Evidence of meeting #12 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charity.
A video is available from Parliament.
As an Individual
Yes, but you have to look at section 11, which is the gift section, assuming that this act applied to these people. When you look at section 11, that's the one you would interpret. That's the one section that doesn't use conflict of interest as the base, interestingly enough.
Anyway, we're getting into semantics.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Ms. Dawson. I have one other question for you.
Let's say that the individual in a conflict of interest situation is an “example” for the people with whom he works. Around the Cabinet table, for example, the Prime Minister is the leader of the Cabinet, to an extent. He influences the other ministers.
Is his duty to be careful about conflicts of interest not greater than for someone who is simply participating in the meeting?
As an Individual
Well, in his role, perhaps, he has a symbolic...role, or whatever the expression would be, but the fact of the matter is that the act applies equally to everybody, from the Prime Minister to the lowest official who's covered by the act. The rules are the same for all.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Ms. Dawson, let's say we are in a situation where we have to make somewhat unusual decision, that we are going to award a contract of $43.5 million to a company to manage up to $900 million, and we do not have the time to call for tenders. So we are awarding a sole-source contract.
Does our duty to be aware of conflicts of interest not increase at that point?
As an Individual
Yes, if there's time. This is the problem here.
I'd point out section 19 of the act. Section 19 says, “Compliance with this Act is a condition of a person's appointment or employment as a public office holder.” That should have a bearing on what happens to the person who may have been found to have contravened the act. It's not the Ethics Commissioner who will have that bearing; it will be the place where he works or the way he's appointed, the way he's elected, the way he's hired.
What I'm saying is that the contraventions are there in the act, written as they are, and if there are mitigating circumstances, you would note in the decision that, yes, they contravened the act, and perhaps it's understandable why, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't affect whether they contravened the act or not.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Ms. Dawson, we know that our Prime Minister is currently the subject of an investigation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. This is the third time. If he happens to be found guilty of any contravention of the rules of ethics, it will be the third time.
In your opinion, should the sanction be greater after three times, or is it possible to contravene the Conflict of Interest Act as often as you want, with the sanction basically never being greater than what we have seen up to now?
As an Individual
As I have said before, I'm not a fan of having penalties or punishments meted out by the Ethics Commissioner. I believe that belongs in the criminal courts. But I think the repercussions of continuous contraventions of the act will be felt sooner or later. That's why I pointed to section 19. It's clear that compliance with the act is a condition of the person being in their job. Ultimately, there will probably be some effects of having contravened the act, whoever you are and whenever it occurs.
Conservative
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Madam Dawson. It's so great to have you back before the ethics committee. You have spoken to us many times over the years.
I'm very interested in the “Trudeau Report”, because I think it will help certainly my Liberal colleagues in getting a better sense of how the Conflict of Interest Act works. Your findings in it are very interesting. We get the impression that conflict of interest is something like bribery, where somebody offers you money and you give them a deal, but in the “Trudeau Report”, it was much more complex in that it was the family members who were very much engaged in the back-and-forth.
You know, the Prime Minister meets with the Aga Khan in November 2015 in Paris. It's a private meeting, which it may have been. Then it's the Aga Khan's daughter who reaches out to Ms. Grégoire to invite her to their first trip to the island. So it's through the family that the decision's made. Then, two days before she goes on that vacation, the Aga Khan's officials reach out and start talking about the $15 million.
So in terms of the findings you made, you had a number of areas where you found the Prime Minister responsible. One is that the whole thing of...that a public office holder will recuse himself from any discussion, decision, debate or any matter on which he or she would be in a conflict of interest. Section 6 of that act says that...should “reasonably” know that in making that decision, he would be in a conflict. It's to “reasonably” know that it's a conflict...when this was something that was very beneficial to the family, because at Christmastime, in the famous trip, it was Sophie Grégoire who then reached out to the Aga Khan, asked if they could come and have a vacation, and the family said yes. So how is it that?
I would just like to get your comments on that report in terms of the fact that it can be family members involved too, thinking they're just getting something really nice and normal, that actually puts the public office holder in the conflict.
As an Individual
That's where you look at the definition of conflict of interest. The conflict of interest definition, effectively, is section 4, but I always call it the definition. It says:
an opportunity to further his or her private interests, those of his or her relatives or friends, or to improperly further another
The relatives or friends are already included in the definition of conflict of interest. Interestingly, in the Aga Khan one, section 11 doesn't build on the concept of conflict of interest. It builds on another concept, which is:
reasonably seen to have been given to influence
In a sense we're mixing a little bit the two issues.
Some of the other sections like the one you mentioned, let's see—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I would like to follow up on section 11, because it's the reason we seem to have been given to influence the office-holder, because it is the creation of that relationship that, when you come at a later time, you've already developed an improper relationship through how you've set that up.
One of the things that's been really surprising with the Kielburgers, and I'm not asking you to prejudge the work of Commissioner Dion.... We know that Margaret Trudeau is a very well-known public speaker. We were very surprised to find that WE had not paid any of the other speakers. WE told the board that none of the other speakers were being paid, but Margaret and Sacha Trudeau were being paid, and that wasn't being told to the board. That would be reasonably seen as putting the Prime Minister in a conflict, don't you think, as there is now a direct financial commitment to his family of upwards of half a million dollars.
I would like to go back to section 6, which is connected to section 11, “if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in making a decision, he would be in a conflict”. That financial commitment that the Kielburgers made to his family put him in a difficult situation.
As an Individual
Yes, but you're mixing up two provisions.
Section 11 has “reasonably seen to have been given” and is specific to section 11, so if we're trying to interpret section 6 or 9, or whatever we're trying to interpret, that doesn't use that expression.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I get that.
Section 11 says:
reasonably seen to have been given to influence the public office holder
I'm talking about the Kielburgers' relationship. I'm talking about the Prime Minister's responsibility under subsection 6 where he reasonably should know that he's now in a conflict of interest, because nobody else would know that the family had financial relations. That wasn't public. WE knew that the family was involved in WE, but WE understood that everybody was a volunteer. It's up to the Prime Minister in that moment.
I'm harping on this because I notice that the Prime Minister, when he gave his testimony, kept talking about section 2, which defines family as spouse and children, but section 3 talks about being related by birth, marriage, common law or adoption, and it's a larger sense of relative. It seems that the Prime Minister was very aware of his definition under section 2, but under section 3 certainly the financial arrangements the Kielburgers made with his direct family and their family name put him in that compromised position.
As an Individual
Actually, those are subsections of section 2.
Well, I don't know. That's a matter of fact, and that's not for me to decide.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you.
I will start into our five-minute round now.
First up we have Mr. Gourde.
The floor is yours.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Dawson, thank you for being here today. You headed the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for 10 years, and I can bear witness to that. You had an iron fist in a velvet glove and you always did excellent work.
Philosophically speaking, when we look at what is happening today, we see that the work you did and that the new commissioner Mario Dion is doing does not seem to change public opinion a lot. Someone who is found guilty by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner should certainly lose an election, because being ethical is an essential part of the bond of trust with the electorate. However, when someone continually places themselves in a situation of conflict of interest and investigations confirm it, that bond of trust with the electorate does not seem to be broken.
Whether the commissioner's office really does its work or does not actually give the results of its investigation to the electorate, it does not carry a lot of weight in public opinion. We saw that in the last election. The Prime Minister was found guilty twice, once about his trip to visit the Aga Khan and once with the whole SNC-Lavalin affair. However, people still voted for the current Prime Minister again. Most members in the House take this seriously, but the voters do not. That troubles me.
Ms. Dawson, now that you have retired and you can look at this situation from the outside, does it trouble you?
As an Individual
I think there are different levels of badness in some of the contraventions that are found. Sometimes it's just not being careful enough; other times it could be quite a serious thing.
The other thing to note is that of course you're thinking more in terms of members of Parliament who are also reporting public office holders. Of course, there are many people covered by the act who the public don't know much about and then it's up to the organization to deal with that, or the government in reappointing them. I'm thinking of Governor in Council appointees.
I'm sure that continuing contraventions are going to add up, but there are some extenuating circumstances in the current case, in that we're in a strange pandemic situation. I am not surprised really. I think the main power of the Conflict of Interest Act is in preventing these things, as I've said before. Each decision that comes out is an educational tool in and of itself to show all the other reporting public office holders where they could fall down. One hopes that everybody will learn from a particular contravention by a particular person.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Would you agree that a minister, a prime minister or a parliamentary secretary who was the subject of a serious investigation by the Commissioner's office as a result of legitimate complaints, should resign their position and become an independent member until the Commissioner's office has made its decision? At least they would not be a distraction for their party.
As an Individual
I think that's a political decision; I don't think it's a moral decision.
I think normally these cases are, first of all, not decided until they're decided, and it's difficult when they're under investigation. They haven't been shown to have contravened the act at this time. There are some cases that are more open and shut than others and there are some areas that are a little bit abstruse, I think.
I don't think it's an automatic thing. Again, though, I point to section 19. It is a condition of their job so that will have a bearing. It should have a bearing but it won't always have a bearing.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
However, after a member commits a really serious contravention, is it possible that he may never come back as a minister?
As an Individual
Well, I think the public will decide that.
Actually, sorry, you're talking about a minister and not an MP. Again, it's for the party, or for the Prime Minister, I guess, to determine that. It's always a thing that has to be considered. A decision has to be made, but I don't think it's an obvious decision.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you, Ms. Dawson.
For another five-minute round, we're going to Mr. Dong and Mrs. Zahid.