Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 17th, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

When it comes to ethics, we must always be careful to avoid prejudice. That's why it takes a good dose of humility to get to the bottom of things.

What troubles us all, of course, is that a number of versions of the same story were given by the Prime Minister's entourage or by the Prime Minister himself. The multiple versions are preventing us from determining what happened. We certainly cannot and should not take the commissioner's place. The commissioner must first respond to Mr. Barrett's letter, which will tell us whether or not an investigation will be held. It's up to him to tell us.

As far as we're concerned, we certainly shouldn't forget one thing: The Conflict of Interest Act was enacted in 2006 and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons was written in 2007. Some revisions have been made, but the fact is, time does pass and circumstances do change. We would do well to ask the commissioner whether certain rules regarding gifts, travel and vacations should be reviewed, because the standard practice at one time may no longer be the standard practice today. You must understand that the wording of the law is imprinted, but life is not.

As a committee, we can also undertake a review of the act, should the commissioner agree to it. One thing's for sure, it's not up to us to investigate a particular situation once the commissioner has been informed of a problem and must himself rule on the merits of holding an investigation. As Mr. Blaikie said, I think at some point we will get the results of the commissioner's investigation and we can discuss it with him at that time.

For now, we need to be careful. We're theoretically operating without prejudice, but we're also faced with facts that don't all add up, and that doesn't sit well with us. I believe the commissioner is the only person who can ease this discomfort by explaining the rules on gifts, vacations and travel. We must also leave him to pursue his investigation as he sees fit. As Mr. Blaikie said, if he is currently conducting an investigation, he'll tell us he can't comment. However, that doesn't mean we can't start thinking about gifts, vacations and travel.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you. I didn't want to pre-empt anyone else who hadn't had the opportunity to speak. I wanted to wait to raise my hand until it was clear that no one else wanted to speak.

I would like to test with the room one more time whether there is an understanding that we can ask the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, when he appears, about the recent Jamaica trip, notwithstanding whatever answers the commissioner may be able to provide to the committee at that time.

There was a significant change in the wording of the motion. I want to make sure one last time that everyone in the room is satisfied that members who want to ask those questions will be able to ask those questions when the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner appears, so that level of comfort is there for everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

It certainly is the chair's perspective, from the question from Mr. Barrett, that the trip to Jamaica would be on the table when the interim Ethics Commissioner does appear.

There are heads nodding in the room. I think everyone is very clear that the trip can be questioned to the Ethics Commissioner.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're on the main motion.

Again, I need an understanding from the room that we are going to deal with this at the earliest opportunity once the House resumes.

Okay.

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

We know that we have Mr. Villemure's study and we have the RCMP to deal with, which seemed to be urgent before. Do you want to have a subcommittee to discuss how to prioritize this?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

If it's the direction of the committee, we're going to do this at the earliest opportunity. You can leave it to me, the clerk and the analyst, when the House resumes, to determine when that's going to be.

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

My only issue is that Matt Green isn't here and he's part of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll make sure that I circle back to Mr. Green after his trip to Gaza.

Do we have consensus on the main motion, as amended, or do we need a vote?

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

Could we have a recorded division, Mr. Chair?

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Barrett, please go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The question from Ms. Khalid earlier about correspondence with the Ethics Commissioner is important. We're looking for confirmation that what the Prime Minister's Office ultimately said to Canadians on the third attempt was the truth and, if that's the truth, that it's the same truth—if there can be more than one version of it—that was given to the Ethics Commissioner's office. Those are confidences that belong to the Prime Minister and only he can disclose what was said between the Ethics Commissioner's office and his office.

With that in mind and knowing that the Ethics Commissioner can't speak to things that are protected by those confidences, I move that:

The Committee order all correspondence including emails, text messages, messages sent on any electronic messaging applications, phone call logs, handwritten notes, memorandums, briefing materials and any documents produced regarding the Prime Minister’s travel to Prospect Estate in Jamaica in 2023/24 and 2022/23, and that the Prime Minister’s Office and Ethics Commissioner’s office provide the Clerk of the Committee with these documents within seven days of this motion being adopted.

Mr. Chair, I've given that in both official languages to the clerk.

I think only with that information can we have a fulsome conversation with the Ethics Commissioner. The agreed-upon timeline to have that hearing, once the House resumes, would allow for this information to be received by the clerk prior to that. Because there's been a change in the story three times, we should find out whether there's been a deception made to the Ethics Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

The motion is in order and has been, or will be, circulated shortly to the committee members.

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

It's done.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's done, so you should have that in your mailbox.

We're on the motion as proposed by Mr. Barrett.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead, please. I'll see Ms. Damoff after that.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Just to clarify, Mr. Barrett may have misunderstood what I asked earlier. My specific ask to Mr. Barrett was to seek a response, based on his consent, about his correspondence with the Ethics Commissioner on this specific topic that we have spent two hours discussing today. I asked how the Ethics Commissioner responded to him and whether we could see that correspondence. Mr. Barrett referred to part of that correspondence in his remarks later on, after I made the request.

I would again put it to Mr. Barrett, if he feels so willing.... If he wants to share what, specifically, the Ethics Commissioner said in his initial inquiry into this matter, I think it's quite on topic for the committee to see what that response was.

On the general topic of this motion, the Ethics Commissioner provides a bit of a consultation role to ensure that members of Parliament and elected officials are provided.... The Ethics Commissioner provides rules for and consultation on how to best act to ensure that there is continued trust in the democratic process. It is paramount to ensure that this solicitor-client privilege type of consultation continues to exist.

I think we would be setting a very bad precedent if we started to go down this road of asking the Ethics Commissioner, or any other elected official, to share their correspondence with the committee and make public their correspondence when the nature of that correspondence, regardless of what it is, is to seek advice from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that we are abiding by the rules, that we are conducting ourselves in a fair process, that we are conducting ourselves in a transparent process and that we are continuing to ensure not just a lack of a conflict of interest but also a perceived lack of a conflict of interest as well.

I think this motion to produce documents would set a very bad precedent. I'm sure Mr. Barrett would not like for his correspondence with the Ethics Commissioner and any advice he has sought from the Ethics Commissioner to become public and be presented to this committee, just as much as I think any member of Parliament—not just part of this committee but any member of Parliament—or any elected official would not like to see that private consultation becoming public.

Chair, given my remarks, I'm quite opposed to this. It's not because I have any doubt about what would come out of this correspondence or this release of documents, but it's more with respect to the precedent it would set in terms of that solicitor-client privilege and that ability for a member of Parliament to consult with the Ethics Commissioner's office, which is their role. Their role is to ensure that we are conducting ourselves, as elected officials, in a manner that not only complies with the code but also ensures that there is that perceived lack of a conflict of interest as well.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

We're going to Ms. Damoff next.

Ms. Damoff, you have the floor. Go ahead, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I'll be very brief.

I just want to put on the record that section 43 says the commissioner also provides “confidential advice to the Prime Minister” about conflict of interest and ethics issues. I'll underline “confidential”. I think my colleague Ms. Khalid spoke quite well about why this needs to be confidential, but it is in the act as well.

I'll leave it there and turn it over to the next speaker, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, the commissioner can explain the rules to any parliamentarian who asks. The commissioner will not give his blessing, agree with or share his opinion on any specific case, but he is prepared to explain the rules. Then it will be up to the member in question to make up their own mind. However, to do so, the member would have had to provide a lot of confidential information, as Ms. Damoff just said. Confidentiality is precisely what allows trust to exist. We have to trust in the system in question.

As far as I'm concerned, I certainly won't be supporting Mr. Barrett's motion, because I find it absolutely disproportionate to what we need to accomplish here. I invite my colleagues to take the same position. Our job, and that of the commissioner, is to preserve trust in the system. Setting a precedent like this would be crazy.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead. You have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to take a moment to express some reservations that I have. When we think about the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, I think one of the important functions it serves is in addition to the function that I think Canadians know it most well for, which is to conduct investigations and pronounce on the conduct of either members of Parliament or members of the government, depending on the rules at play. Of course, that's where many of us as Canadians know the commissioner best. It's usually through interviews they're doing at either the outset of some kind of investigation that's been triggered or the conclusion of an investigation. I made reference earlier, for instance, to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's findings in respect of the Prime Minister's vacation at the island of the Aga Khan. Those are the moments in the work of the commissioner when Canadians get to know them best.

One of the really important day-to-day functions of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is to provide advice to members of Parliament if they think they might be in a situation of a conflict of interest, or if they've been offered something and they're not sure whether it runs afoul of the rules around gifts and things like that. I think we have to take very seriously the risk that, if parliamentary committees start ordering the production of communication between members of Parliament and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, we will undermine members' confidence in the idea that they can go to the commissioner to get advice on these kinds of matters. At that point, they have to wonder whether when they're sharing things....

They're going to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner because they're concerned that if they were to proceed in a certain way and it became public it would be a problem, or that if they proceeded in a certain way and it didn't become public it would nevertheless break the rules. They're trying to do the right thing to make sure it doesn't become an issue. If members don't seek that advice, I think we'll create a political culture where we're more likely to see breaches of the rules because members don't feel they have a safe place to go for advice.

Now, all of that said, it's not to say that members are free to break the rules and not have it come to light. In fact, what this committee is doing is saying, hey, there's the perception that maybe a rule has been breached and that should be forwarded to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That has been done by a member of this committee. That is the appropriate action. The committee has met in order to discuss this thing. The committee has agreed to call the commissioner here in order to talk about, as much as they can, this case, but I think also to find out whether the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner will be opening their own investigation.

The committee will have an opportunity, at the conclusion of an investigation, to talk to the commissioner. I think proactively and pre-emptively releasing all the communication between a member and the commissioner really risks undermining the confidence of members in the office, which means they won't go and seek the advice they should be seeking in order to help guide their behaviour.

At some point down the road, if the commissioner investigates it and it looks like they did a terrible job, which I think would be out of character.... As I said, with respect to the trip to the Aga Khan's island, I think a lot of people were satisfied with the level of work the office did. There have been other examples of people being satisfied with that work. If down the road it really felt like there was a need for further investigation to get to the bottom of that communication, the committee could consider that at that time.

For now, we already know that the Prime Minister's Office has been offering inconsistent answers. What's important to me is whether the Prime Minister broke these rules or not. What's important to me is whether the rules are good enough and whether we feel that the rules are adequate to the task of preventing members from accepting inappropriate gifts. Those are the things that we have called the commissioner to come and talk about.

We can already see that the Prime Minister's Office is doing a bad job of being accountable to Canadians. We can already see that the Prime Minister's Office has given inconsistent answers. We don't need to see the emails and potentially undermine the confidence that members have in the ethics office in order to establish that. That's established. The question now, notwithstanding the pontifications of the PMO and the position of the day, is whether those rules were broken, first of all, and whether those rules were adequate.

It seems to me that the committee has a track to answer those important questions—which are the questions—so for the moment, I think a pre-emptive document disclosure risks more than Canadians stand to gain from it.

I think hearing from the commissioner whether he intends to proceed with an investigation and what the scope of that investigation would be.... The committee should hear that before it decides to order up these documents, given what it could mean for the long-term integrity of and confidence in the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

I see Ms. Khalid, followed by Mr. Duncan.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I think Mr. Blaikie spoke quite eloquently about the precedent that such a disclosure would set. He spoke about the importance of members of Parliament and elected officials being able to rely on the Ethics Commissioner for true advice on how to better conduct themselves to ensure that there's transparency and that, based on their behaviour, they continue to build the public's trust. Also, to reiterate section 48 in terms of confidentiality, it's important to make sure that the relationship between these three stakeholders—the elected official, the Ethics Commissioner and the public—continues to find its balance.

I will leave it at that. Although I wanted to speak a little more, I will not, given that Mr. Blaikie has done such a great job highlighting the importance of this.

Again, I would reiterate that I do not support this motion, and I look forward to having the vote sooner rather than later.