Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 20th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, sir.

[Daniel Greenberg]

I can give you one good example very easily: lay members of the standards committee. Our standards committee includes lay members who are not politicians, and I think that is one example of a practical way of improving trust in engagement between the public and politicians.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Greenberg.

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

Mr. Greenberg, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee and all Canadians for being here today. You've provided us with valuable insight as our study continues on the Conflict of Interest Act.

I'm going to let you go now, with great thanks on behalf of the members of the committee and on behalf of Canadians as well. Thank you, sir.

[Daniel Greenberg]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to continue.

I have a couple of matters I want to bring to the committee's attention.

First of all, as you know, we received a list from the Prime Minister's Office the other day with respect to the meetings motion that was passed by the committee.

I'm not going to read the motion, but in my opinion, the list that was given to us was not complete, in the sense that the committee had asked in its motion—and this is the issue that I need direction on—for the times and dates when those meetings took place and what was discussed in those meetings. None of that was indicated in the correspondence that we received from the Prime Minister's Office, so I believe the list that was based on this motion and presented to the committee is incomplete. It didn't meet the subject of the demands of the committee, so I am seeking direction on this issue. What would members of the committee like me to do, given the fact that, again, I don't believe the information is complete?

Mr. Barrett, you had your hand up, so I am going to go to you first, sir, for comments on this, and I'm seeking the opinion of the committee as well.

I see your hand is up as well, Mr. Sari, and Mr. Hardy's.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett, to start.

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

We passed a motion for the production of documents. We didn't get that; what we got was a document that seems to have been created for the purposes of responding to the committee. We asked specifically for records. What the Prime Minister's Office produced is now a record, but it wasn't a record that likely even existed when the motion was passed.

What should have been in there? We should have seen calendar entries. We should have seen emails, briefing notes, memos, anything that was prepared by the Prime Minister's Office or his department, the Privy Council Office, for these meetings or about the meetings.

The problem is that the committee ordered the production of records. It's not reasonable to say that what was produced aligns with what was ordered. There are no records of what was discussed. There are no details of the meetings.

Committees have two options in these situations: They can accept that when they issue an order, the recipients do not need to heed the order, which is binding on the recipient, or they can remedy it. The remedy for the committee is to refer the matter to the House, because it's a contempt of members' privileges.

We're just getting started here. I believe that if the intent of the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister is to do the right thing when given the chance and to respect the rights of members—of all members—they will furnish the committee with the records. If it is not their intent, then it is a question of the privileges of the members of this committee having been breached.

What's reasonable to do here? It is reasonable and fair that I move a motion that we refer the matter to the House. However, I would propose that we take a look at the calendar. The date by which this production order was to be fulfilled has passed. It was not clear—and the clerk can correct me if I'm wrong—if we accepted a standard for what a week is: whether we're talking business days or a calendar week and whether we're taking out the holiday.

I think the attempt was to see if we would be satisfied with what we received. Again, I don't believe it's a reasonable interpretation of the motion to furnish us only with those details.

The week has passed. It's October 20. I would propose that by October 29, the Prime Minister's Office furnish us with the materials ordered by the committee. Then we can consider what to do next.

It really is a binary: Either we accept that we can order, that we have those established powers, or we accept that we don't. We do have those powers, and it's important that they remain protected, because they aren't ours. They don't belong to me; they belong to members of the House. They belong to future members of the House, as they belong to past and current members, and we need to protect them.

I think the original order was for a week. This is a week and a half, but I'm going to be specific and give a date of October 29.

The committee doesn't need to do anything. The chair could furnish them with a letter. You've been charged by the committee to request this information from the Prime Minister's Office already. That has already happened. I know that the parliamentary affairs team is logged in and they're watching the meeting. They know. We don't need to pass another motion. We already did. Members of the Prime Minister's party sit on this committee. They can let him know: Prime Minister, we have a week and a half to respect the rights of members of the House of Commons and committees of the House.

If the intention was to satisfy this motion, if that is the spirit with which they wish to approach it, then we'll have the documents by the 29th, and if it's not, then it's a matter of contempt that should be referred to the House for consideration.

Let's appeal to everyone's better angels and see if we can get this done by the 29th. If not, I would bring a motion to the committee to refer the matter to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

You're quite right, in the sense that what I'm looking for is direction from the committee on how they want to proceed with this, if in fact they feel that all the information hasn't been provided based on what's in the motion.

Through the clerk, we sent the motion to the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. They responded. There is the option of the chair sending a letter on behalf of the committee, but this is where I'm seeking guidance and feedback.

Mr. Sari, you have the floor.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Before I answer you and say what I think, I'd like to consult my team for a moment to discuss this. I'd like you to suspend the meeting, Mr. Chair. Then I'll give you my point of view.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I will give you that time for two minutes.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't want to come back and have another suspension. You take two minutes and then we'll go from there.

The meeting is suspended for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call the meeting back to order. Thank you for your patience.

I'm going to go to Ms. Church. There were some discussions that happened between the parties, and I think we can find a quick resolution to this.

Ms. Church, go ahead, please.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are, in principle, fine with returning the motion. We propose a friendly amendment to include that the motion apply to the Privy Council Office in addition to the Prime Minister's Office. We think that may elicit some of the additional records that Mr. Barrett is seeking.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to have to refer to the clerk, because I don't have an official motion that we're discussing. If it's direction from the committee—and correct me if I'm wrong on this—perhaps the easiest way to deal with this, Ms. Church, is for me, on behalf of the committee, to send a letter to the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office clarifying what the committee's position was with respect to the motion and expecting a response from the Privy Council Office by October 29.

That might be the easiest way to deal with this, rather than going to a formalized motion, because we've already disposed of the motion. We can't amend something without a motion on the floor. I'm seeking guidance.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I'm in your hands, Chair. That sounds reasonable to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Does that sound reasonable to you, Mr. Barrett?

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

If I may, I think that if, on consensus, we're giving direction to you, Chair, to request the information consistent with the original motion and to include the Privy Council Office.... As a matter of principle, I think it's very important that we establish the rights of committees to order the production from departments and ministries, including the PMO and including the PCO. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be precise in this. What would be disappointing, but also damaging to the rights of committees and members, would be if we later found out, through an access to information request filed by a journalist or a member of the public, that there were records in the Prime Minister's Office.

What I would say is that this is the kind of good faith.... When I said, let's do this in a week and a half, that's exactly what I was hoping for, that it would include the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. If all of the records, or 99% of them, are domiciled in the PCO, that's great, but if some exchanges that are captured by the original motion happened in the Prime Minister's Office and perhaps just weren't furnished to the committee originally, having those provided to us by October 29 would satisfy the intent of what we're looking to achieve. Then we would have established that the committee's right to that information is respected by the PMO and by the PCO.

That's really the only precision. I just want to make sure that we're not saying, “Okay, there's nothing that the PMO has, so we'll just go to the PCO.”

As I said, if there's nothing pertinent, it is what it is, but if we later find out through another means that something was caught in an ATIP, it's a problem that then would need be rectified again by the committee or by the House. Let's just avoid it on the front end. I think that the spirit of what's being proposed by Ms. Church is exactly in line with the motion that the committee passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I do take your point on that, Mr. Barrett. We have to proceed on the assumption that the information is available as well. It may not be available through the Prime Minister's Office, or it may be. That's up to them to determine. The one thing that the motion did not call for, in the spirit and intent of what Ms. Church is saying now, was to include the Privy Council Office in this. That's where we're at.

If it's the will of the committee—and I think this is the easiest path forward—I can write a letter to both the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, reiterating what was in the motion and what the request of the committee was in the motion and ensuring that the information be provided to the committee by October 29. I think that would be the proper course of action here.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to remind you of a rule that I have already mentioned to the committee: The highest office requires the utmost exemplary behaviour, and that calls for the highest degree of transparency.

We are in a unique situation that we've never known in Canada. We also have to consider what the witnesses told us: Without transparency, the value of conflict of interest screens becomes relative. In this context, for everything to do with the Prime Minister's travel, work and meetings, he must meet the committee's requirements as soon as possible, since he has nothing to hide or be ashamed of. It seems to me that October 29 is an appropriate date.

I agree that we should undertake this process.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Sari, do you have any comments on that?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is more about the main issue at hand. I'll let Mrs. Church go first.

It appears that Mrs. Church does not wish to speak. In that case, I'll go back to the main issue you raised, Mr. Chair. I really liked the fact that you asked for guidance and feedback on the motion.

When I listened to my hon. colleague Mr. Barrett talk about his request, I thought it sounded like an update. I noticed that terms were added, such as the word “comprehensively”, and that the wording of the motions could be perceived differently.

Mr. Chair, you really have a lot of experience and, so far, we're very satisfied with the way the committee is operating. However, it is very important that the wording of motions be more specific, so that it does not leave too much room for perception and interpretation. This back-and-forth makes us lose a bit of time. In the future, when motions are drafted, I think it would be really good to be more specific.

We, the Liberals, are of the opinion that everything that was asked for was given. What was presented was exactly what the Prime Minister's Office provided. At one point, the people on the other side were proposing to update the definition of comprehensiveness. In my opinion, that will just delay our work. It gives the impression that we haven't responded to the request. In fact, we responded quickly, and as a result, some felt that we could go further. Perhaps people needed to be clearer and more specific at the outset. That was missing from the original request.

That's what I really wanted to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sari.

Mr. Hardy, the floor is yours.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

What I want to say is related to what was just stated. What we've been hearing from the beginning in committee is that we must proceed based on our principles; we have to stop getting bogged down in the details and demanding crossed t's and dotted i's.

I think we have a unique situation here. The Commissioner of Lobbying, who testified before the committee the other day, said that too often at meetings, no status reports are done and no notes are taken. People run into each other and talk about issues that are important to the country, but the Commissioner has no notes on that and she is not aware either.

In response to that and in response to everything that is happening here, we're making a request, the essence of which is very clear, I believe. We want to know what's going on in the meetings. If the Prime Minister meets with fairly influential people, as we see here, in order to build Canada strong, he has nothing to hide. He should tell us what goes on at the meetings. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or the Commissioner of Lobbying appeared before the committee to tell us that there are too many meetings. A week later, we receive a list with no status report. We don't know when they met. We don't know the dates of the meetings. We don't know what was said in the meetings. We have to believe, in good faith, that the purpose of these meetings is to move Canada forward.

We are here to ensure that the public believes in our institutions. That is our role. I don't mind the request to table well-drafted motions, but I think everyone understands that our goal is to find out what's going on behind closed doors, in the interest of Canadians. I think we're getting somewhere today. We'll work as a team; we'll be able to get that. We hope we don't find out that this was already known on the Liberal side and that they intentionally delayed the process. If we want to work well for the advancement of the country, we have to stop getting bogged down in the details. We need to listen to the experts who come and tell us that we need more transparency, that we need to know who has been met with and at what time, and that we need records. When we ask for them, it's simply a matter of providing them.

That's what I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

I don't have other hands up on this.

What I'm going to do with the clerk is reflect on what was agreed to, and I want to thank Ms. Church for proposing this.

The minutes will reflect that it was agreed, in relation to the motion adopted on October 8, 2025, and the documents received, that the chair will send a letter to the PMO and the PCO to reiterate the desire of the committee to receive the documents requested, no later than October 29.

Does that reflect the spirit of the conversation that we just had? Are we all in agreement with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.