Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 17th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Duncan.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the chance to speak to and weigh in on Mr. Barrett's motion here today. There are a few points that I think are important for Canadians to understand and, frankly, to refute what the Liberals and the NDP are offering in terms of the standard that could be set here.

It's important to remind ourselves, particularly the Liberals and the NDP, that we are here in the circumstance of another scandal involving the Prime Minister taking vacations or taking gifts. In this case, it's the free gift of a vacation in a luxury rental of around $85,000. The fact is that his story and the Prime Minister's Office's story have changed three times.

Let me give an example of the concern or frustration that I have with this. If I go to the Ethics Commissioner.... If the Prime Minister goes to the Ethics Commissioner and says, “I'm taking a vacation. Am I allowed?” and gets a yes, he says, “We already got pre-approval from the Ethics Commissioner.”

The fact is that the story changed three times. It's important for Canadians and this committee to know—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

—and to see the documentation of what has happened in the changing story. What exactly did they provide as context to the Ethics Commissioner?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Mr. Duncan. We have a point of order from Ms. Khalid regarding the Standing Orders.

Which one is it?

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

I just wanted to clarify one thing. The Ethics Commissioner does not give clearance but provides advice on how to.... I would just like to advise the member of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's a great point.

Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I find that very interesting, because it was the government House leader who used the word “pre-approved” and said he checked with the Ethics Commissioner, got advice and got guidance, but the important—

[An hon. member]

Advice and guidance, that's—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Duncan has the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Duncan, please.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

It's especially telling that the Liberals are riled up about this, because the Prime Minister could proactively table the information to this committee to clarify. If there's nothing to see here, then trust but verify. Go and show what he asked and what information he provided to the Ethics Commissioner.

His story to Canadians changed three different times. What did he provide to the Ethics Commissioner? Did his story to the Ethics Commissioner change three times? I think that is very important.

If the Liberals are going to fight over whether it's advice or guidance, or the government House leader's use of pre-clearance or precheck—whatever it may be—the Prime Minister could address this proactively and provide those documents to show clarity and put an end to part of this. He refuses to do so, and now the Liberals and the NDP are refusing to do the same thing.

I would just say, Mr. Chair, to refute the points of the Liberals and NDP here, this is not a blanket opening of the advice being provided to any MP. We're doing this, we're here at this meeting today and we're having this conversation and these meetings because the Prime Minister changed his story three times.

It's important to know, when they said they talked—or whatever term they want to use—to the Ethics Commissioner, the context or lack thereof the Prime Minister gave. If the Prime Minister and his office gave the same changing story three times that he gave to Canadians, there's a problem here. We deserve to see the paper trail.

There should be no reason in this case.... Because the Prime Minister, again, changed his story three times, he should proactively provide it if there's nothing to hide. The fact that they are blocking this and hiding behind things, I think, has Canadians wondering what exactly is up.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Madame Fortier.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I'll skip my turn. I'm ready to vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Mr. Blaikie has his hand up.

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is just by way of a response to Mr. Duncan. I think one thing that he points out here—it is kind of odd to have the Liberals interject on this, because it was initially the story that came out of the House leader's office, I believe—is that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner doesn't pre-approve things. I know this from my own experience. Folks offered me a $20 ticket to something in the riding, and I contacted the commissioner's office. It doesn't seem like a big deal. It's a riding event. They are offering to have me come. Could I accept this $20 ticket in order to get into this community event that I've been invited to? I was surprised at the fact that I couldn't get an answer one way or the other. I was happy to follow whatever the direction was, but there was no direction.

I can't imagine that the idea that a trip was pre-approved is true. I know that in my own case, even on something relatively straightforward, it was impossible to get an answer. I'm sharing that information with the committee. I didn't end up going to that particular event, as it happens, but I think it is important that I be able to make those consultations.

I don't think we need to see this documentation to know that the story is not a real story and that the answer proffered by the PMO is not the real answer. What I think matters is whether the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner looks into this. That's what matters. Is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner going to look into this, and if so, what are the findings of the commissioner? I don't need to see a bunch of documents to know that three different stories out of the PMO in the space of two weeks means that our BS detectors should be firing. Absolutely they should be. It's why we're at this meeting. It's why there will continue to be discussion around this.

Is it ridiculous to have three different answers about the trip come out of government within two weeks? Yes, it is. There's no question. I don't need to order up documents to know that something ain't right with three different responses in two weeks about the same vacation. It's not about whether we get to the bottom of the fact that something isn't right and that the answers coming out of the PMO are not only not consistent but two of them, at least, must not be true. If any one of those three answers is true, the other two aren't. The question comes back to this: Were the rules followed, and are the rules adequate? The person to answer that is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the very person we've already invited.

This isn't about a cover-up. This is about recognizing that.... I appreciate that the Conservatives are saying that this is just one member, it's the leader of government and that's significant, but it is a precedent. They know very well how precedents work in this place. I hear Conservatives speak often about their love of the Westminster parliamentary system and common law and how that works. How that works is that, when you set the precedent of the committee pre-emptively ordering up communications that are supposed to be privileged from an office that is there, as a day-to-day function, to provide advice to members on what would be consistent with the code and what wouldn't, you risk creating a precedent that normalizes that practice. It can have a chilling effect on members' willingness to reach out and contact certain members.

There have been stories about Liberal and Conservative members, for instance, who have rental properties and, particularly in the context of debates about a housing crisis, how appropriate it is to have members who are commercial landlords weighing in on those issues. I respect that they may have gone to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to get advice on what their participation in those debates should be, what the appropriateness of those holdings are and how to properly disclose their holdings under those rules. I think it would be problematic if members felt like suddenly, when an issue flares up in the news, those otherwise confidential communications could be ordered up and made public by a parliamentary committee.

I do think it's part of our job to take that seriously. I don't think members who are trying to take that real concern seriously should be dismissed as covering up. There is a way to get the answers to the questions that matter, which are whether the rules were broken and whether they are adequate. Those are very public questions. They don't require us to risk the confidentiality of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's office and the culture of confidence in it among members in order to be able to have a fulsome discussion of those important questions: Were the rules broken, and are they adequate?

I obviously don't agree with Mr. Duncan's assessment of my own motives in respect of this. I think there are some very serious reasons for being skeptical of a pre-emptory document request. The person who ought to be investigating this or who has the rightful authority to investigate this is the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. If they're going to investigate this, they have access to those documents. They are aware of those communications.

Without knowing, first, whether the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is going to look into this, I don't think the committee should be ordering up these documents. The person who would investigate this, if they're going to go ahead—and, as I say, we don't know yet whether they are going ahead—would be the person with whom this correspondence happened, so the appropriate person to investigate this will actually have these documents or already has these documents, and I don't think the committee should be ordering them up before we even know whether the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is going to be investigating. That just seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. It's not a cover-up; it's just being aware of what the appropriate procedures are and then acting in a way that supports them rather than undermining them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

You said something earlier that I just need interpretation on. What's a BS detector?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You don't have to say anything.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

It's something we could all stand to invest a little more in around Parliament Hill, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for clarifying that.

We're still on the main motion. I don't see any further hands, so we are going to call the vote. I'm going to pre-empt this by saying that we're going to seek a recorded vote. Mr. Barrett has requested that.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

The motion has been defeated.

I see Mr. Blaikie's hand up.

Please, go ahead.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to say thank you to all of my colleagues on the committee for having brought the issue forward and for having what I think was a good discussion about the most appropriate way for the committee to proceed in respect of this issue.

I notice now that we're past the time that we had scheduled for this meeting, and we've dealt with two motions, including a motion to call the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to the committee to testify on this issue.

With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Blaikie moved a motion to adjourn.

Before we do that, I want to thank the clerk and the technicians for their work this week in making sure that this meeting happened after we received the letter. Thank you to the analysts as well.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We have a motion to adjourn. It is agreed.

The meeting is adjourned.