Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

[Caroline Maynard]

The top five institutions are always the ones that will get the most orders, because they have so many files. They are Library and Archives, the RCMP, PCO, National Defence, and I can't remember the fifth one but I can send you the name.

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

Has the current Liberal government gone to court to prevent your orders from being carried out?

[Caroline Maynard]

As I said, a few institutions have actually challenged the orders, most of the time because they've found that the timelines I gave them were unreasonable. They were trying to obtain longer delays to respond to an access request.

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

Following the projected time that they said it would take for them to fulfill the orders, do they fulfill the orders 100% of the time?

[Caroline Maynard]

Most of the time we have to settle, because the orders have been respected by the time we get a hearing. Basically, the system of going to court is to gain some additional time.

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

Do you know what it costs your department for you to appear in Federal Court?

[Caroline Maynard]

We have our own legal counsel, but I had to increase my legal counsel team by three employees to respond to that.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I'll go to Ms. Khalid next.

Go ahead. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both our absolutely awesome witnesses for being here today. I really appreciate your input.

I'm going to pick up on something that MP Damoff talked about in more general terms. I'll be a bit more specific.

There was reporting last month about the sponsored travel disclosure from five Conservative MPs who, based on the disclosure, took quite a lavish trip to London. The MPs on the trip were John Williamson, Stephen Ellis, Philip Lawrence, Rosemarie Falk and Shannon Stubbs.

Included in their expenses were 600 bottles of champagne, porterhouse steaks, chateaubriand, smoked salmon—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Did you say 600 bottles of champagne?

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

I apologize. That's $600 bottles of champagne, along with porterhouse steaks, chateaubriand and smoked salmon, which cost over $6,200 for one night out to dinner. It's pretty strange. One of the strangest parts of that disclosure was a $360 Uber trip.

What really stood out to me, though, apart from all these lavish expenses, was that four of the five MPs were sponsored by Canadians for Affordable Energy, an organization launched in 2016 by MP John Williamson. I don't think he's a Liberal; you might want to check with him. The only exception was that Mr. Williamson, who was also on this trip, had his travel covered not by the organization he had launched but by the Danube Institute, a conservative think tank based in Hungary.

I'm just wondering, Madame Bélanger, if you're aware of this story. Is this something your office is looking into?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I'm aware of everything that's going on in the media. We have a team that goes through and looks at everything. I can tell you that everything you see, we're on it.

However, for every trip, for every sponsored travel, for every reception, for every gift that's out there, the first step is to verify whether or not the groups that have donated are registered lobbyists. Otherwise, I don't regulate them.

That's really all I can say with respect to anything on the work we do on the compliance front.

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

Thank you. I appreciate it.

I would love your insight here. Would it have been inappropriate for Mr. Williamson to accept sponsored travel from an organization that he used to work for, one that he founded? If it's not inappropriate according to the act or the code, do you think it should be?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Again, many public office holders are calling my office. I don't regulate whether you can or cannot accept a gift. That question can be asked of your next guests over the next hour.

Whether or not that sponsored travel or that gift can be provided from a lobbyist, which is the first step, comes to me. Right now, the only gift that can be provided is a $40 gift of a token of appreciation to say thank you for something you have done and $40 hospitality. I am very strict on that with respect to registered lobbyists.

Whether the other side can accept that $40 gift or that $50 or $60 gift from whomever, registered lobbyist or not, is for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to decide.

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

Do you think this is an issue of concern, though?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Due to the fact that it's in the media, I would say yes.

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

I know some of the most common examples of sponsored travel would be CIJA bringing MPs to Israel and Palestine, or the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada hosting trips to Taiwan.

In this specific case that I outlined, we have a Hungarian think tank paying for a Canadian MP to go to the U.K. Do you find that unusual?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Whether or not that gift could be accepted, again, would have to be put to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's office, which is why a previous commissioner said there should be an acceptability test. Whether or not this group is registered to lobby, I don't know.

This is happening on all fronts. I think it needs to be regulated. Certainly, from the lobbyist perspective, I'm regulating it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid. That's five minutes.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Maynard, you stated earlier that access to information was a quasi-constitutional right. I know that in a past appearance, the Privacy Commissioner spoke of a fundamental right to privacy.

Would you go so far as to say that access to information could be elevated to the status of a fundamental right?

[Caroline Maynard]

Yes, definitely. Ultimately, without access to information, without knowing our rights, without knowing what's going on in government, we can't understand what's going on at that level, make democratic decisions or vote.

Based on the Supreme Court's interpretation, it's all part of and flows from the right to freedom of expression. That's why we're saying that it's quasi-constitutional. I feel that's misunderstood. However, more and more, Canadians are realizing that information is crucial to their choices or the way they live their lives. Therefore, we could certainly go so far as to ask that it be considered a constitutional right that must be protected.

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

Would you agree that lack of information prevents understanding?

[Caroline Maynard]

Isn't that the foundation all the time when we make any decision in our lives? We need to know the facts so we know what to base the decision on. To be able to make so‑called informed choices, we need the whole story, all the information that should be considered.

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

So lack of information prevents us from understanding.