Evidence of meeting #123 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was randy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you recognizing me and giving me the floor.
At the last meeting, you were wondering who I was. I was surprised because we've sat across from each other for eight and a half years, but it's good to finally get to work together. I don't think we've ever been on a committee together, particularly one that you're chairing. It's super to be part of it.
I'm looking at this as a process question. Quite often, what I see in the House is that members of Parliament's roles get confused. We are here to ask questions on behalf of Canadians, but we aren't a judge and jury over the activities within departments of government. We advise departments. We give them guidance and we give them laws to work within. Really, it's up to the professionals in our civil service to conduct themselves in the way that befits the roles they play. We also don't ask them to be politicians, and they're very good at not being partisan. They're very good at providing us with the support we need as the politicians in the room.
How does this work when the committee is dragging regular Canadians before it to get social media clips? I understand this meeting is not in camera, so when the cameras are rolling, we have to respect the Canadians coming in front of us and the position we're putting them in to look at what they've heard and how it relates to the policies we develop from our side.
To be honest, I think what we're looking at is something that came through the media. It was a Global News story that was put out there as speculation. There's no evidence that Minister Boissonnault is the person mentioned in the text. In fact, the minister was clear that he wasn't the person in the text conversation. The person who sent the text, Mr. Anderson, was also quoted as saying that the minister wasn't the person referenced in the text.
The Ethics Commissioner reviews the information they have in a factual way and in a way that is non-partisan. We have to take them at their word with the job they do.
The Ghaoui Group is quoted in the article as saying that they've never had contact with the minister. Of course they didn't, because the minister had ceased to have a role in the operations of the company in question more than a year before any of this happened. He was elected and he's serving the Government of Canada. The Ethics Commissioner will be looking at how that is done. We all have to do our disclosure statements. I've just finished my disclosure statement. It's an annual thing we have to do for any changes in our marital status, in whether we've bought stocks or in whether we have interest in any of the businesses we might be dealing with.
I was chairing the science and research committee and I'm now a master's student. I saw myself having an issue there, so I contacted the Ethics Commissioner. Graduate students are asking for more money. I'm a graduate student and I was acting as a chair of a science and research committee, so I stepped down as the chair of that committee to make sure there were no perceived conflicts. I think all of us do that as part of what we face on a day-to-day basis. We make sure that we're not putting ourselves in a bad position. Regardless of the party, we're all members of Parliament and we all know the duties we have under the act we serve.
It's also been noted that back on September 8, Minister Boissonnault was in Vancouver attending a cabinet retreat. We know that that day was especially hectic because it was the day that Queen Elizabeth passed away—God rest her soul; long live the King. The Conservatives are expecting us to believe that sometime during the day, sometime during the retreat meetings, when the ministers had their phones—they don't have their phones during cabinet meetings—somehow Minister Boissonnault was stepping in and out to take phone calls about a business that he had resigned from a year earlier. With all the things going on, this would not have been on Minister Boissonnault's mind. However, again, we're not the judge and jury. It's up to the Ethics Commissioner to take a look at that and see whether anything was being done in a way that wasn't ethical.
It's really hard to believe that Minister Boissonnault was.... He turned over his phone records to this committee, and that shows no phone calls happening during the period of time in question. We have evidence as if we were acting as a judge and jury, but we sat through Mr. Cooper going through the fanciful bit of conjecture that it must have been the minister because of the references to eastern standard time, even though the minister was on Pacific time. We're now hearing from him a wild conspiracy theory in the House, accusing the minister of having a secret burner phone, which is totally ridiculous. I don't think any honourable members are working with burner phones. We have a parliamentary phone that we use for business. We have personal phones that we use for personal things and fundraising. We separate those two things, but we don't get burner phones. It's really for the cameras that a statement like that would be made.
If you look at the evidence we have from Minister Boissonnault's phone records from September 8, 2022, the phone records shows very clearly calls between 11:02 a.m. Pacific time and 5:37 p.m. Pacific time. That covers entirely the time frame that Global News talked about in its coverage and the time frame that Mr. Cooper talked about at length during the minister's appearance. In that time frame, everyone involved was supposed to be on a partner call at 12:30 Pacific time. Clearly, from this phone record, Minister Boissonnault was on no such call.
Here at the committee Mr. Brock asked the minister to look at his phone records and provide them. The minister did that before the clerk even sent him a formal request. There's nothing to hide here.
Also, I'm informed that Mr. Boissonnault shared this with the Ethics Commissioner. Of course he would, and the Ethics Commissioner will look at it in due course and take it into account, doing his job, the job that we trust him with. It's not the job of the committee to try to do an investigation. That's why we have an Ethics Commissioner.
Just to review, the minister was clear that it wasn't him. When he came to this committee, he was unequivocal on this, as virtually any answer I have seen at the committee reveals. He did not dodge. He didn't avoid questions. He did not give any clever comment or leave any room for doubt. He said that this was not on him.
The Conservatives say that's not good enough. They need some kind of substantiation for what that denial means. They say that we need to be sure and that we need to hear from Stephen Anderson. Well, we heard from Stephen Anderson. He's quoted right in the Global News article, saying that it was not Minister Boissonnault. They say they need to hear from the Ghaoui Group about this, but the Ghaoui Group was noted in the article as saying they've never spoken to Mr. Boissonnault. It seems the Conservatives are not willing to accept the Global News article at face value—a bit odd since it's the basis for their argument—so let's take a step back and look at the actual day.
We know from public records that Minister Boissonnault was in Vancouver at the time. We also know this from the phone records. This is despite the fact that Mr. Cooper walked us through a long discussion about the mountain time zone and the eastern time zone, even though the minister was in neither time zone at the time. Minister Boissonnault was in Vancouver at a cabinet retreat. Members know cabinet retreats consist of wall-to-wall meetings. Much of the day is taken up. The ministers don't take their phones into those meetings. We don't take our phones into our caucus meetings. Those meetings are times when we are in camera, and we have to make sure we're in camera. The RCMP makes sure that we haven't taken our phones in. In fact, we have had caucus meetings where the RCMP has said that somebody inadvertently walked in with their phone, iPhone watch or even a security buzzer. Anything that connects to Wi-Fi is checked through, so even if there was a hint that he had walked in with the phone, the RCMP would have been on that and made sure the phone wasn't in the room. He didn't have access to a phone.
This day would have been particularly busy given the passing of Queen Elizabeth. I know cabinet would have been thinking about that: What does this mean for the governance of our country? How do we respect the passing of the Queen but maintain governance? What does this mean for the change of monarch? She was with us for so long. Since we were born, she was our Queen. Then she wasn't, and what does that mean? That would have been the issue of the day, I'm sure. It would have interrupted the cabinet discussions that were planned.
It's a real stretch to think the minister would say to wait a minute; he has some business to conduct. The Conservatives have heard this, but they're still not convinced. The minister has now made additional efforts to prove a negative. He provided his phone records. Regarding the phone calls that were supposed to have happened, he showed us they were not there. There's a certain point where the holes in this Conservative theory need to square with reality. It's obviously a story for social media. It's conjecture. It's biased and politically motivated. It's not the way ethics are handled in this country. That's done by non-biased professionals who don't have a political stake in the game.
This is why we have the office of the Ethics Commissioner. They are continuing to do their job every day. When I gave my submission, they came back to me and said I missed something and I had to resubmit. Whatever that something I missed was, I didn't think it was important, but they did so I resubmitted. They came back and said, “Thank you for your prompt response. We'll make your statements public.”
All of that is done, as we all know, every year, so I'm not prepared to drag regular Canadians before this committee to feed the story. We have to be fair to the Canadians who are witnesses here, not bring them into the political melee when there shouldn't be a political melee in the first place. They can work with the Ethics Commissioner, as I'm sure they will be if the Ethics Commissioner feels that's where they need to be. We're clinging to this latest speculation while knowing full well that the Ethics Commissioner looked into the previous allegations against the minister, didn't find any cause for investigation and will continue to work on information as it is presented. Phone records that came through our committee were presented, but they were also presented separately.
Mr. Barrett wrote to the Ethics Commissioner, who is the neutral party who says whether or not there have been any violations of the act. The Ethics Commissioner reviewed that letter and found no reason to look into things further, so it's politics. The commissioner couldn't have been clearer in his testimony. He said that the minister “complied with the rules under the act and the code.” He reiterated this in French, saying that it appeared the minister had complied with the requirements of the code and the act with respect to matters relating to these companies and that therefore there was no need to proceed with a study.
The Conservatives will, of course, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. To them, there must be some ulterior motive going on and someone must know. They'll get up in the House and say what they can say. They'll go to committee and try to get a story created. It's funny how the story always coincides with the announcement of our budget. They do this instead of talking about our budget or interest rates dropping last week, which was the story of the year, if not the last five years. We're now getting to a point where interest rates are coming down, which is good news for Canadians. We have support for our budget, which is good news for Canadians. There may be some things in the budget the Conservatives want to talk about, like the capital gains tax, which has been contentious in our ridings. I've had several calls from businesses. I've talked to them about capital gains. Instead of talking about that, they're creating some kind of faux narrative that there is a scandal we have to talk about; they're creating a scandal.
The commissioner did what he always does with allegations. He said he would look at them and decide whether an investigation was warranted. That's exactly what happened with Mr. Barrett's previous allegations about the minister. The commissioner reported to the committee that there was no need to investigate. He suggested to us that he was satisfied with the information that he was able to obtain through his investigation. However, suggesting that the Ethics Commissioner is not considering all the information is just not true. That's not how our Ethics Commissioner operates. Here's what the Ethics Commissioner actually said: “I think it would be absolutely irresponsible to make a premature decision as to what we're going to do and how. All I can tell you is that we will look into it.”
The Ethics Commissioner is always on guard. He's looking at us, looking at how we conduct ourselves and making sure that we're doing our job in an ethical way. Let's allow the commissioner to continue to look into things. He'll look at this, and he'll look at everything else that's going on. If he thinks there's a need to do an investigation, I'm sure he will do it. He doesn't need us to tell him that he needs to do his job. He does his job every day, and he's public about what he does. He's transparent. He doesn't have a political stake in any of the games. He will report to us at the committee, to parliamentarians and to the public at large if something needs to be brought forward as a result of his ongoing investigations.
I've also been informed that the minister has written to the commissioner, and he's requested that he come to a conclusion on this whole matter as soon as possible. Then we can continue to get on with the work of Parliament before we drag everyday Canadians before this committee to become fuel for the Conservative rage machine. I've seen that. We need to allow the commissioner to do his work and make a call about whether there's any substance to the allegations.
A witness came to one of the committees I was serving on. I met her later, and she said that after the way she was treated by the Conservatives, she wouldn't come to a parliamentary committee again, which is a terrible thing. We won't have her voice at the table, an expert voice that we relied on, because of the way she was treated by the Conservatives at committee. She said that she wasn't going through that again. She said she went home and was upset. She was upset a week later, and she was upset two weeks later. She felt she was being treated like a criminal.
These are real people and they're people with families. They're proud to come to Ottawa to be in front of a parliamentary committee. We see people coming to our committees every day. For these people it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to serve the country, and we need to keep that in mind when they're here. They're honoured to be here, and we have to honour them by treating them properly when they are here. We're not asking them to cover things up and not asking them to act as if they're a spokesperson for a political party. They're here to share their expertise so the studies we do have the right information and we can come to the right conclusions and recommendations for the government to consider.
As members, we're experienced in this detailed process of how committees run, how the Ethics Commissioner operates and how elected officials interact. We go through questionnaires with the Ethics Commissioner about all our personal relationships—our assets, our debts, our significant others' assets or debts, and whether our kids are involved in anything. All of the professional experiences we have must go to the Ethics Commissioner, and witnesses may not even realize how much we do for disclosure.
As I said, I had a business that I put on hold when I was elected. I stopped operating the business. A year later, I was asked whether the business was still not operating, and I confirmed that there was no operation. They asked me for the financials, and I said that I'd give them my last financials but that there was no financial activity after 2015, when I was elected. I said I couldn't give them what I didn't have, but gave them what I did have. That was the way I disclosed to the Ethics Commissioner that I wasn't operating my business.
They could look at Canada Revenue Agency records. They could see whether I was not disclosing. There are ways for them to do their job that I don't know about. I don't know their sausage machine. However, I disclosed from my side what I knew was true, and they had their ways of confirming whether it was true. We provide our documentation. The commissioner and their staff do all they do to make sure the right questions are being asked and to maintain the confidentiality while going over the records. We're on camera right now, and I'm letting the public know that I had to disclose things. Otherwise, the commissioner worked with me on a confidential basis, unless there was something that needed to become public.
Then you have conversations, in some cases, where they ask follow-up questions: How long have you known that person for? How did you meet? How long was it that you were investing in something together? Has the value changed? Do you still have shares? What's your percentage of the shares?
I had a change in my circumstance when my wife was diagnosed with Parkinson's and I was volunteering for Parkinson Canada. I asked the Ethics Commissioner, “As a parliamentarian, what are the limits to me working as a volunteer for Parkinson Canada?” They gave me four pages of what I can and can't do. Lobbying the government is not something I should be doing. I'm not fundraising for them, but I'm working with Parkinson Canada as a caregiver to a person with Parkinson's.
From my experience in doing that, I'm organizing a day on the Hill this fall where senators and members from all parties will come. Parkinson Canada will be there. Researchers will be there. We'll have people coming in as clinicians, and hopefully we'll have some family health team members and people who have been diagnosed with Parkinson's. That's all within the agreements that I have with the Ethics Commissioner, and I will follow the guidelines they gave me. I do follow those guidelines, and I will be public about what I can be public about. I will disclose to the Ethics Commissioner what I'm doing to make sure that I'm following the guidance they've given me.
We know first-hand that the Ethics Commissioner does an incredibly thorough job, and he will inform us. He will continue to investigate us all, as we're members of Parliament. I have to say how disappointing it is to see the Conservatives falling over themselves to try to get this motion through, to try to create a story, to have a diversion from all the issues in the budget that we should be talking about.
We've taken all these steps of dragging members to special meetings. We put this one in between other meetings, long votes and midnight sittings, and we have our regular meeting scheduled for tomorrow. What's this all about? It's not an urgent matter that has to come before the committee before tomorrow's meeting. I don't get it. I'm here. I'll continue to serve. I'll serve as a substitute, as asked. I get to see all the different committees. I was just in the security committee while we were voting. In between votes, they're doing a clause-by-clause study. I was doing the clause-by-clause review.
Subbing in committees is a great chance to learn and for us to get to know each other, but this type of work is outside of our normal work plan or the strategy that we develop as a committee. Vice-chairs work with the committee chair to get a schedule together. We're outside that schedule now. I'm surprised the Conservatives have jumped to conclusions, beginning with this saga. However, I think they're really just trying to turn up the lights, trying to get the cameras rolling. Remember that all of this has been in front of the committee, and information was provided to show that the allegations were just grasping at straws.
I want to be clear that Mr. Barrett had every right to reach out to the commissioner. We all should do that for ourselves if we see something we don't think is right. We should bring these issues to the commissioner as a matter of process. We should make sure that parliamentarians are being ethical in everything they're doing. If members have concerns, we all know how to get in touch with the Ethics Commissioner's office.
They're always very prompt in getting back. They're always very thorough with the information they give us. They always ask at the end of a conversation if there's anything else. It happens at all of the offices we connect with, whether it be at the library or in the House of Commons. They'll always ask if there's anything else. I'll tell them, no, thank you and that they've given me great information, but they'll ask again if there's anything else. They always stay on top of things.
Mr. Barrett was doing his job, and I appreciate that. The Ethics Commissioner did his job, and I appreciate that. There are no social media clips in this. It's not about letting the process play out for the cameras. It's about doing our job by involving the Ethics Commissioner when we need to. Instead of rushing to pass a motion to have Mr. Boissonnault appear, the committee could be deciding their business. The minister has been appropriately questioned on this. The committee could get back to the business of the ethics committee, but we're continuing on, so here we are.
We've found additional information since the motion was passed. Mr. Boissonnault has given us that information and given it to the Ethics Commissioner. There's still an open phone line to the commissioner's office if anything else comes up. However, the minister has come. He has addressed us. He has talked to us publicly. He has answered the questions we've given him.
Once again, we're jumping on a story to try to divert from talking about the budget and the 400,000 kids who will get a school food program as a result of what we're putting forward. Hopefully, the Conservatives will support us in that work, because it shouldn't be partisan. We're trying to help young Canadians who are hungry when they're in school so they can have food and do their studying without wondering when they'll have their next meal.
Looking into this and looking at where we go from here, I really hope the committee can get past this motion, defeat the motion and get back to the business of serving Canadians. To be honest about what's going on, I think if we turned off the cameras and got to work, we'd be great. Somebody asked me over the weekend how I put up with the drama every day, as I come from manufacturing. I said that in manufacturing we didn't have any cameras. We worked on problems. We had to figure out ways of automating equipment. We had to figure out ways of meeting production schedules. We had to figure out ways of onboarding employees. We didn't have cameras when we were doing our jobs.
Sometimes I think that in Parliament, if we got away from trying to serve the media's interests and instead served Canadians' interests, we would all be better for it. There's no doubt that we're not coming at this with an open mind. This is a clearly partisan exercise that we're in the middle of. The conclusions that Mr. Cooper is making are showing us perfectly clearly that his arguments are coming out of left field. There is no basis in the arguments he's putting forward. We know that the Ethics Commissioner has already confirmed this and will continue to work with us and confirm that we are being open by default. We are involving the Ethics Commissioner every step of the way.
I'm about ready to go back to my tea. I appreciate you giving me the chance to speak as an outsider of the committee. The committees I serve on are the environment committee and the science committee. I am now a member of the science committee instead of being the chair. I am trying to serve people through my background. I'm trying to do it in as non-partisan a way as I can. I really hope we can see that starting to happen at the ethics committee, where things shouldn't be partisan. They should be based on ethics and information.
Mr. Chair, I'll give it back to you and my colleagues. I look forward to the conversation. I hope it becomes more positive. I hope we can get back to serving Canadians instead of trying to create diversions.
Thank you for allowing me the time to speak today.
June 6th, 2024 / 1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the member for Guelph for his words. I remember that in 2014, when I was a candidate, I was walking across the street and met him and his wife on Wellington Street, down toward the Confederation Building. It probably meant a lot more to me than it meant to him. Over the years, Lloyd, you've been a wonderful colleague. As I said at the last meeting, I have many wonderful colleagues on both sides of the House.
I thought a lot about this over the weekend, and this is not something I usually do. I don't go home and think about what happened in committee, because I want to go to events, like Boys and Girls Club Day, or visit with constituents. I thought about this a lot over the weekend.
It's nice to see you today, Luc. I haven't seen you at committee in some time. We've served on the health committee in the past.
I was thinking about some of the things I said at the last meeting. To me, words matter. In the House, during question period, someone said something about the Ethics Commissioner reinvestigating or reopening the investigation, but there was no investigation. The Ethics Commissioner did his work and said there was nothing to see here; it didn't warrant opening an investigation. When a new article came out, Mr. Barrett asked the Ethics Commissioner to take another look at it. He said that absolutely he would take another look at it. That's not the same thing as reopening or opening an investigation.
I was thinking about some of the comments we made around the table on Thursday. It's almost like scandal creation. You have somebody who has done everything the Ethics Commissioner has asked for, and the Ethics Commissioner has looked at it and said we're good. As Lloyd said, oftentimes, the Ethics Commissioner's office will come back and say someone is missing this one form, this one bank account or this one piece of paper, or ask if they meant to put something down. Before it's made public, before they sign off on those forms and before they sign off on the work the Ethics Commissioner has looked at, they go over it with a fine-tooth comb.
He went over it. He went over all the information that was presented to him. Because he's the quality guy he is, when he heard new information and was asked by Mr. Barrett to take a look at the new information, he said, “Of course that's what I will do.” He works on facts, not on speculation or on conjecture.
René was here the other day, on Thursday. I wish I had the piece of paper on which I wrote down some of his points. He said this committee is not a court. However, some members of this committee want to act like it is a court. They want to bring someone forward and want to question regular, everyday business people in Canada.
I know what that looks like, and I know the vitriol it will bring upon them. I know the social media feedback they'll get. Most of us have been here for quite some time. We have a thick skin. We're used to being pilloried in social media by people who don't necessarily agree with our points of view, our thoughts or the things we say. However, for an everyday Canadian who works in the business sector, being brought before a committee of Parliament is a daunting thing to go through. Make no mistake. I guarantee you that there aren't going to be friendly questions. They are going to be questions that, in my opinion, border on mean-spiritedness.
I've been going to committees for eight and a half years, and I've seen some pretty horrible incidents. Not many that I've seen are as disappointing as what I saw last Thursday. It's scandal creation, and I don't want to be a part of scandal creation. Hold someone to account, for sure. Bring someone to committee. Bring a minister to committee. I sat on the national defence committee for eight years. We had defence ministers coming every two or three weeks for eight years taking the hard questions. Sometimes it got a little fiery, but the minister's job is to work with committees, present to committees and be available for committees when requested, when demanded or when expected. That's the nature of what we do here. However, we see what happens to a regular Canadian when they're grilled by parliamentarians, who are used to doing this.
On the motion itself, I'll go back to my comment about what was said in the House of Commons during question period last week. The motion says, “considering opening another investigation”. How can I vote for a motion that is factually incorrect? The Ethics Commissioner is not considering opening another investigation. There was no first investigation. There was the report to the Ethics Commissioner filed by the minister and approved by the Ethics Commissioner, and then the opportunity to take a look at what may or may not be new information. Again, words matter.
My friend Mr. Cooper, during his speech last week on Thursday, was talking about the other Randy and then made a comment. He said the other Randy was the Minister of Employment. Then René rightly said that we are not a court. We are not in charge of our own facts, and we can't make our statements that are patently false and misleading. That's something I've seen an awful lot more of lately in the House of Commons and in committees.
I'll go back to the comment I made on scandal creation. Everything has to be a scandal so you can call it a scandal in the House of Commons and push the envelope in the messaging that you want your supporters to believe is the case. Then all of a sudden you get social media anger or frustration being sent your way: “You're full of scandals. There are scandals every day.” It's scandal creation. It's really frustrating and it's not fair. It's below us as parliamentarians.
I was at home on the weekend, and I heard from a few people who happened to tune in and watch a bit of the committee. They asked if it was really getting that bad in the House of Commons. I said that it's absolutely getting that bad in the House of Commons.
It's funny. Parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons allows us to say anything we want to say, but it doesn't allow someone to call you out for not being honest and not telling the truth. I'm thinking of Mr. Kurek, who spoke for, I don't know, four hours one day on the British Westminster system. It felt like four hours. Anyway, he gave us a history lesson on the Westminster parliamentary style.
It's getting to the point now where we're hearing politicians cite reasons why they're not going to run again. We have one here in this committee, Pam Damoff, who's just not willing to take the hate any longer. We were doing the misinformation, disinformation and malinformation study, which I think is super fascinating, but it's unfortunate that it's such a prevalent topic. It's unfortunate that it is so prevalent in our world right now. We're seeing AI-developed videos that look real and are not real. Those are things we could be talking about. I've watched many videos people are making with AI that they probably think are funny.
Concerning the NHL playoffs, you see false videos of Connor McDavid saying things like, “Our goalie lost the game for us.” These are pretty provocative, real-looking videos. Of course, he never said it; it's completely manufactured. The public may know or they may not know. I did hear someone say, “Oh my God, did you see that video? Why would Connor McDavid say something like that about his goalie?” He didn't say it. It's not true; it's AI. The technology out there right now can make us all news broadcasters and journalists. It's a scary situation.
When I was on the national defence committee, someone sent me a video that looked so real. The news broadcast looked so real. It said something along the lines of Russia attacking an American ship. It obviously wasn't true, but it was shared 3,000 or 4,000 times on Facebook. This video was not from a real news source but from one that looked pretty slick. You could tell there was money behind it. It's absolutely incredible what we're seeing today, so the misinformation, disinformation and malinformation study is super important. I know René is a big supporter of getting back to it.
The other day, Mr. Chair, you said something that I thought was really funny when you welcomed me in. You said, “Welcome to the shooting fish in a barrel committee.” If it's the nature of the committee, so be it.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Chair is in the background refuting what I'm saying.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
That's a fair point, Mr. Chair.
What we should do—it's the same thing that I suggested Thursday—is exactly what the Ethics Commissioner said he would do. He said he would look into this and get back to the committee, and if he saw smoke he would assume there was fire. We asked him to. He said he would. I see no reason to move in a direction like we see in this motion. Give him the time that he needs. I can't remember what he said, but he received information that we couldn't talk about on Thursday until it was translated and sent to the committee. That caused a very long suspension at the committee, but it was important to get that stuff out so that all committee members had a chance to have it in English and French. That was submitted, translated and absorbed by committee members.
We saw that the minister couldn't possibly have sent texts or made phone calls at that particular time in Vancouver at the cabinet retreat, as they were locked down on the day the Queen died. It's important that we let the commissioner do the work he is tasked with doing on our behalf. We should continue moving in that direction rather than continuing to talk about bringing in regular Canadians, putting them in this room and grilling them over their business practices. Give the Ethics Commissioner the time to do that.
We can review this pretty quickly. The minister said very clearly many times during his one hour that it wasn't he who sent the texts or made the phone calls. He was as unequivocal as any minister I've ever seen at committee. He wasn't wishy-washy; he was solid. He said it wasn't him. Clearly, that wasn't good enough for the Conservatives. I don't know what kind of substantiation they need—innocent until proven guilty.
We already heard from Stephen Anderson. He's quoted. We're taking the Global News story as the genesis of this entire fabricated scandal, as we heard from Stephen Anderson. He's right in the Global News article saying that it was not the minister, but Conservatives aren't willing to accept that the Global News article is accurate in that particular case.
Most of the things I'd still like to say were said by Lloyd, and I would be repeating the important things that he said, so I'm going to cede my time now and hear from the next speaker.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Desilets, Mr. Villemure was the next speaker on the list. If you want, you can take this opportunity to speak to the committee about the motion before us. Would you like to speak?
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you. I'm ready to speak about this topic.
We'll be moving an amendment to tone down and slightly alter the motion before us all. The goal is obviously to try to reach a consensus.
This amendment calls for the deletion of the word “each”, points (c) and (d) and the last paragraph.
Do you want me to read the amendment or send it to the clerk?
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
The clerk tells me that she sent it to the committee members.
If Mr. Villemure's amendment were passed, the motion would read as follows:
That, in light of media reports, Minister Randy Boissonnault's testimony at this committee, and the Ethics Commissioner’s confirmation that he is considering opening another investigation into Minister Randy Boissonnault's actions, the committee call on the following witnesses to appear before the committee individually and testify for no less than one hour each....
That would strike part c, which is “Representatives of the Ghaoui Group”, and part d, “The other ‘Randy’ referred to in Minister Randy Boissonnault's testimony”. It would also strike “That these witnesses appear on or before June 18th, and that the committee seek additional resources to facilitate these meetings if needed.”
Mr. Desilets, you may comment on the amendment if you wish. The other committee members can then make comments.
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Two changes weren't included in the text that you read. There are three in total. We want to delete the reference to witnesses in points (c) and (d), even if it means extending the meeting by an hour. Our amendment refers to a meeting that runs for at least an hour, rather than one hour for each witness. We removed the word “each”.
We propose to delete the last paragraph and the word “each”, in addition to what you said about the last two witnesses, because it doesn't seem relevant. If we need more time, we'll obviously extend the meeting.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Desilets.
I see Mr. Green. I have him first on the amendment, and then Ms. Damoff rose her hand.
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Forgive me. I'm going to seek your indulgence.
Perhaps it's a previous motion, since there have been a lot of them at this committee, but I'm pretty sure that I already amended some of this language out, particularly as it relates to “additional resources”. Did that not occur? If not, I will go on the record to state that I have no intention of arbitrarily providing you or anybody infinite resources and infinite dates to deal with this matter. I certainly want to address this matter, but I want to address it within our calendar sitting days and regularly scheduled meetings, without additional resources and the ability to arbitrarily call meetings.
I'll go on the record to state emphatically that I believe there is a common courtesy in committee. We have a subcommittee that plans work. It cannot be at the call of the chair. I've stated this on many different occasions. From my perspective, I am very comfortable calling in the witnesses together on one day for two hours. They can give their opening statements, and we can ask questions to whomever we see fit. I'm very keenly interested in that. I've expressed as much in conversations with all parties. What I'm not looking for is turning this into a never-ending story that becomes meeting upon meeting—a reflection of the current filibuster we seem to find ourselves in. That's my position on this.
I move that we subamend this amendment and strike out the last line about “additional resources”, as available, which seems to be a new Conservative catchphrase. We'd get rid of that and have it be “in existing scheduled meetings before the House rises”.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
To address the point on the subamendment, Mr. Green, the end of the amendment proposed by Mr. Desilets says “one hour” and he strikes “each”, so it's at least one hour of testimony. Then part a and part b stay, and it deletes part c and part d. It also deletes the last line.
It's the last line you're referring to. Is that correct?
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
My apologies. Maybe something got lost in translation there.
I am firmly against having the ability to call meetings at your will. I like you, John, but I don't want to give you that much power. I'd prefer to have consultations with parties, particularly on the opposition side, or at least have the ability to give input on our schedule.
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Can you please, just for my indulgence—and then I'll be satisfied—reread it as amended?
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
This is the amendment as proposed by Monsieur Desilets:
That, in light of media reports, Minister Randy Boissonnault’s testimony at this committee, and the Ethics Commissioner’s confirmation that he is considering opening another investigation into Minister Randy Boissonnault’s actions, the committee call on the following witnesses to appear before the committee individually and testify for at least one hour:
a. Stephen Anderson;
b. Kirsten Poon.
That's how Monsieur Desilets' amendment reads right now.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
He took out the Ghaoui folks and “the other ‘Randy’ referred to in Minister Randy Boissonnault's testimony”.
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'd love to hear from the other Randy if the other Randy exists.