Information & Ethics Committee on April 18th, 2023

[Mike Larsen]

This is not anomalous, in my experience. Our organization makes recommendations on reforms to transparency laws provincially and federally. One of the trends we tend to see when there is a public inquiry, an investigation, a commission or a review is that one of the first things that is presented is the administration of the act. Again, there are reasons to make those changes. What tends to happen is that government then champions those changes: “Look at what we're doing. Look at how we're increasing transparency. Look at the ways in which this is improved.” There is a lot of proactive disclosure. Meanwhile, the actual system, the legal basis, is left to atrophy.

Without impugning any particular motives, I would say that this is par for the course.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Larsen.

Thank you, Mr. Green.

We're going to go for probably another 10 minutes or so. I do have to leave time at the end for the budget on foreign interference, and that should go very quickly.

We're going to go for two and a half minutes each, if that's okay. I'm going to go to Mr. Barrett first.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Barrett.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

With 10 minutes left, I'm going to move a motion that was put on notice on April 13:

That the Committee immediately undertake a study and review of the Liberal government’s decision to appoint the sister-in-law of a sitting Cabinet minister, who himself breached the Conflict of Interest Act in relation to a decision concerning another member of his family, as the interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, provided that: (a) this study consist of a minimum of three hearings; (b) the Committee hear testimony from Martine Richard, the interim Commissioner, Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, and other witnesses the Committee deems necessary; and (c) the Committee report its findings to the House.

That's been circulated in both official languages to members of the committee and has met the notice requirements.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

The motion is in order.

Keeping in mind that I do need to keep time for the budget, do you want to say a few words on that?

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

Yes. Thanks, Chair.

The confidence that Canadians have in their democratic institutions is fundamental. We have independent officers of Parliament, whom Canadians trust to serve as independent arbiters of what happens with government. We have seen the important role the Ethics Commissioner has played since the creation of that office, and it added a level of accountability that wasn't there before, though I would argue that higher standards need to be applied.

We have standards that we have right now that need to be applied in a way so that Canadians are sure this is done in a manner that's beyond reproach, and that even the appearance of a conflict of interest is avoided in the appointment of the officer of Parliament, who's going to be discharging those duties and conducting investigations.

While I do hope we can dispense with this motion quickly with members of the committee having had it in their possession since Thursday of the week prior, I look to the committee. Hopefully, we can get to a vote, but perhaps you would like to take a moment to excuse the witnesses if this isn't going to come to a vote right away.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I am going to do that. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I'm going to excuse the witnesses—Mr. Rubin, Mr. Matas and Mr. Larsen.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.

Can I ask one thing of the witnesses, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Please, go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If there were rebuttals to some of the questions that you didn't have an answer for, I wanted to extend to you the ability to provide any supplementary responses in writing, because I feel like you got cut off.

Would that be okay, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that.

If the witnesses do have anything they would like to submit to the committee, please do. This is an ongoing study. I know we have another study scheduled for next week with a list of witnesses. If you can provide that to the committee and the clerk, that would be appreciated.

Before I go to Ms. Hepfner, keeping in mind the time, I really need to get this budget approved. Perhaps I can do this now. I will go to you in a second, Lisa.

We have a budget for foreign interference in the amount of $9,850. Is there any question on the budget at all?

Can I get unanimous consent from the members?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Hepfner, I may have to cut you off at some point, because we did agree to go to 5:30. Please go ahead.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I wanted to advise the committee that I am opposed to this motion. I will outline the reasons why.

First off, it's an interim position for six months. Ms. Richard has been in that office for more than 10 years. She served as number two to the previous...Mr. Dion, for much of his term, so she is the most obvious choice to replace him on an interim basis. She should already have an invitation to appear on the main estimates.

I don't understand why we would invite Minister LeBlanc for this particular question. He is not the minister responsible. He recused himself from the decision. He would have absolutely nothing to say as part of this discussion.

I think the final point is the timing. We already have a number of studies under way. We're involved in important studies on access to information. We have other studies that have been proposed that I think are very important—like the TikTok study. When this motion talks about immediacy, it gives me pause. It makes me wonder what we're putting aside for something that's really just a partisan dig and has no relevance to anything important that we're doing here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Hepfner.

Mr. Fergus, I have you next on the list. Again, keeping in mind the time, I may have to stop you and adjourn the meeting.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

I won't take up much time. I just want to reinforce my colleague's second point in the fact that the minister, as we all know, recused himself from any decision on this and was not involved in any way. I'm not certain what we would get and how we would be spending the committee's time by inviting him to come here just for him to say he doesn't know. He wasn't there, because of the recusal that was put in place—a recusal that was publicly known to everyone.

To the third point, Madam Richard served in this post when the previous ethics commissioner was ill and he took a leave of absence. It wasn't a problem then. I'm not certain why it's a problem now.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Is there any further discussion on the issue?

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want to go on the record about this, and, again, this isn't about impugning somebody who has clearly worked in this department for quite some time. I can't fathom a scenario where the commissioner would have to recuse themselves for the purpose of a perceived conflict of interest. I think that fundamentally erodes the faith in the institutions that we should be restoring.

I have a hard time believing that, in this population of ours, we couldn't find another person who.... Regardless of whether there's a conflict of interest or not, if there is a perception of a conflict of interest in the public's eyes, that's a problem.

I just don't understand why this government proceeds to continue these own goals, these self-owns. I would hope that, through the course of this study.... Not only that, but to put pressure on the person who has been appointed with an asterisk beside them for the entirety of their term is also not fair.

I would hope that the government or perhaps the commissioner would come to a more practical solution on this particular matter, which is why I will be supporting this motion. I think it's a completely unnecessary thing to do at this point in time when our democracy is fragile and there's cynicism out there. I will be supporting this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Mr. Villemure, I will give you a moment to speak. I have to leave the meeting at 5:30.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be very quick.

With regard to conflicts of interest, my years as an ethics adviser taught me something very simple: everything must be obvious to a reasonable person.

In the present matter, I think a reasonable person would have doubts. I share those doubts. That Is why I will also be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

It is 5:28. We had an agreement. I don't have any speakers. We can proceed to a vote on this, if you would like.

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

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Madam Clerk, can we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

Mr. Chair, the vote is five yeas and five nays.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I will vote in favour.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Thank you, everyone, for today.

This meeting is adjourned.