Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 27th, 2020

[Mario Dion]

The obligation described in section 21 is absolute. If the conditions are met, the type of decision does not matter. The obligation applies to any discussion. It is not just about decisions. Let me read the section, which is four lines long:

21 A public office holder shall recuse himself or herself from any discussion, decision, debate or vote on any matter in respect of which he or she would be in a conflict of interest.

In other words, this applies to any decision, discussion, and so on, regardless of the relative importance of the issue.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is about the criteria that define reasonable knowledge. It is set out in subsection 6(1) of the act. The subsection states that a public office holder reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.

For example, if an elected public office holder decides to award a contract to an organization and may be in a conflict of interest situation, do you think that is reasonable knowledge? Under those circumstances, should he or she avoid awarding the contract?

[Mario Dion]

I read the section differently from the member, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I will quickly read a few passages:

6 (1) No public office holder shall make a decision... if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know...

That is what we do when we are called to this position. That is what I do in a report: I analyze the facts and come to a conclusion. So when you are in a situation like that, you have to see whether it was reasonable to think that the person should have known, based on the facts.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Okay.

[Mario Dion]

Many factors are considered and there are times when it would be unreasonable to think that someone knew absolutely everything about family members or friends.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Okay. Thank you very much.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair? I would like to ask another question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You have two minutes left, Ms. Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Dion, at last Tuesday's meeting, we talked about your role as conflict of interest commissioner, but also as ethics commissioner.

From your comments, I understand that the ethics component is actually included in your title, but what about ethics in your role as commissioner?

[Mario Dion]

My role in ethics is relatively limited. In the act, there are one or two sections where the word “ethics” appears. One of my duties, which is not very well known to the public, is in section 43 of the act.

The act states:

43 In addition to carrying out his or her other duties and functions under this Act, the Commissioner shall

(a) provide confidential advice to the Prime Minister, including on the request of the Prime Minister, with respect to the application of this Act to individual public office holders; and

(b) provide confidential advice to individual public office holders with respect to their obligations under this Act.

I emphasize that the Commissioner provides advice to the Prime Minister on the request of the Prime Minister, but not always on his request. So I have the right to take the lead and give unsolicited advice, and I think that gives me some role in ethics, but that's about it.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

With all due respect, Mr. Commissioner, I was wondering about the following question.

Considering the fact that this pandemic is taking all the focus, and considering the increase in workload that you mentioned earlier in your speech, what can you tell me about the relationship that you have established with the Prime Minister to prevent this type of situation, knowing that part of your role is prevention?

You just said that the Prime Minister can make a request to you and that you can also be a watchdog.

[Mario Dion]

That's right, and we have an ongoing dialogue with public office holders. The higher the position, the greater the frequency of consultation.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

So I understand that what apparently happened should not have happened.

[Mario Dion]

We will see.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

The time is up.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dion and Ms. Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Angus, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Dion, for coming back to our committee. It's good to see you in such good health.

[Mario Dion]

Thank you.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

When our parliamentary committees, the finance and ethics committees, began looking at the questions around the WE and the granting of the $912 million, the Prime Minister testified that when this was brought to him, he became aware that there were potential conflicts because he was so closely tied to them and that he asked for a period for them to do due diligence.

In that time, did anyone from the Prime Minister's Office or Bill Morneau's office reach out to you with regard to whether there was a question of conflict of interest or the duty to recuse?

[Mario Dion]

The advice we give to people such as Mr. Morneau, Mr. Trudeau or any of the 2,400 people I was talking about is confidential. I am simply not at liberty to discuss whether they approach us or they don't approach us under the act.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I totally understand. It is just that whether or not that due diligence was done is very germane to the parliamentary investigation. We will continue to look.

What's been very complex for parliamentarians in dealing with the WE issue is that we are dealing with a group that is very complex in its corporate structure. There are multiple companies, and we are trying to get a clear sense out of something that's difficult.

When we were first told about the role of Margaret Trudeau and Sacha Trudeau, we were told they weren't paid. The board of directors was told they weren't getting paid. That was false. The committee testimony found out that upwards of $350,000 was being paid, but the Kielburgers said that they weren't paid to do public speaking; they were paid to do ancillary corporate events. That's the big work afterwards in terms of the corporate sponsorships, which would be very lucrative to their organization.

I know you can't reveal much, but would the issue of the ancillary events and being paid to work corporate events for an organization be something you would consider part of your investigation?

[Mario Dion]

We will look at everything that's related, even if it's somewhat remote, and I'm not saying this is remote. We take a very wide approach, and we will be looking at that issue for sure.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I thank you so much for that.

I understand that Madame Grégoire Trudeau, who has been a strong advocate for youth, was given the dispensation to be a goodwill ambassador with WE to run their blog. Are you aware if she was given permission to work corporate events on behalf of the WE group?

[Mario Dion]

I am not aware. If I was aware as a result of our work to date, I would not be able to tell you anyway.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I totally understand. Thank you.

I was very interested in reading your investigation into Mr. MacNaughton, and I thank you so much for your positive response when I asked for an investigation. I found it very troubling, because Mr. MacNaughton has a long history of lobbying in Ottawa, so he's very familiar with the rules.

He had said that he had cleared this with you, and in paragraph 4 of your report, you said that Mr. MacNaughton, following consultations with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, was named president of Palantir Technologies Canada effective September 4, 2019.

Did he discuss with you the parameters of his role? If he had spoken with you, would it not have been clear that he was not to do lobbying?