Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 27th, 2020

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Were you ever given any reasons? The Clerk of the Privy Council did make reference to this during his well-publicized testimony at the finance committee this summer. As an avid CPAC watcher, did you receive any insight into that obstruction or those difficulties on listening to Mr. Shugart's testimony?

[Mario Dion]

No, I didn't.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I think I'm just about out of time.

I'll ask how Mr. MacNaughton's meetings and communications might further the interests of Palantir, his employer. He said that in hindsight he recognized that they could have.

[Mario Dion]

You've read the order, I'm sure, Mr. Barrett, and I should speak through the chair, of course. We had 17 conversations involving those nine people who were directed not to speak to Mr. MacNaughton anymore. They were essentially offered the services of Palantir pro bono. Pro bono is often the first step to a more lucrative type of situation, so it's on that basis that we decided to impose the order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dion and Mr. Barrett.

Now we'll move to Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dion, it's a pleasure to see you again, just as it was a pleasure the first time we met. You had generously agreed to meet with me and advise me when I asked you to do so.

My questions are of a general nature. I would like to know why you think it is important to have an officer of Parliament, like you, who is independent, to work on ethical issues related to members of Parliament, in particular, and public office holders.

[Mario Dion]

I think it's important in terms of objectivity, as you said, and in terms of expertise. It's a task that requires a certain expertise, and that expertise is acquired over many years.

It's good to have someone who does only that. It's good to have someone who is non-partisan, so he's going to treat every issue the same, whether it's a member of party x or party y—it doesn't matter when it comes to seeking the truth.

It is also important in terms of the public credibility of the whole process of dealing with conflicts of interest. It has to be someone who has peace of mind, who is appointed for seven years and who has tenure, so they cannot be easily removed. They must decide whether or not someone has breached the provisions of the act or the code, as that person often holds a very important position, such as the Prime Minister or a Deputy Minister.

For all these reasons, I think it is good to have an officer of Parliament in this area. In the past, as you may know, until 2007, there were predecessors, but they didn't have the same formal independence, legal independence in fact.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes.

No matter how well intentioned my colleagues and I may be, we await the outcome of any investigation with some self-interest, whereas you work on the outcome free from self-interest. That's the advantage you have, isn't it?

[Mario Dion]

As I was saying earlier, only members of Parliament can legally file a complaint. Often, members of Parliament come to see us, and clearly, they are alleging something and are convinced of what happened. I think the member is often supported by his party's authorities.

Someone objective therefore has to receive the complaint and decide, first, whether or not they will launch an investigation. If they do, they will ensure that it is done in a way that is impartial to the person who is the subject of the complaint.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Okay.

If you were to come up with one conclusion and the committee were to arrive at a different conclusion on the same matter, would you consider that helpful to your work?

Do you think that could—

[Mario Dion]

I think the answer is....

First of all, we have different fora and different sets of rules, so even if everybody did their work in a very competent manner, it is very possible that the results in one forum might be different from those in another forum. I think it would not serve the credibility vis-à-vis the public that I was talking about if on the one hand the independent decision-maker made a decision and a committee—which is, by definition, partisan and displays partisanship—came to a different decision. I don't think that would be a positive result for anyone involved, let alone the impact on the person who would be investigated twice.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

That's it.

Should it be other parliamentarians, or should it be you in your role as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner?

Thank you for that. This brings me to an interesting understanding, because I'm wondering who, in your opinion, would be best suited to conduct these types of investigations to discuss the ethical behaviour of parliamentarians.

[Mario Dion]

I think Parliament has spoken, back in 2004, and until Parliament changes it, it's the code. The code essentially has decided that the commissioner would be doing this.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Would that be the best-suited person for the job?

[Mario Dion]

That's what Parliament thought in 2004, and I hope that continues to be the case.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You have less than a minute.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Let's see if I can get a quick question in.

Are we impeding your work by going to the same people you are speaking to in order to try to come up with a fair assessment as to whether they contravened the code that was set in place in 2004?

[Mario Dion]

It isn't impeding our work. In fact, we follow with interest what is said at each committee, and I am currently seeking permission from the finance committee to be able to use the testimonials made before the committee without having to interrogate again.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fergus and Mr. Dion.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Now we'll move on to Madame Gaudreau.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Dion. It is a pleasure to address you in French.

I will use my time to come back to our experience. I am fully aware that you are in the process of preparing your report, but I am going to ask a few questions to try to better understand what is happening at the moment.

We all remember that, at a media conference, the Prime Minister publicly apologized for not recusing himself when the Privy Council made the decision to award the management of the Canada student service grant program. He should have done so.

How will you address those allegations in your review? Was that an admission?

[Mario Dion]

We will assess whether it is a full admission, a qualified admission or a partial admission. We must analyze what was said and what was not said in a very rigorous way, and then come to a conclusion. Clearly, we will deal with this issue in our report.

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

That's excellent.

This is an investigation launched under subsection 44(3) of the Conflict of Interest Act with respect to possible contraventions, in particular section 21. That section reads as follows:

21 A public office holder shall recuse himself or herself from any discussion, decision, debate or vote...

Based on your expertise, would you comment on whether there might be exceptions to this rule if, for example, because of the importance of a decision, the public office holder was advised not to comply with this section?