Evidence of meeting #146 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tickets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Shanahan.
Committee members, for your information, I asked the clerk if we could have more time after oral question period.
Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll forego my usual restraint. Indeed, I'm not in the habit of speaking intensely regarding certain debates.
Mr. Barrett's question is an interesting one. Is this offence a priority? Is it one of the worst? The answer is no in both cases. It's not uninteresting, because the Prime Minister has a bad history when it comes to gifts and conflicts of interest. However, as one member said earlier, the debate we're having is being blown out of all proportion.
A person in a position of authority will certainly be offered things, whether it be you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fisher or Mr. Caputo, for example. I suppose we'll judge properly whether it's acceptable or not.
Being held to account is what lies at the heart of a conflict of interest. Is a person beholden by accepting a favour? You could say that the tickets to the Taylor Swift show, which are sold for $15,000 on the black market, are significant. As I said earlier, when you're a prime minister or president of the United States, there are limited options to get certain things—Bill Clinton said that that going to McDonald's was hard; at the same time, you get a bunch of stuff that you don't usually accept.
I think it might be worthwhile to ask for documents, but I'm surprised that they're making such a big deal out of it.
We are members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Ethics is the pursuit of just solutions according to the circumstances. However, that's not what I've been hearing from the outset, and I find it disappointing.
I agree that the committee should ask to see the documents. As Ms. Shanahan was saying earlier, the Ethics Commissioner gave the go-ahead. If we don't agree with the commissioner's verdict, it's up to us to change the act or code. We also have the privilege of amending privacy legislation. We are asking for that, but it's not being done. I believe that the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons in its current form has a lot of flaws. However, at present, the commissioner is responsible for enforcing those shortcomings, which creates political problems, as Mr. Housefather said.
I think we have to give this case its full weight. Mr. Barrett is asking for documents; let's get them and we can analyze them. No one has died. We can't treat this as the worst offence, because it's not.
I'd very much like for us to move forward. To pass the motion, we have to vote, and in order to vote, we have to stop talking. Talking to the point of exhaustion will still lead to a vote. I'd like us to avoid exhaustion and vote on the motion, which I will support.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. Villemure, thank you for your intervention.
Next on the list I have Ms. Damoff.
Go ahead, Ms. Damoff. We're on the main motion as amended, just so you know.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I was asked to fill in for a colleague today and I was happy to do so. I'm sad to say that I'm having a bit of déjà vu here.
If the Conservatives don't like the ethics rules, why aren't they bringing forward a motion to study the legislation? Repeatedly, we have the Ethics Commissioner make rulings, and then the Conservatives say that they don't like what the Ethics Commissioner said, so we need to do this or we need to do that.
As a member of Parliament, I have several times consulted with the Ethics Commissioner to get an opinion on any number of things. I rely, as do all of us in the House, on advice from the Ethics Commissioner. Why do we have one if the Conservatives then say that even though the Ethics Commissioner was consulted and approved of some advice, they don't like it, so we need to have a motion at the ethics committee?
I'm actually sad to see that when I'm back after several months of being on other committees, it's like a broken record here at the ethics committee. It's not only on the motion: When I joined the meeting today, once again Mr. Barrett was disparaging Ms. Khalid, which is something that happened repeatedly when I was on the committee. Obviously that hasn't changed either. It's unfortunate that there's a lack of respect between parliamentarians.
I'm really saddened by this. I think it's unfortunate that we can't have a conversation on issues without it being personal and without disparaging other members of Parliament. I would hope that committee members, in particular those who do use these disparaging comments, would think twice before doing it.
Mr. Villemure from the Bloc knows how much I respect him and his opinion, but I have to disagree with him that we need to see the documents in order to make a decision on whether or not to proceed. Quite frankly, the motion the committee should be debating today is on the actual ethics rules.
I know there have been comments from all parties, quite frankly, on how the ethics guidelines need to be updated. Instead of looking at that and actually doing something productive as a committee, it's one more, “Oh, we have a gotcha moment. Let's bring a motion to committee, because we think we have a gotcha moment.” This is coming from the Conservative members.
I'll be honest. My goodness gracious, with everything going on in Canada and the world right now, what's being debated at the ethics committee is a Taylor Swift concert. I saw online former prime minister Stephen Harper with I think Justin Bieber, and with Taylor Swift. It's mind-blowing to me that this is the pressing issue of the day that the Conservative Party feels it needs to have debated in the House of Commons at a committee. I would think there would be other things that we could be looking at that would be far more important to Canadians.
Chair, I'm going to leave it there, but I did just feel that I needed to pipe up and say that it's unfortunate that these same conversations that were being had months ago are still being debated without actually getting to the crux of what the problem is.
I'm not even sure it is a problem, but I think a valid conversation this committee could have would be about how and if the guidelines that the Ethics Commissioner uses could be updated. I think that's a valid conversation that we can have, but to play gotcha and to be disparaging other MPs in committee is, in my opinion, a waste of time. It's also disrespectful to colleagues on the committee when their reputation is being disparaged by other members.
I'll leave it there, Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you very much, Chair.
I was very glad to hear the comments of my colleague Ms. Damoff, because I know that she served here on this committee. When she said that she felt that it was déjà vu all over again, I feel like I could commiserate with her, because I was on this committee as well in a previous Parliament.
There's nothing new about this tactic that has been chosen by the Conservative MPs here to effectively take whatever ruling the commissioner has made, question it and, frankly, proceed as if no prior consultation had taken place and as if there was no ruling by the commissioner. In fact, in one case—a recent case—it was, I think, four times that the commissioner had ruled on the case of a minister, and that was not enough. Not once, not twice, not three times and not even the fourth time was that sufficient for the members in question.
It is really regrettable that instead of taking a proactive view, which I think we could all agree on and in fact was what Ms. Khalid was making her arguments about.... We recognize that there are indeed some gaps, as Monsieur Villemure has said, and a requirement to update the act regarding conflict of interest and the code of ethics for parliamentarians.
It is difficult. We talk about the difference between principles and regulations. Regulations do try to capture every possible situation that can arise in contravention of principles. However, human nature is very imaginative, Chair, and people think of different ways to circumvent them. I guess they think it is their privilege to do so.
I'm speaking about something that came up at public accounts because it had to do with spending by members on their travel expenses. Conservative members used the pretext of a caucus meeting in Quebec City to pay for travel not only for themselves but for spouses and staff to attend what was effectively a partisan political convention—which is normally paid out of one's own personal pocket—at the same time and, for all intents and purposes, in the same place.
Taxpayers were not fooled, because Mr. Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Association, normally someone who one would think is inclined to agree with a Conservative point of view, denounced that practice. He was inflamed that such expenses were claimed on the taxpayer dollar. He certainly made that clear in his comments regarding fiscal prudence and the judicious use of taxpayer money, and he certainly had something to say, as did other commentators.
That is an area that indeed is worthy of this committee to be taking up, to be looking at. I believe we're way overdue on the updating of the act respecting conflict of interest and the code of conduct for members. I think that would have been an exercise that would have been very much welcomed by all members of this committee, but indeed that was not the choice of this committee.
I wasn't here for all of those discussions, but I certainly would have been on the side of undertaking that study and looking at it. Let's provide the context, especially in modern day, of what the kinds of situations are.
Again, Mr. Chair, I come back to this: It's not about a gotcha and it's not about getting this person, that person or the other person. It's about looking at the risk and the potential for the actions of anyone who is a parliamentarian, who is representing Canadians, who is working on behalf of Canadians. It's about the risk that their actions may result in a diminishing the institutions that have been handed to us over many generations, some with fine tuning, changes and updates over the years, but they are institutions that still adhere to the basic principle that we are here not on our own behalf, not for our own interests, but for the interests of Canadians and for the interests of Canada.
I say this knowing full well that this view may not be shared by all members at this committee, but I know that the purpose of conducting our affairs is to ensure that Canada is well represented on the world stage and that we are able to encourage economic development and prosperity across the country. I often say to my constituents that my role as a federal member of Parliament is to ensure that every part of the country enjoys the same standards and has access to the same opportunities, which means that constituents in the smallest village in Jardins-de-Napierville should enjoy the same opportunities.
I'm very happy to say that we have seen significant investment in our region over the past 10 years, and I'm very proud to have played a role in that. It's not Brenda Shanahan by herself who did that; I was working in conjunction with municipal authorities and provincially elected members, who have changed, of course, over the years, and stakeholders in the region.
What would sadden me is if I had constituents who could not have confidence in the people they had elected to represent them here in Ottawa, which is just a place. We have to meet somewhere, so this is where it is. It is this idea of Parliament, where we're able to speak together and work together, and we do so in our respective roles.
That is why I believe, Mr. Chair, that we don't refer to each other by our personal names in the House. We are not allowed to use our personal names. We must always use either “the member for such-and-such a riding” or the executive title the person holds. To make it even more clear, I'll say that we are not addressing Sally, Joe, Jean-Guy or Céline; we are addressing the member for such-and-such a riding or the minister of such-and-such a ministry. That is the way we conduct ourselves in that regard.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, with regard to this motion, the more I reflect on it, the more I am not at all convinced of its having any merit. I would like to hear from other colleagues to see if any other arguments can be brought forward that would convince me otherwise. In the meantime, I think I'll leave it. Perhaps we can hear from other colleagues here. That would help me in my thinking.
Chair, you can put me back on the list.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I googled what the mandate of this committee is. We're tasked with studying issues “related to reports of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner”. We have the power to ensure that Canadians' personal data is protected.
I see my old friend Glen Motz, whom I've been on committee with in the past. I look forward to hearing what you have to say, Glen, on this particular motion.
We have the power to ensure that Canadians' personal data is protected. Certainly we've talked about this a lot, about this increasingly digital world and the difficulties with protecting that data. We've had conversations within the last two or three weeks on this and the importance of it. We have the opportunity to improve access to information so that our democracy becomes open by default and more transparent. These are some of the issues.
Mr. Chair, I spoke about how this committee has worked quite well for several weeks in a row in getting the important things done that fall within this mandate. When I first got to this committee, we were full of gotcha moments. We were full of gotcha motions. There were several motions put forward at a time. Decisions were made at the last minute, or at least revealed at the last minute, for which motion we would be talking about and which clips members of the opposition might get for their social media pages. As I said before, I'm not super-hyperpartisan, but I do find some of that political gamesmanship annoying.
Indeed, it can be harmful, as we saw earlier here in conversations. I spoke earlier about Standing Order 18 and decorum in committee. It's disappointing and it's harmful when we see stuff like that happen at committee.
I'm still not convinced that this motion is necessary. I'm not convinced of that, based on the number of things I'm hearing back home about this, which is basically zero. What the people back home do care about and what Canadians, I think, across the country care about is that their representatives, regardless of their party affiliation, are working to make their lives better and to understand the issues that Canadians are focusing on and to find ways to work together to make those things better.
Inflation was very high. It's come back down to the Bank of Canada rate, which is very good news. I'd like to say that it took a lot of the work of parliamentarians, but I would say that there are some parliamentarians out there who would probably like to see inflation go back up. I think they look at that as a political opportunity for themselves. Again, that's harmful. That's hurtful. It's extremely depressing that we would look for negative things to happen in our country so that those things might make us look a little bit better politically.
Again, I see that as hugely disappointing. I would like to think that we'd all be pulling in the same direction and let the differences in policy shine through. In a true democracy, you would then have Canadians getting a chance to make a decision, an informed decision, on different policies. I guess I could even include different ideologies. There are people who think centre. There are people who think left. There are people who think right. It doesn't bode well for them to just hear us beating each other over the head with negative comments, insults and derogatory remarks.
Again, it goes back to the 30-second clip that you see on Twitter or that you see on social media. That's become the norm of the day in politics. I saw it happen in other countries before it happened here.
We've had studies on social media and the effects that social media can have. It's great that you can now reach Canadians immediately, but is it great that you can reach them with some of the hateful, hurtful things that happen in the House of Commons and at committees these days? I don't think that seeing that kind of poor decorum, day in and day out, is something Canadians in my province and in my riding—or in Mr. Motz's riding, for that matter—feel is good for democracy and good for the state of Canada.
Again, to go back to Ms. Khalid, she takes the brunt of an inordinate amount of that negative decorum that we see, particularly in this committee, but we also had Ms. Damoff here for a little while filling in for another member, and Ms. Damoff has chosen not to run next time because of the hateful comments, and not just those made to her but those made to other people. It puts us in a position where we start to wonder whether this negative power that we see day in and day out is something we want to deal with.
I'm not, at this very moment, ready to make an amendment to this motion as amended. I'm still waiting to hear debate from the other side as to why this is so important, topical and on the minds of Canadians, even though, technically speaking, it's not within the mandate, unless we agree to send it to the Ethics Commissioner and have the Ethics Commissioner come back to us with his thoughts on this particular issue.
Again, I see that a member of the opposition is going to speak on this, so please add my name back to the list, Mr. Chair, after we hear from Mr. Caputo, I believe.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We won't be hearing from Mr. Caputo until after question period.
Next I'm going to go to Mr. Chahal. Mr. Chahal, I may have to cut you off at some point so that we can get to question period.
Go ahead.
Liberal
George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the opportunity, and for not cutting me off yet. The last time I was here at this committee, I was unable to place a point of order or even get a few words out, so I appreciate your giving me the opportunity. I get to deliver some remarks today.
I see Mr. Caputo is here from Kamloops. Mr. Motz is here from my home province of Alberta, and Mr. Barrett is strolling back into the room with other colleagues as well. He's from the province of Ontario, the province we're sitting in right now. We're here in the beautiful city of Ottawa, representing Canadians from coast to coast to coast in this committee room.
I came in today and heard about some of the antics at this committee. What really concerns me about decorum, as was raised by my colleagues Mr. Fisher and Ms. Damoff, is the partisan attack against one of the members of this committee.
It's extremely unfortunate that Conservative members think it's okay to attack parliamentarians and attack one of my colleagues. As many of my colleagues have said, it's quite harmful for the individual. Inciting this very toxic behaviour in these committee rooms and in our Parliament is a constant behaviour among Conservative politicians. We see it day in and day out.
I can tell you, Mr. Caputo, from my time as chair of the natural resources committee—the committee I still chair—that last year we saw Conservative members turn that committee into one that just spent time targeting individuals. Mr. Villemure, you may be aware that Ms. DeBellefeuille, a member of your party, the Bloc, was in the middle of voting and was threatened. She was unable to participate in debate or hear the chair—me—and the clerk read the roll, and then was threatened by members of the Conservative Party. We should all remember how Conservative members of the natural resource committee—members who had subbed in—threatened a member of Parliament who just wanted to be able to hear the translation.
You also may recall how that all started. It was the Conservative members' opposition to a number of bills. One bill was for the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. It was Bill C-49, which is going to open up billions of dollars in investment for our offshore wind industry. As we know, Conservatives are opposed to clean energy projects in this nation, whether it's on Canada's east coast or.... The beautiful provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have an opportunity to build prosperity. Why are there delay tactics? Why is there the targeting of members of Parliament and committees, when all they're here to do is work on behalf of their constituents?
In my home province of Alberta, we've seen attacks by the Conservative Alberta provincial government on renewable energy. If you don't know, we've done some work on this at the natural resources committee. They're saying we're up to $33 billion in lost investment.
Mr. Chair, you'll understand the narrative of where I'm going once I get to it a little later on and why this is so important for what you're discussing today.
Projects are being delayed or cancelled, and investment is leaving our beautiful province of Alberta. Southern Alberta—where Mr. Motz is from, just a little south of where I'm from—is one of the sunniest parts of the country. We have an opportunity, whether it be the town of Cardston in that county or in other counties in southern Alberta that have relied on energy as a source to get funding so their communities can grow and prosper. We're now seeing many communities concerned about the cutbacks they're going to have to make to infrastructure projects because the funding is no longer available or the royalties they're hoping to get from these new clean energy projects just won't be available.
Why? It's because of a partisan ideological attack on renewable energy across this country and in my home province of Alberta by Conservative politicians. Albertans are asking, how does that happen? Let me tell you how it happens: We have an ideological premier who has a war on clean energy. Well, how are they solving the problems of the province of Alberta by not bringing on new investment opportunities, good-paying jobs and new energy sources?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I can't help but smile about the tenuous connection between travel and the—
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I'm not done, Mr. Chahal.
I can't help but wonder about the tenuous connection between travel, the Liberals' polling numbers in Alberta—given their policies—and Taylor Swift.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm going to go back and remind Mr. Chahal—I know he walked in a little bit late in this meeting—of the motion that we're dealing with. It's that the committee:
(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
(b) Order the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office to provide to the clerk of the committee, within one week, any records concerning payment for Taylor Swift concert tickets which the Prime Minister purchased.
I make that point because we're not discussing anything having to do with natural resources.
Generally, I give a lot of latitude to people on this committee. You're chair of a committee; you understand that. I'm going to ask that you come back to the motion as amended, please.
Go ahead.
Liberal
George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for highlighting that. That's what I was going to do. I think you need to build the narrative to understand why Standing Order 18 is so important and what the thought process is of Conservative politicians. I'm going to get to exactly what you're talking about today.
I have a nice headline here from the Edmonton Journal: “Alberta ministries again decline to answer questions on luxury box playoff tickets”. Whoa, can you believe that?
Mr. Chair, I see my colleagues across the way, and I might have an amendment as well to include into Mr. Barrett's motion at some point, once we see what's going on, because I think there are a number of things we could add into it.
I also want to hear a little bit more debate from Mr. Caputo and others. This does involve Mr. Caputo's home province as well, in some of the narrative that these journalists have provided regarding Conservative politicians using luxury boxes over and and over again.
Now—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm going to cut you off here.
I'm going to suspend the meeting. The expectation is that we'll be back in this room at 3:45 this afternoon.
The meeting is suspended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm going to call the meeting back to order.
When we last left our heroes, Mr. Chahal had the floor, but I understand that he is ceding the floor to Mr. Villemure.
Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I move that the meeting be adjourned.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Is there unanimous consent to adjourn the meeting?
That doesn't seem to be the case. So we'll have a recorded vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)
The motion to adjourn the meeting carries.
Before we adjourn, I want to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a happy Hanukkah, for those who are celebrating.
I want to also thank our clerk, our analysts and all the technicians.
I hope you all take some time off during the Christmas break.
I hope everybody is able to spend time and relax with their family and come back invigorated.
You can now start singing Christmas songs.