Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2022

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I chaired the Standing Committee on Justice.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I apologize, Mr. Chair, but I have a lot of respect for you as chair of the committee, as I have for Ms. Khalid as chair of the Standing Committee on Justice.

I hope we can agree on two meetings. It is reasonable to think that four hours of testimony will be ample. I would be very surprised if it took any more than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Next I have Ms. Khalid, followed by Mr. Green.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I want to again just highlight that getting through these witnesses within two meetings is absolutely possible. We have six witnesses listed here. I think, with a one-hour block for each, we should be able to get through all of them.

I understand the importance of this motion. I also understand the importance of ensuring that we're spending our time as efficiently as possible. I think having two meetings is a very efficient way for us to get through this issue and to move on to other important issues that are also on our docket, Chair.

Again, I am just saying to members opposite that we would like—and I think it's reasonable for me to suggest—to do this study within two meetings. I will also highlight that had members of the opposition consulted with us and we'd had this conversation rather than being called in on a 106(4), we could have used this as one of the meetings to be more efficient, instead of having the opposition trying to find “gotcha” moments, which makes no sense to me at all. We're at the table. We're trying to play ball. It would be nice to have those discussions.

Again, just looking for efficient use of our time, I think that two meetings would be quite sufficient.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I want to note the use of the word “efficient” while we're simultaneously experiencing a mini filibuster, with the government side debating themselves on the matter. When I look at this, I need to be convinced that there is a smoking gun. I'll say, out of whatever goodwill may be remaining around the table, that from my perspective, if in the first couple of meetings—although I have no interest in maximizing it at two—if within the first two or three meetings, let's say, if I find the evidence does not compel further exploration, I would be open to reducing it from three weeks to two weeks or something like that. However, I will be supporting the motion as it stands now, knowing that the committee has the purview to either extend or conclude, depending on the evidence that's presented.

What I will say, though, is that if we're going to talk about efficiency, then let's show it, right? Let's not filibuster topics where we could just quickly move through the business and get to what needs to be done here. From that perspective, I'm putting it out there to all parties that if we embark on this and it becomes apparent early on that there aren't in fact ethical breaches that would be relevant to the mandate of this committee, then I would be open to concluding the committee or having it referred to other places.

As it stands now, based on what is reported, and having spent some time on procurement and public services on OGGO and on public accounts, I can share with you that I'm concerned with how this is being presented. We've heard it here today, with the implications of donors from both the Liberal and Conservative sides. I thank the member from the Bloc for raising this important issue. I think it's timely. This notion that somehow it's just coming out of the blue suggests that maybe perhaps folks aren't keeping up with the news in Quebec. I know I do: Sometimes I make it, and I certainly watch it.

From that, I just want to put it to all parties that if we get into this—and I quite frankly don't think there's anything there—you may find that I withdraw my support from making it go for four, five or six weeks. If we get the evidence that suggests or demands further exploration, I'm also on for extending it if it so requires, to have more witnesses. Ultimately, with these issues, if there's one point—and they're quite right—that I would concede to my friends on the Liberal side, it's that these exercises erode public trust, and when it erodes public trust, it's not partisan.

Basically, people look at all of us the same way, including parties that may or may not even be involved, so I want to go through it carefully. I'm hopeful that we can explore topics like what it's like to be a whistle-blower within government, what it's like to have procurement that is open and transparent, what the code of conflict looks like, what lobbying looks like—all these things that pertain to the mandate of this committee.

Those are my only remarks for today, and they will be my only remarks. I just want to put everybody on notice.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Now I have Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, for the benefit of Canadians watching us on television, I must say that I really appreciate Mr. Green's input, but I can imagine how it will play out. If we decide on six meetings, what Canadians do not know is that the first thing we will do as members, in camera, is draw up the list of witnesses. If we are talking about a four-hour meeting, we suggest witnesses to take up four hours of testimony, and we select people who we think would be in the best position to give us the most relevant information for our study.

If we decide to have 12 hours of testimony, everyone will have a bucketful of proposed testimony. Everyone will invite someone to appear, their brothers and sisters, cousins. I expect that, after a few hours, we will find there is really no issue, there is no scandal. Then people will say we have to wait until we have heard the 24 other people proposed to appear before the committee. We will have listen to everyone before deciding that there really is no issue, even though we knew that from the outset. That is how it goes.

I know Mr. Green would like us to be very efficient, but let's be frank. We will find a way to continue that kind of testimony until we have reached or surpassed the reasonable limit for digging into the matter.

That is why, Mr. Chair, I think that, in the interest of efficiency, we should carefully select the people we invite to discuss this matter. In that way, we will be able to determine whether there is a prima facie case to be explored. There is not.

Moreover, if we decide on six meetings, they will drag out over several weeks. It is important that we find a way now to decide how we will approach this matter. I might not have been the best student at university, but if there was one thing I knew how to do, it was answer exam questions. Even before I started answering the questions, I always did a quick overview of the whole exam, to get the bigger picture. We have to do the same thing here before we invite everyone and his dog to appear just because we have to fill the allotted time. I think it would be better to take a look at the situation. We could even ask our analysts to prepare a document to help us.

If we take Mr. Green's sound suggestion, we would plan for two meetings, four hours of our time, and would invite the people responsible for awarding the contracts for this program.

Then, if we find any concrete evidence, we could pursue the matter further.

On the other hand, allocating six meetings, or 12 hours of our time, when there are other matters to be considered, I really think that would be a huge waste of our time. I think it is entirely reasonable to take all the time we need to debate this now.

If we are to discuss the options to determine exactly what we want to study, we should take the time to do that today, rather than waste six or seven meetings later on.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, if they keep filibustering, I'm not going to [Inaudible—Editor]. That's all there is to it. If they keep it up, I'm going to withdraw.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Threats serve no purpose.

Let us take the time now to set the parameters for our forthcoming meetings. It is often said in Parliament that what is most valuable to a member is time management, and that is exactly what we are doing right now. I think we need to recognize that. Otherwise, it is really a witch hunt and a waste of time.

I do not see how we could justify six meetings on this matter. We could have a good discussion with witnesses. We could ask relevant questions because we would know our time is limited. If someone would like to suggest fewer than six meetings, I would very likely want to hear them.

I think we are taking it too far, going beyond what is normal. So I will vote in favour of Ms. Khalid's subamendment, and I hope others will follow suit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I have Monsieur Paul-Hus on the subamendment.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to remind my colleagues opposite of an instance when our committee did a study that lasted just one meeting. It was relating to the Frank Baylis contracts. There was an ethical problem: Mr. Baylis had a government contract worth $237 million, although the whole market said it was not worth more than $100 million. He got an absolutely excessive contract to make 10,000 fans. Our committee held just one meeting on the subject, and we never got to the bottom of the matter. It is big ethical issue. We never found out how a company called FTI, that was created a week before receiving the contract from a guy who manufactures auto parts in Ontario, who was later linked to Frank Baylis, obtained a contract worth $237 million. That would have warranted several meetings.

Mr. Chair, we can see the structure and organization in the Lacolle sector: there are clearly-identified conflicts of interest and ethical issues, and there are other unknown relationships with companies that received contracts in recent years. I have visited the site myself several times when I was responsible for public safety. In 2018, for instance, I saw tents built to accommodate 3,000 people that were never used. Who won those contracts? How did that come about? Why can we not get any information about it? We need a lot more than one or two meetings to get the full picture of what happened there. We are talking about half a billion dollars spent in the past five years. Now the contracts are being renewed.

I think six meetings would be entirely reasonable, given the complexity of the whole mater. If, after three meetings, the committee has obtained all the information it needs, we could wrap it up then. It is essential that we schedule six meetings though, even if we finish earlier if everyone has answered. If we simply present an amendment saying that two meetings are enough and sweep it under the carpet, it will be the same outcome as in the Frank Baylis case.

There are problems with Tango Marketing, for instance, a contract worth a hundred million dollars for masks from China, which in the end were rubbish. Fortunately, the government took it to Federal Court, but the fact remains that it is a contract with old friends of the party. That is not the first instance of questionable practices since 2015. In that case, there were quite specific factors that merited further attention.

In this case, two meetings with five-minute blocks to ask a question would not be sufficient.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I have a lot of respect for my colleague Mr. Paul-Hus, but as we say in English,

jumping the shark.

Yes, Mr. Paul-Hus, quite a scandal was made of Mr. Baylis and his partner.

We invited him to appear before the committee, but we did not even use all the time allotted for questions because everyone immediately realized that he was dud.

I was a member of the committee, but you were not there. Mr. Baylis has there with his partner, a well-known Conservative, who had invited Mr. Baylis to join him. What are you doing now? You are just mudslinging, Mr. Paul-Hus. I expected a lot better of you, given your experience in Parliament and your excellent reputation. We had quite the discussion here.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I have a point of order. I would just say that the debate is not relevant to the amendment. We're talking about having only two meetings. I just think we should give it to the function of the meeting. To go in about individuals and all that.... I think we should just be talking about—

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Pardon me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan, for raising the issue of debate on the amendment itself, or the subamendment.

Mr. Fergus, you had quite a bit in that intervention without yet getting to the subamendment. I would ask that you do so.

Go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am raising this point because, when Mr. Paul-Hus made his remarks, he mentioned the former member for Pierrefonds—Dollard six, no seven times, saying something that sounded off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No one said anything because he said we had only one meeting on the issue. We spent a lot of time on that issue. We spent a number of meetings discussing the matter and came to the conclusion that it was a witch hunt, a smear campaign against a former member of the House.

Getting back to what Mr. Green said about setting out on such a campaign when there is no substance, nothing that is founded, spending six or seven meetings on an issue when there is nothing...

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Fergus, speaking to the point of order....

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, I am referring to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you. Yes. I tried to keep Mr. Bezan's intervention pretty quick on that, and I awarded, I think, a fair bit of latitude in your intervention. I merely point out that your remarks should address the subamendment. Just be careful to do that as you continue.

Go ahead. You have the floor.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I will continue talking about the subamendment. We said we would limit it to two meetings.

Mr. Chair, when there is no other proof than finding a person's name on Elections Canada's public and transparent list of all Canadians who donated between $100 and $1,600 per year to a political party, when that is the only thing people are interested in, I find that very unfortunate.

The result is what Mr. Paul-Hus suggested. These are nothing but unfounded allegations. That is why I think six meetings is too many, and I say that once again with a lot of respect for Mr. Paul-Hus. As I said, he is someone who has a good reputation that is well deserved. He made an error this time, and that is unfortunate. Saying such things is not to his credit, in this instance. He has a good and well-deserved reputation, and I hope he will stop repeating things like that. I am certain he will not repeat them outside this room. I hope he will not do so here either.

Let us get back to the matter at hand, the subamendment and the two meetings. Mr. Chair, once again, this is the best way to get a good overview. If there is something fishy, we can pursue the matter further or, if something shocks us, we can refer the matter to the people who can conduct a full investigation, such as the Auditor General. There is also the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I am convinced, and I would even bet on it, that it will not go very far and that we will not have two waste four meetings that we could have set aside—as we should—to consider access to information and other matters raised by a number of members at this table.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Seeing no other speakers, are there any opposed to the subamendment?