Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 10th, 2018

[Mary Dawson]

It would probably have depended on the quantity of information I was given. If I had been asked about a vacation on the Aga Khan's island, I would probably have discovered that that person has a relationship with the government, and we probably would have asked some questions. It is quite possible that we would have provided some advice on the matter.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

The Prime Minister's lawyers said that there were exceptional circumstances. But whenever the Prime Minister travels, there are exceptional circumstances.

Is it true that the lawyers asked you that, or said that?

[Mary Dawson]

What did they ask me?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

They said that any travel on the part of the Prime Minister is done in exceptional circumstances, and that this was not necessarily the case for the Prime Minister's predecessors.

[Mary Dawson]

The lawyers did not say that; it was Mr. Trudeau.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Trudeau himself said that?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes. As I indicated in the report, Mr. Trudeau said that all of his trips were exceptional. In a way, they are always exceptional, because there is always a lot of security involved and all that. My point here is that you cannot use the argument that all travel is exceptional to claim that the holidays in question were exceptional. The circumstances were known, it was well planned, they had taken the helicopter before, so these were not circumstances that...

Let me go into English for a bit. It's easier.

You know, it's interesting, because the rules of the Prime Minister, the guidelines of the Prime Minister, require checking with the commissioner even if it is exceptional, so there's a dissonance in those two rules as well.

In any event, I found that it wasn't exceptional in this case, so it didn't matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Next up for five minutes is Monsieur Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Ms. Dawson.

Please answer in the language of your choice to be more at ease in your explanations. My questions will be in French.

[Mary Dawson]

Okay.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

You said that the definition of a “friend” was very broad and was not as circumscribed as all the other definitions contained in other laws.

In the public interest, and for those who will be reporting the information, I would like everyone to understand the challenges you face in cases were friendship is involved.

Earlier, you referred to criteria defined in a document that is about a dozen pages long. Did you attempt to apply those criteria so as to determine who should or should not be defined as a friend in as objective a manner as possible?

[Mary Dawson]

As I said a couple of times, I think you have to look at the circumstances, at all the surrounding circumstances, to decide whether you should be applying an exception because they're a friend. That's why I'm suggesting that it might be a very good idea to take that exception out. If you didn't have that exception in there, then in most cases if it were given to you by a friend, it would not reasonably be seen to have been given to influence you. I think the addition of that exception creates an unnecessary burden of decision, and not only that: it's insulting to the people who.... It's not nice if Mr. Trudeau has to say “The Aga Khan is not a friend of mine”, and he liked him. It just is the wrong.... I think it's not helpful.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

In your definition of a friendly relationship, you also must consider the perception of the other side. I'll explain what I mean. In certain cases, it would be rude, if not insulting to the other party, to refuse the offer, either because of the logistics involved, or because it would be related to the hospitality being extended.

Since this is a bilateral relationship, where two parties are involved, did you take into account the cultural or ethnic aspects that are necessarily a part of what are inevitably international relationships, at least in the Prime Minister's case?

[Mary Dawson]

We've had, in different circumstances, cases in which cultural questions have come in. For example, there were cases of people I think in the citizenship area or the refugee area who may have been so thankful to have been heard by somebody in Canada that they'll bring a gift. Well, those are delicate situations that you have to deal with. The way you have to deal with it is to say, “Look, in Canada this creates a problem. Thank you, but perhaps you could share it with everybody here or something. I can't accept this gift.”

Now, that's a specific example of that kind of cultural problem. I think you have to abide by the expectations in this country to some extent, but you have to be very nice about it.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The degree of friendship is not defined, so no difference is made between a friendly acquaintance and a close friend of long standing. When assessing whether a gift is admissible, what criteria are used to define who qualifies as a friend?

Personally, I have a friend I've known since I was 14, Charles, and I say hello to him in passing. Even if we haven't seen each other in 40 years, he remains a friend, because there are some things that stay with you.

You have to consider the cultural aspect and the specific circumstances of travel with friends who also have a business relationship with the government. In those circumstances, it is possible that the conversation might take a turn toward work-related topics. In any case, only one person makes the decision concerning the admissibility of a claim, and that person is you.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Is this determined on a subjective basis?

[Mary Dawson]

I don't know that there is any other way to do it.

Because every situation, as I keep saying, is different, you have to judge it in the context. I have in, I think, the Watson report a description of what a friend is. That was eight years ago now. I might change that a little bit now. Each time I've done a decision on “friend”, which I've done two or three times now, I've tried to give my reasons, and it's sort of an inductive system. Maybe it's not familiar to the civil law mentality and aligns more to the common law mentality, but I think we have to build up our precedents and understand it. As I say, getting rid of that exception might help.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Picard.

Next up is Mr. Kent for five minutes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Dawson, you observed in your report that in 2015 the Prime Minister issued a guidance document for ministers and ministerial exempt staff entitled “Open and Accountable Government”, and you found that he violated not only his own guidance letter but also the Conflict of Interest Act.

[Mary Dawson]

I made that comment. I'm not the judge of the guidelines. That's PCO or...I don't know who it is, but it's not me.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Absolutely, but as you say, in this case the Prime Minister did not follow his own rule.

[Mary Dawson]

No; if you look at that guideline, it says exceptional circumstances “and” consulted the commissioner, whereas the act says “or”.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Were you surprised that the Prime Minister didn't see the conflict in his decision to take this vacation, or that his advisers in the Prime Minister's Office did not see the several areas of potential conflict and vulnerability?