Information & Ethics Committee on April 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

This is actually the last round.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Ah, you guys and your—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Perhaps Dr. Giles could provide a written response to your question.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. On behalf of the committee and on behalf of Canadians, thank you for your work.

I'm going to dismiss our witnesses, and we will continue on.

We have 15 minutes to conclude this. We can't continue past 5:45. At that point, I will be moving to adjourn the meeting.

I'm glad that the analyst is listening to me at this point.

If we're going to deal with the business where we left off, we can thank the witnesses, and we need to get back at it because we have only 13 minutes now to deal with this.

Are there any hands up for discussion?

I'm going to go to Ms. Khalid first and Mr. Fergus right after.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead, please.

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

I'm actually going to let Mr. Fergus go first.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Fergus, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague Mr. Barrett for bringing this motion forward. There were some discussions that we had outside of this table that I would just like to confirm with Mr. Barrett.

My concern of course, if you will forgive me, is that this is an attempt, through the back door, to get to the issue we were dealing with last week before the interim Ethics Commissioner resigned. She has resigned.

I just want to get reassurance that she's being invited to come here only to talk about the situation that is referenced in the motion by Mr. Barrett regarding “the appointment of the former Liberal minister of industry, Navdeep Bains, as chief corporate affairs officer at Rogers Communications.”

I'm wondering if my honourable colleague could confirm that.

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

Chair, if I may....

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Barrett, and then I will have something to add after you have finished.

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

Thank you, and thank you to Mr. Fergus.

There is no permanent Ethics Commissioner who has been appointed at this time, and there is no interim Ethics Commissioner. Therefore, the most senior person, we understand, is the now former interim Ethics Commissioner, based on the position that she was in prior to her appointment.

Looking for someone to speak to the issue—this issue—is why the former interim Ethics Commissioner is named by position to be invited to the committee. The intent is to exclusively address the matter at hand in the motion—the appointment of a former minister to work at one of the entities they were responsible for regulating, specifically, Mr. Bains at Rogers—and not to deal with any other matter.

If this motion receives the support of the committee, and should the former interim Ethics Commissioner accept the invitation, the official opposition's questions would be confined to this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I would add this. One of the things that I've been dealing with—and it's been difficult to deal with as chair—is the lack of specifics in some of the motions that are coming forward. It leaves a lot of ambiguity and openness.

I'm going to suggest, before I go to you, Mr. Fergus, that we add the name of Ms. Richard, whom I assume we are dealing with here, to this motion, so that there is clarity. “Former interim Ethics Commissioner” could date back to 1980, if there was one.

I need that as part of this motion in order to deal with some clarity here.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Thank you, Chair.

The reason Ms. Richard's name was not in the motion was so that the perception wasn't that she was the focus. I would accept that as a friendly amendment, or support it if it was moved as an amendment, but my comments stand with respect to our questions being confined to the matter at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have Mr. Fergus and then Mr. Green.

Go ahead.

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

Just as a matter of debate—and I'm not going to drag this out—would it be better...? I'm not certain if the Ethics Commissioner's office has a role in this at all. It sounds like it's more of a lobbying commissioner issue. Would it be better to amend the motion to call the lobbying commissioner to find out what the limitations are on former members of Parliament and former cabinet ministers in terms of their activities post politics?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We'll have Mr. Barrett, only to answer Mr. Fergus's question, and then we're going to Mr. Green right after that.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

The rationale for having the Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying come to committee to speak to this issue is that members have obligations to satisfy that are overseen by both commissioners. It would be unfortunate if we were to find ourselves in a position where questions are raised with the lobbying commissioner and the lobbying commissioner says, “Well, that should be taken up by the Ethics Commissioner.” Then we'd need to add another meeting.

I would again offer, in the spirit of my previous comments, that if the Ethics Commissioner.... If Ms. Richard accepts the invitation, appears at the committee, makes her opening remarks, is asked a question and has nothing further to add, I don't see any utility in continuing questions to that effect.

In the interest of brevity—and of time, which we don't have a lot of—by having the commissioners appear on one day, we could dispense with this matter and provide for Canadians the accountability function that we are charged with. Then we don't need to redebate over multiple days. The committee does not have the resources to do that, and we don't have a lot of weeks left in the parliamentary calendar.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Because you had a question, Mr. Fergus, you still have the floor.

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

Thank you.

I have just one last change, and again, I'd like to see if members could see this as a friendly amendment.

It's similar to yours, John, but it actually runs in a different way.

Rather than saying after the word “and”—after your “Lobbying Commissioner and”—replace the words “the former Interim Ethics Commissioner” with “a representative from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner”.

Would that be the right thing? I'm trying to run this up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

From my perspective, I made the argument of being specific: If we're not specific, we could end up with somebody who knows nothing or has nothing to say about this particular issue. As chair, that's where my concern is, and charging the clerk with getting somebody in front of the committee if the motion does pass is difficult in that regard.

Go ahead, Matt.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

First of all I'll say that on the face of this, the optics of what transpired are outrageous. It's really outrageous to see where we're at with that merger, that minister and the appointment, which, in a way, looks like a patronage appointment.

I've come to my conclusions, and I think that in fairness to the individuals involved, this committee can present a way for facts to be presented to the committee in order to hold accountability in this space.

What I would suggest, in fact, even though I know time is of the essence, is that we consider perhaps sending an official letter from this committee to the former interim Ethics Commissioner, asking her if she's had any involvement, any communications, any advice, not just now but in the past. I would be keenly interested in knowing what type of advice might have been granted when Navdeep Bains was a minister. Did he receive any advice from the Ethics Commissioner related to his position as a minister and this particular company? I want all that information. I think this committee deserves to have all that information.

I am not clear about having the former interim Ethics Commissioner, given our past conversations and given her very linear relationship with Dominic LeBlanc. I don't want this committee to turn into that.

I would suggest, if the committee is open to it, that we direct the chair to write a letter to both, because I don't want to waste time having them come here and sit down and say in their opening remarks, “I know nothing.” Quite frankly, that's a waste of time and a bit theatrical. I am not naive to the way fundraising happens. All intentions could be good, but I don't want to see somebody impugned just because there is an insinuation that they may have been involved in some of this, because, quite frankly, at this committee it's never the crime; it's the cover-up, and I feel that we would put that particular person in a very difficult situation by bringing them here.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to put it to the committee that we look at a way of first verifying whether they had any involvement at all, even as senior legal counsel, quite frankly, between those two parties on that issue. I know they can't disclose it to us, but if they have, then they can come to committee. If they haven't, then I would say that we spare them the theatrics.

That would be my suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

The other thing I think the committee needs to consider here, too, is that the appointment process is a process. It does take time, so it perhaps wasn't the former interim Ethics Commissioner who was involved. It was perhaps the former Ethics Commissioner. I think it would be incumbent upon us to find out whether Mr. Dion was involved in this process as well, just to add to your point.

I didn't hear anything in terms—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I will move that as a direction, that we send a letter from this committee, and we would direct you, Mr. Chair, to send a letter to the office of the Ethics Commissioner to determine who within that department had any contact with the former minister while they were the minister or after they were the minister, whether it was the commissioner or any senior legal counsel, bearing in mind that they can't disclose the nature of it, just to confirm whether they had any contact with them.

If they didn't, then, to me, bringing them to committee is moot.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

One of the things that have also come to my attention is that there were newspaper reports saying that Mr. Bains did, in fact, proactively reach out to the Ethics Commissioner, so that also goes to your point, Mr. Green.

Mr. Green is proposing that we give direction to the committee. First of all, we have the motion on the floor, so we have to deal with the motion and dispose of it at this point.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, just so I'm clear, I am happy to move an amendment to the motion. I am all for having the lobbying commissioner come before this committee on the matter, because I do think that's germane, current and well within our mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

You're proposing an amendment to the motion that directs the chair to write to the Ethics Commissioner on behalf of the committee to determine specifically what involvement the commissioner had with respect to the appointment process. Is that correct? Is that what I'm hearing you say?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would go beyond just the appointment process and even ask if there had been any advice regarding Rogers even while they were sitting, quite frankly, because I think this story goes back longer than the appointment, but that's just my own opinion.