Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2019

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

The study is of Standing Order 108(3)(a).

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Right.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

The real question is whether this is the right way, whether we want to recommend these changes to the Standing Orders themselves. That's what we would be reporting back to the House on.

If we invite witnesses, it will be not so much to say, “Hey, tell us more about this.” Rather, it's to say we're trying to figure out whether or not this particular change will work, and if so, what sort of reporting over the next decade or more they would be making to us, or who else we should be contacting.

For example, I think in Mr. Wright's most recent appearance, he referred to our parliamentary partners. It was unclear to me who the parliamentary partners were. We would be trying to figure out the practicalities of who they're communicating with now, how authority is flowing through, who is authorizing the contracts that have been, I gather, given out for the changes to the visitor welcome centre—the visitor welcome centre phase two—and who they've consulted with in terms of the impact this is going to have on the other uses for the front lawn.

I'm just looking at that one part of the project, but I assume it's going to have an impact on our Canada Day celebrations for the next decade or so, and that this is being cleared by somebody.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's all about how the reporting works and how they would interact with us, how their other parliamentary partners would interact with us. At the end of hearing some of that witness testimony, we'd be better equipped to say whether or not these suggested changes to the Standing Orders make sense or are a bad idea. Then, our report back could—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Those witnesses would be related to this study of the standing order.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That's what I would suggest, yes, as a way of figuring out whether.... Even if in the end, the committee decides that these suggested changes to the Standing Orders are not a good idea, we would as a group have a clearer idea about where the lines of communication are and are not. All we know for sure right now is that whatever loop there is, we're outside of it, and so apparently are most of the other people in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. We'll have a meeting with the witnesses that Mr. Nater suggested, and then we'll have a meeting on your report, basically, reporting back as to whether or not we make a recommendation on those standing order changes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is that okay?

Just review the witnesses for the clerk again, the ones you suggested, Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

My suggestions would be Mr. Wright from public works, or whomever else is deemed necessary from public works; the architects we had at the December meeting to see if there's anything new; and then an appropriate authority to go over the long-term vision and plan for what's currently been approved. Whether that would be from House administration or....

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, so we have one hour where we would have the first two witnesses, and you said in the second hour there would be a presentation of the long-term vision and plan. They know that there is a presentation of that plan—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Yes, so whether it's within the same two-hour meeting or one hour and one hour, we'd do whatever works for the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. We'll try to do it in the same meeting. If not, is that okay?

We'll set another meeting to make the report and discussion as soon thereafter as we can on the schedule.

Is everyone in agreement with that? Good.

We'll go to further committee business.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I have another two actually.

The next thing I had on the list that was circulated here was that a motion was put on notice about having the commissioner of Canada elections appear in relation to SNC-Lavalin. Should I read that motion, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay. The motion is simply:

That the Commissioner of Canada Elections appear before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee to discuss the illegal contributions made by SNC-Lavalin to the Liberal Party of Canada and his decision to issue a compliance agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Don't forget, when you're doing your list about committee members, my bias of giving direction to the researcher on the parallel chamber study that we did.

Is there discussion on the motion that was just read?

Go ahead, yes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Côté provided a brief statement on the subject as well. I will read this into the record. Unfortunately, I only have it in English or else I'd distribute it. I apologize for that. He says, and this was on May 2:

In light of renewed media interest in a 2016 decision by the Commissioner of Canada Elections to enter into a compliance agreement with SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and certain allegations made concerning the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of this agreement, the Commissioner wishes to provide clarifications in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the Canada Elections Act's compliance and enforcement regime.

The Commissioner carries out his compliance and enforcement mandate with complete independence from the government of the day, including from the Prime Minister's Office or any Minister's office, from any elected official or their staff, and from any public servant. At no time, since the current Commissioner was appointed in 2012, has an attempt been made by any elected official or political staffer to influence or to interfere with any compliance or enforcement decision that did not directly involve them as the subject of the investigation.

I guess this next part was intended as a statement by the commissioner. This must be intended as the part that's for media quotation, because it's indented and in italics.

The independence of the Commissioner is a key component of our electoral compliance and enforcement regime. In my time as Commissioner, there has never been any attempt by elected officials, political staffers or public servants to influence the course of an investigation or to interfere with our work. And I want to make it clear that if this ever happened, I would promptly and publicly denounce it.

He obviously was very concerned about that. He then provides a little bit of background information.

Compliance and enforcement decisions are taken in a manner consistent with the Compliance and Enforcement Policy of the Commissioner of Canada Elections. Paragraph 32 outlines the various factors that go into determining which compliance or enforcement tool is most appropriate in a given case. With respect to SNC-Lavalin, some of the factors that were taken into consideration are outlined in the compliance agreement.

As noted at paragraph 32(b) of the Policy, the evidence gathered during an investigation is an important consideration in determining how to deal with a particular case. This calls for an objective review of the evidence that has been assembled to assess its strength. In this regard, it should be noted that a compliance agreement may be entered into on the basis of evidence meeting the civil standard of balance of probabilities, while the laying of criminal charges requires evidence that meets the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It should be noted that through amendments to the Act made with Bill C-23 in 2014, the longstanding practice of the Commissioner to not provide details of investigations was confirmed, with the adoption of clear confidentiality rules. This is consistent with the manner police and investigative agencies treat information related to their investigations

That's the statement. I think that indicates some limits that we would have to place on ourselves with regard to confidentiality. I think we would, as a committee, as long as we're cognizant of that, be able to get some useful additional information as to how this policy functions and how it functioned in this particular case.

I will just say that I accept at face value the commissioner's statement that there was no attempt made by any elected officials or political staffers to interfere or influence. We're simply trying to figure out how this all works and to see to what extent this is consistent with other practices. The obvious parallel here is with the Dean Del Mastro prosecution that resulted in the laying of charges.

I don't know what the commissioner would say. I can kind of guess based on his statement, but only if he comes here can we get a full explanation, so that is the basis and the rationale for the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

There has been a troubling pattern over the last little while at this committee. First, we had the Clerk of the House of Commons here, and the Conservatives brought down their whip to question his integrity without any evidence. They did this even though the Clerk had reached out to the House leader's office directly to ask if he could proceed, but there was no response and his integrity was questioned.

Then the Chief Electoral Officer came. I know we may disagree on certain points of policy, and I know we have disagreed with the Conservatives about recommendations that have been made. I haven't been on this committee since the start, but we have had an incredible working relationship with the Chief Electoral Officer. I didn't think it would be possible for any member to stand up and question his integrity. Well, that happened last week as well when the honourable member from Carleton gleefully called him a “Liberal lapdog”. I think I got it wrong last time, and he corrected me, and he was gleeful in that correction. Then they brought someone else in to do this, and I hope the members who are typically here wouldn't engage in this, but they questioned his integrity even though he had no involvement. The law says he has no involvement and there's no evidence that he did, but there was a gleeful willingness to question his integrity

Then in the next hour there were valid concerns about the way in which David Johnston was appointed. We heard it from Mr. Christopherson, and we heard it from the Conservative Party last time, and there was disagreement as to that. I would have thought that David Johnston would have been one of the individuals in this country whose integrity could not be questioned, based on his work, yet we had the Conservative Party question his integrity. He had to defend his own integrity, inviting his detractors to look at his lifetime of work. All of this was done without any evidence, without any provocation. Now, once again, Conservative Party wishes to call in another public official to question their integrity without any evidence.

I don't know if they appreciate the irony of doing this, of calling in an independent prosecutor to question their decision. I've used this term before, “the Nobel Prize for irony”. I don't know if that's a thing but it seems you're in the running. You criticize the government for contemplating asking a question about the direction of a prosecution and a deferred prosecution agreement, and you had that out there for a couple of months. “How dare you?” they said. We heard this for two months and no laws were broken, as stated by the witnesses. “How dare you even think about asking such a question?”

Now we wish to call an investigator, an independent investigator-prosecutor from the office of the director of public prosecutions, and question this person about their decision. It boggles the mind and it is unbelievable how desperate the Conservative Party is to have SNC discussed that they are willing to go back on everything they have said over the last couple of months in order to achieve that goal.

At the end of the day, my understanding is that the justice committee is still going through its estimates process, that the commissioner of Canada elections is still under their jurisdiction in terms of the estimates process, and that there will be an opportunity....

I don't think I'll be supporting the motion at the end of the day anyway, but I'd like to clear it up just so we have a really truthful motion. I'd like to propose an amendment so that the motion reads:

That the Commissioner of Elections Canada appear before the Committee to discuss the illegal contributions made by SNC-Lavalin to the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada and his decision to issue a compliance agreement to SNC-Lavalin and Pierre Poilievre.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Chris, do you have the wording to give to us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Bittle, he was just asking if you have the wording.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Forgive me, I was up with David discussing what we'll be doing this summer—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

—and I suddenly realized we were through the rhetoric and onto the substance. I didn't get back in time to start making notes, so that's my bad.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

The amendment would be at the end of the second line, which would read, “to the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada”.