boston with one of his ministers. There's value in going back and seeing the documents so that we can see whether these are patterns for ministers and for former prime ministers. We definitely need to have a long conversation about this motion if we want to get down to the point that Mr. Barrett is actually looking for.

Madam Khalid talked about the opening couple of paragraphs. They don't need to be there. We could have a chat, for instance, about getting rid of the whole of paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), and working on the conversation on paragraphs (a) and (b).

I will say, Mr. Chair, that we didn't really expect a meeting today. We had a conversation about this, and it looked like there wasn't going to be one. I don't know whether it's just one member who needs to reach out to the chair to book a meeting. I assume that Mr. Barrett must have just reached out to you. I'm not sure how it all happened, and we're meeting at a different time of the day.

Obviously, the opposition-led committees have the ability and would take the ability, of course, to meet as many times as they possibly can. We don't have a problem with that. However, it does seem that this has cropped up. Mr. Barrett said that he had a motion and that we have to meet before Christmas, and we have a motion on the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Fisher, I can confirm that this was not what happened.

Thank God we have opposition-led meetings. Thank God.

Go ahead.

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

What I would ask is this: Are we going to—and can we take a little bit of time to—go back through history to look to see who went to concerts and who went to Stanley Cup games so that we can find out exactly what the tradition is, what the pattern is, and who has paid for tickets?

For instance, was this quid pro quo: Justin Bieber got a Diamond Jubilee Medal and then all of a sudden Mr. Harper's family gets tickets to the concert? I mean, inquiring minds might want to know that.

I would say that, moving forward, we would probably consider several amendments to this motion. I'll let the next person in line speak on this. Certainly we'll ruminate, and I'll go through the Google machine to find some other examples we might want to include.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Mr. Fisher.

I'll just reconfirm that I did call this meeting, as is my prerogative as chair. You'll notice that a time slot did open up from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., which is good, because I was trying to avoid that 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. meeting so that the Liberals could enjoy their holiday Christmas party this evening. You can thank my benevolence for that.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

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

Will the Deputy Prime Minister be there?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would certainly second your being allowed to have the moniker “John the Benevolent”. There was Alfred the Great and Ethelred the Unready, so I think “John the Benevolent” sounds very good.

I also want to come back to what I consider to be a sad commentary about Madonna. I personally think that Madonna is an incredible singer, and she was one of my favourites when I was a little kid. I really would appreciate a higher level of respect for Madonna. I love Material Girl.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I know that everybody is excited to get to the Christmas carols that I've prepared in both official languages that we're going to sing at the end of the meeting, but let's keep the meeting on track, please.

Thank you.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm looking forward to that, Mr. Chair.

Basically, I'm just looking at the motion. As we all know, the substance of the motion is what the committee actually orders for production. The preamble to this motion, first of all, goes into talking about food banks, which is completely irrelevant to the substance of the motion. The second point doesn't tell the full story of what the minister has already disclosed. For example, it doesn't mention his charitable donation of $1,500. On the third point, “The Prime Minister's Office has not clarified”—well, there's no obligation on them to actually clarify this.

To me, in order to avoid a lengthy debate about a preamble that really doesn't deal with the substance of the motion and that is unnecessary for the adoption of the substance of the motion, I would propose, Mr. Chair, an amendment to delete the preamble, meaning paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of the motion. I think that will help us get to a better discussion of the actual substance of the motion so that we don't have to worry about the superfluous language that is somewhat slanted in one direction.

That would be my proposal, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

The amendment is to delete the preamble.

Members of the committee are well aware of my thoughts on preambles. Let's get to the substance of what we want here as a committee, if we choose to vote for whatever the ask is. I'm not a big fan of preambles, because I do think they open up a tremendous number of problems in the debate, so I agree with Mr. Housefather on that.

We have an amendment on the floor. Do we have any discussion on the amendment?

Ms. Shanahan, go ahead.

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

Once again, I think we can always rely on Mr. Housefather to get to the heart of the matter. I fully agree that we don't need the superfluous language in the preamble.

I note that “Taylor Swift” is still in the main body of the resolution, so there is some question about tickets for other programs, other shows, other sports events and so on. I may have something to say about that when we're discussing the main motion.

On the amendment itself, I'm certainly in agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Shanahan.

I don't see any other discussion.

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

On the amendment...?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're on the amendment, yes. Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Brenda for moving that. I—

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

No, it was Mr. Housefather.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The amendment to delete the preamble was moved by Mr. Housefather. That's what we're on right now. I would love to deal with that quickly, if we can.

On the amendment, I don't see any other discussion.

Do we have an agreement on the amendment?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to call a vote. We have no agreement on the amendment.

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

If I may, if we don't have agreement, then I just wanted to perhaps—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm calling the vote on the amendment. If you have another amendment you'd like to make, then you can have the floor to move that, but on this amendment, I already called the vote. I asked for consensus, and there was none, so we're going to go to a recorded vote on the amendment to delete the preamble.

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

We are on the main motion as amended, which is the ask in point (a) and point (b). That's what we're on right now.

I had Monsieur Villemure, and then I'm going to put you at the bottom of the list here, Ms. Khalid.

Mr. Villemure will be followed by Mr. Cooper.

You're actually on the list, Ms. Khalid, above Ms. Shanahan.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

A long time ago, a French politician said, “If it goes without saying, it will go even better by saying it.” So I'm going to make a couple of points.

The amendment we just passed had to do with the preamble. The problem with preambles is that they can often be useful, but they generally contain value judgments as if they contain a conclusion before the debate is done, which isn't desirable.

With respect to the motion, I'll give the example of the Prime Minister, who has already had problems with gifts and conflicts of interest. However, you don't necessarily have to convict someone in advance. When you're Prime Minister, the chances are slim that you'll try to go to the Ticketmaster site to buy a ticket. It would even be unwise to do so.

So there's a certain logic to someone buying a ticket and paying the price. I fully agree with asking for a document that proves it. There's no problem, since the Prime Minister's history on gifts and conflicts of interest is indeed nebulous.

You can't take advantage of your office for personal gain. I agree, but was there another way to do it? I'm not sure. The documents will show that, but we must avoid having this committee become a permanent tribunal. Ms. Khalid and I are, I think, the only two original members of this committee.

Is that correct, Ms. Khalid?

We're the only members who have been here since the beginning. We've witnessed debates that have served the public interest. I believe that these debates will contribute to positive change.

However, some questions are raised, and Mr. Barrett's is a good one. However, we mustn't become, under the wording of the motion, a court whose purpose is to always convict someone in advance and to act as such.

I'll support the motion because asking for documents is reasonable. That said, I'd like the committee to note that our role isn't that of a court, and that there are bodies such as the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner that will be called upon to judge this type of thing.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

It's Mr. Cooper, then Ms. Khalid and Mrs. Shanahan.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper, on the motion as amended.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a motion that Canadians, frankly, deserve to see in the way of transparency on the part of this government. The fact that Minister Sajjan was offered and accepted tickets to a Taylor Swift concert is a classic, straight-up conflict of interest. The minister accepted tickets from PavCo, a provincial Crown corporation. PavCo receives funding from the federal government, including $116 million in the past year to upgrade BC Place in advance of the World Cup.

The Conflict of Interest Act is crystal clear. It says:

No public office holder or member of his or her family shall accept any gift or other advantage...that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the public office holder in the exercise of an official power, duty or function.

Mr. Chair, here you have a public office holder, Minister Sajjan, accepting a gift for himself and his daughter from a Crown corporation that seeks federal funding and that has received federal funding from a minister who sits at the cabinet table and makes decisions about whether or not to fund that Crown corporation. That is a conflict of interest.

The fact that the minister, after he got caught, suddenly said, “Oops, I'm going to return the tickets” doesn't end the matter. That's not good enough. He got caught. That's the only reason he decided in the 11th hour not to attend. The fact of the matter remains that he was offered the tickets and accepted the tickets. We need to know exactly how that took place. There needs to be a level of accountability.

Frankly, it is reflective of a pattern of conflicts of interest and ethical lapses in this government. Minister Sajjan would not be alone in putting himself in a position to violate the Conflict of Interest Act. After all, his boss the Prime Minister—the serial lawbreaker—has broken the Conflict of Interest Act not once but twice. He's the first prime minister in Canadian history to do so.

That brings me to the Prime Minister. He attended the Taylor Swift concert in Toronto. Tickets were going for, in some cases, thousands of dollars—