Evidence of meeting #57 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 businesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I will take it, and let the record show that in the opposition—the Bloc and the NDP—we can work closely for the benefit of Canadians.
Ms. Alvaro, I want to get back to some of the metrics you brought forward. A company as sophisticated as yours would keep expressively detailed reporting mechanisms to show value for money, yet that wasn't released in any of the documents we received.
Would you have shared those outcomes with Ms. Ng's office?
10:30 a.m.
Communications Professional, As an Individual
I believe we certainly would have shared the earned media impressions, the number for which I have in front of me now, which was $5,146,800—
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's okay.
Would you be willing to submit those, or actually all of the documents?
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That would be helpful for us, because as somebody who struggles to gain market scope in social media, I know it's difficult, but when I did a preliminary search for some of the hashtags and for some of the Twitter livestreams, I didn't find much. It could be a problem with Twitter's search engine optimization, but I think I found maybe two posts. Hopefully you can point us in the direction of where those things are and where they landed, maybe with links to some of the interactions that were there so that we can get a better understanding of the scope in terms of the value for money.
In your comments in your testimony, you reflected frequently that the Ethics Commissioner did not find fault in the work. Would you not agree that wasn't within the scope of the mandate, that the mandate of the Ethics Commissioner was particular to the conflict of interest, to the recusal?
10:30 a.m.
Communications Professional, As an Individual
No. I think that the Ethics Commissioner.... I participated in that investigation over a period of time, and there were many, many questions related to the work. He found no fault in the work or the need for the work, or the contract amount. I think that if it wasn't in the scope, he wouldn't have asked the questions.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay, but yet, as an ethics committee.... I used to serve on OGGO, which is government operations, where questions of procurement would have been essential to our investigations and study there, whereas here at the ethics committee, the recusal is the problem.
As somebody from the outside looking in, somebody who presumably has dealt with politicians in crisis communication situations and scenarios, you'll note that our Conflict of Interest Act does have administrative penalties. They're nominal. Quite frankly, you'll recall.... I'm sure you're very familiar with the WE scandal and Morneau, and I think it's around $500 or something like that.
Do you have any insight or any thoughts around ways in which we can create a deeper level of accountability by having clearer consequences in place for when people contravene the Conflict of Interest Act?
10:30 a.m.
Communications Professional, As an Individual
I could be wrong, but I think it was in the Ethics Commissioner's purview to determine whether or not he would apply that consequence in this matter—the $500—which he did not, but again, I think—and we spoke about this earlier—that there are screens that could be put in place—
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I want to go to deterrence, though, because the problem we have in this committee is that the Liberal government keeps getting caught with its hand in the cookie jar, as it were, in multiple scandals and investigations. I would like to get to a place where our legislation is clear, the definitions are crystal clear, the trainings are in place and the consequences are there. At the end of the day, I would tend to agree with my Conservative friends that when you look at the Bev Oda $18 orange juice, there was a time within the House of Commons when these types of transgressions came with real consequences. We seem to be beyond that now.
Would you not agree that if somebody were to be caught in a situation like this—not for an $18 orange juice but for a $16,000 contract without a screen—there should be greater consequences?
10:30 a.m.
Communications Professional, As an Individual
I would definitely defer to the Ethics Commissioner on that question, and his determination—
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
The Ethics Commissioner can only provide findings on the legislation that we provide to them. We're legislators.
10:30 a.m.
Communications Professional, As an Individual
But there's also the fine that you mentioned. Is that correct?
10:30 a.m.
Communications Professional, As an Individual
But he didn't apply it. Isn't that correct?
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
He did not in this instance, no. I would put to you that it's not good enough to keep having to come back to this committee with these scandals when there aren't really clear consequences in place, because obviously when the minister is left to her own devices, an apology and a commitment to working harder do not resonate with Canadians who are struggling to get by.
Do you have any reflections at all—and I'm not even talking about your friend Mary—moving forward, about how providing clear consequences, having clearer definitions within the act and having greater checks and balances in place may prevent somebody like you from having to spend their time in front of a committee like this?
10:35 a.m.
Communications Professional, As an Individual
I think members of the committee and members in the House of Commons would have a much greater understanding of what that should be than I, in my communications capacity, would have.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Green and Ms. Alvaro.
We are going to go to Mr. Barrett, but I do have something I need to inform the committee about. We've had a request come in from the media for the documents that we received last evening. There's nothing in the motion that deems the documents confidential, so I've advised the clerk to be mindful of any personal information but to supply the media with the documents that we receive. I just want to make that clear to the committee.
The other thing I would say on the documents is that those we received last night were in advance of the Tuesday noon deadline to receive all documents, so we may not have received all of the documents at this point. I just want to let the committee know that.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure that in our considerations we're including that Ms. Alvaro has agreed to provide the outcomes and metrics and materials that would have been subject to her consultations with Ms. Ng.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you for that, Mr. Green.
I think there's a clear understanding by Ms. Alvaro with respect to supplying that to the committee. I would also remind the committee that the motion doesn't allow us...or there's nothing in the committee that would propose a report to Parliament, so any of the documents that we are going to receive will be for the benefit of committee members in looking further into the circumstances of the contracts and the work that was done.
I just want to make that clear, Mr. Green. Okay?
10:35 a.m.
NDP
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
There's nothing at this point that would cause that to happen. Thank you.
Mr. Barrett, you have five minutes.