Information & Ethics Committee on May 16th, 2019

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

The last comment I will make is to encourage you to turn your attention to this, at the very least, if you haven't already.

In our democracy, we have very strict election finance rules. In part, I think the idea is that if someone donates to my campaign, to Mr. Kent's campaign or to Ms. Mathyssen's campaign, and donates up to $1,600, there's very little influence. It's a de minimis amount, in many ways, in contrast to what we see in other jurisdictions, including the United States.

I would say the extent to which they thereafter could exert influence on us in our roles as elected officials is nil, yet we start to see now parallel campaigns being run by third party organizations, very closely in parallel with political parties, and they receive significant sums of corporate dollars that are not in any way de minimis.

The extent to which those companies and individuals then can exert influence thereafter is of great concern to me. If you and your offices haven't turned your mind to that idea, I would encourage you to do so.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you. We have to move on.

Mr. Kent, you have seven minutes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for appearing before us again.

As my colleague said, we had an interesting conversation with the Ethics Commissioner in the last hour. We talked to a certain extent about the enhanced outreach and the communications, the webinars and the meetings that have been going on with your offices. Commissioner Dion made it clear that you don't talk about specific cases.

However, with regard to the Federal Court order to you regarding a decision made, which I believe was termed a “reviewable error” of the previous commissioner, I asked the Ethics Commissioner how there could be a finding of wrongdoing and an illegal gift on one side of the equation when there seems to be a different application of the definition of “benefit or gift” on the other side.

What are your thoughts on that? Could you tell us whether you have proceeded to comply with the Federal Court order or whether you're waiting? We understand there may be a government appeal.

[Nancy Bélanger]

I can confirm that the appeal has been filed.

I will answer your question to the best of my ability, knowing that there is an appeal before the court.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I understand.

[Nancy Bélanger]

First of all, I have the greatest respect for the Federal Court. I articled there; I worked there, and I will always abide by a decision of a judge. You will never hear me criticize or comment on the decisions in a negative way. Therefore, I will abide by the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal.

In this particular decision, however, to clarify your point, I don't think the issue was on the different definition of a “gift”. It was whether the Aga Khan was subject to the lobbying rules in light of the fact that he is someone who does not get paid and therefore, that was the issue.

I will wait for the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. I have not started. In my experience as a lawyer, I always await the 30-day appeal period before I start anything. I've always had that practice, so I will await the decision and I will abide by it.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

This is a hypothetical question, but one that is quite simple. Were you to actually launch an investigation, what type of timeline would you expect it to take? Would you start at the beginning or would you narrow it down to the question at hand?

[Nancy Bélanger]

People who have worked with me would know that I would likely start at the beginning. I would like to personally get to the bottom of the story. However, I would also take advantage of the fact that the facts are out there already, so I will use what is out there to advance it as quickly as possible.

I have also told my team that if and when we start this investigation—it wasn't an investigation, actually; the court has told us to start the review again because it was not at the stage of an investigation—I would likely do a report to Parliament on that, in order for everyone to understand what was my interpretation of the matter.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With regard to the 15 investigations and the three investigations referred to the RCMP, there is a difference between your office and the Ethics Commissioner's office in terms of announcing investigations or referrals of incidents in the public domain.

Can you tell us anything about the three investigations referred to the RCMP?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I can't, and I don't confirm and I don't deny exactly for that reason: not to jeopardize any type of investigation that the RCMP will be doing.

It's a weird situation. The way our act is written, if it's an offence, in other words if it's unregistered lobbying or lobbying while prohibited, when I have reasonable grounds to believe that's happened, I have to suspend. I don't finish those investigations. They go to the RCMP. Very often it's possible that I don't even talk to the person who is alleged because it's all about self-incrimination, so I don't go there.

If I do investigations only under the code, those will lead to a report to Parliament, unless I cease them.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

There are two stories in the public domain relating with great probability to your office.

One of the unanswered questions in the SNC-Lavalin scandal is regarding the phone call from the former clerk of the Privy Council, now the chair of SNC-Lavalin, to the then clerk of the Privy Council, which lasted some 10 minutes. Was that, in your mind, and again just on the evidence that is in the public domain already, an offence under the act?

[Nancy Bélanger]

What's in the public domain probably doesn't include enough information for me to make a finding, and I will leave it at that for that particular file.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Would it be improper to assume an investigation is under way?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I can't comment.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The other case is the matter of a big dollar Liberal fundraising event at which an American citizen with an interest in lobbying the Prime Minister and the infrastructure minister was gifted a ticket to that event, either by a Liberal or by a lobbyist. Many people would think that would justify investigation.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Again, I can't comment.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

All right.

Coming back to Mr. Erskine-Smith's questions, I wonder if we could talk about merging some of the elements of the office with regard to investigation.

There was the investigation, the Trudeau report, for example, which involved both sides of a situation. Would there have been benefit there in the sharing of information of that fairly extensive and aggressive investigation while it was still being considered by your predecessor?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Obviously when it's a common issue and it's the flip side of the same issue, it would be interesting to do these interviews at the same time, but right now, we can't even talk to each other. Obviously he makes public that he investigates, so I'm aware of what he's doing—for most, or for some; I don't think he makes everything public—but he doesn't know what I'm seized of.

Interestingly, when the Privacy Commissioner issued a report a few weeks ago with the B.C. commissioner, the first thing I asked was, “ How did you do this?” I guess there is a section in their respective legislation that allows them to do investigations jointly. It does exist. There's a precedent for it.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

One final question, would you recommend the same practice be followed in your case?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Certainly, if that is the will of Parliament, we will abide by that, yes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

Next up for seven minutes is Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Commissioner. It's lovely to have a chance to meet you.

I'm going to be following up with some questions, some of which will just be me thinking out loud, if you can't answer, but wherever you can answer, I would truly appreciate it.

Recently, your office issued a report on sponsored travel and unregistered lobbying that could be happening on these trips. I guess Captain Renault from Casablanca is one of those situations. At any rate, how would you monitor unregistered lobbying on these trips? How did you find that and how do you respond? Can you tell us?

[Nancy Bélanger]

The first thing I will clarify is that I did not find that there was some unregistered lobbying that occurred on these trips. This was extremely complex. It had been going on for a number of years, with 19 organizations, going back for a period of seven years.

The investigative team spoke to the heads of each of these organizations. We, as well, confirmed with members of Parliament whether or not lobbying had occurred on these trips. When it did, the organizations filled in their monthly communication report as they should, and when they didn't lobby, well then, they did not put in the monthly communication report.

How do I monitor? We investigate if there is an allegation. Otherwise it is the goodwill of lobbyists to put in their monthly communication report in the registry. And they do. There were 27,500 of them in the past year.