Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green is next.

Go ahead, Mr. Green, on the amendment.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate my friend from the Bloc bringing this motion forward. As you'll recall, although there have been multiple world crises happening since this took place, it was the issue of the day, and in fact a pretty significant issue in the 2019 election. I think it is quite reasonable and timely, given the reprimand issued by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, to have some overview on this from this committee.

I would say, to Ms. Khalid's comments about the Ethics Commissioner not having an opinion on something, that having an opinion or not having an opinion is not the same thing as being able to provide this committee with facts. What I would like to see, should we go down this road, is that we have the opportunity to put questions to witnesses. I wouldn't presuppose that Ms. Khalid knows exactly what questions people would ask around the table, nor would I presuppose that she would know the answers.

Therefore, before we go down a road of shortening the meeting, having fewer witnesses and having less oversight, I would say, Mr. Chair, that I would support, at least in this preliminary way, the motion in its entirety.

I do have a question, through you to the mover, if you would allow me that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I just want to note that I've sat through many of these types of motions that regard highly politically sensitive actors: chiefs of staff, prime ministers, high-level ministers. They were all fair game when trying to explore the decision-making.

There has been a lot of conjecture about why Mr. Butts left, but certainly, the timing coincided with this affair, and certainly, he would have an opinion, as would many others. Only he would know, ultimately.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I am going to assume that the mover has included Mr. Butts and not the Prime Minister in hopes of providing some type of sworn testimony or accountability as to the facts relating to the possible involvement of the PMO's office in the SNC-Lavalin affair and ultimately the potential for criminality to be pursued by the RCMP.

Is that correct, or can you provide us with the rationale for wanting to have Mr. Butts here, who has already ostensibly lost his job from this affair and has moved on to other things?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

M. Villemure, could you answer that question?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, there is room for clarification.

When a decision is made, there are always two sides to the story. Obviously, the RCMP will tell us its version of the facts. That's what we want. However, as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was involved, I wanted some clarification from the people around the Prime Minister, without requiring his presence. We could have asked the Prime Minister to appear, but I didn't think that was reasonable.

So, we're looking for information relating to the flip side of the story, from the inner circle.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green, go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that.

Many members will know the time that I spent on the Emergencies Act joint review committee. I would suggest that, when it comes to getting strong, factual, direct answers, sometimes political actors are not the best witnesses. I'm wondering, through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Villemure, if there was a consideration of other people who may have provided direct advice to the Prime Minister, for instance the Privy Council Office. Would that be a potential for an exchange?

I'm trying to avoid a political circus that has no substance. Ultimately, I know, having worked with Mr. Villemure, that he's going to want to see some kind of recommendations out of this to ensure that the firewall that Ms. Damoff has mentioned between the RCMP and the highest office in the country is upheld, supported and reaffirmed, potentially, or, if there were gaps or if there were any possible influences, be they direct or indirect, from the Office of the Prime Minister to the RCMP, that they are immediately addressed.

Would there perhaps be consideration for people with a legal background who understand their legal responsibilities to the public versus a political actor who would, I would say, be very experienced in presenting a political response, perhaps, rather than a factual one?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Villemure.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his comment.

In my opinion, it's very important to find out what happened and to learn both sides of the story. As Ms. Damoff said, I'm not presuming there was interference. We just want to verify if there was.

In response to my colleague's direct question, I'll respond in the affirmative. If someone can suggest a name that would satisfy the desired requirement, I'll obviously be very open to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green, go ahead.

We're still on the amendment, Mr. Green, just so you know.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We're on the first amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

For the first amendment, the line of questioning I have is germane, because it would determine the scope in terms of timelines. I can't, with full information, support or reject Ms. Khalid's amendment if I'm not clear about where we would land in terms of the full complement of witnesses.

I would say to the committee that, in dealing with Ms. Khalid's amendment, I would not be supporting it. I would seek to maintain, at this moment, three meetings.

I would suggest, as a show of good faith to both parties—to Mr. Villemure, who has put forward a very comprehensive motion and to the governing side, which, I believe, is open to exploring and studying this—that, in the interim, at the appropriate time, I put forward an amendment that we switch out Mr. Butts for the top person in the Privy Council Office, not a junior staffer or anybody else, and that we keep it open. Should we not have, in the first two meetings, adequate and necessary responses to have the full picture, then, at that point, Mr. Villemure could reintroduce a motion to invite Mr. Butts to the third meeting.

At this point, I will not be supporting Ms. Khalid's amendment, and, at the appropriate time, I would put that forward as a compromise.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

We'll go to Ms. Damoff next.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're still on the amendment.

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

Yes.

Can I ask a question of Mr. Villemure as well, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead.

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

In your motion, you have said you want us to undertake a study on the RCMP's decision not to pursue a criminal investigation. From this, and from the newspaper reports that came out fairly recently about their decision not to pursue an investigation, I'm assuming that's the focus of what you want to study, not the entire SNC-Lavalin, which was already done in the past.

Looking at the conflict of interest commissioners, both past and present, a valid question to them would be, was it referred to the RCMP? That's certainly a question. But in terms of decisions—and I'll go back to this again—on whether or not charges should be laid, why they didn't lay charges and what their reasons were, that fully rests with the RCMP and those who work there.

I don't think Mr. Green's amendment is necessarily a bad one, but I think as a committee we need to decide what it is we want to study, and, really, it's the RCMP. If they give us information that we need more information on, that's one thing. But I don't think any of us would suggest that Mr. Butts interfered in a criminal investigation. The RCMP put out a statement through the deputy minister in March 2023. Mr. Butts has been gone for several years. They made the decision on their own.

I think there are valid questions to be asked of the RCMP, but I support Ms. Khalid's amendment that one meeting with the RCMP would be sufficient. If, once we hear from them, we determine that there are more meetings we need to have, then I think that's valid. But in terms of the initial meeting, if that's what we want to study, I think one meeting with the RCMP would be sufficient to get the answers we're looking for.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

Listening to my colleagues.... As I said before, we are absolutely open to having the RCMP come before us and help us understand what exactly happened here. I know I have proposed an amendment to Mr. Villemure's motion with respect to one meeting versus three meetings, but I think that's really part of the whole debate as to the scope of what this motion is covering.

Chair, I'm not sure what the procedure looks like. I'm wondering if we can just encompass all of the concerns we have within one amendment, as opposed to having an amendment on just the duration of this study or the number of meetings we're going to have. I look to you, Chair, to help me understand if I can have unanimous consent to remove my amendment and propose another one that is all-encompassing, just to be a little more expedient with respect to our debate today.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

I was listening to what Mr. Green said. Mr. Green said he's not sure that just one meeting will suffice in this situation, given the scale and the scope of the potential witnesses who may have to come forward. If I'm mistaking what Mr. Green said, I hope he would tell me, but I know there was a concern about one meeting.

I'd like to deal with one amendment at a time, frankly. You've proposed what I see are three amendments. There's one amendment right now that we're debating, and that's to deal with the study from three to one meeting; one would be to remove the current and past ethics commissioner from the study; and then the last one would be the removal of Mr. Butts.

I believe I heard you correctly on that one.

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

Chair, I don't think I moved all of those collectively.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I know, but I understand that's where you're going with this.