Evidence of meeting #12 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lobbying.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I call the meeting to order.
Colleagues, welcome.
We have something unique today in that we have two witnesses before us. I say it's unique because we've had lots of business without any witnesses. We're glad to have them.
Our first witness, from 1:00 to 2:00, will be the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Mario Dion.
Mr. Dion, we will let you go ahead with your remarks. Please keep them to seven minutes.
Thank you very much, sir.
1:05 p.m.
Mario Dion Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting me to appear today.
It has been a year and a half since my last appearance. This afternoon, the members of your committee and I will finally have the opportunity to exchange information and views.
The motion deals with issues of conflict of interest as they pertain to pandemic spending.
I have been the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner since January 2018. I applied for the position because I believed in it and wanted to play a role in helping improve the confidence Canadians have in their elected officials and public sector leaders. I still believe in it, even more so now that I have a full appreciation of the role and its potential.
Our mandate is twofold. Many members are new, so I will take the occasion to give you a brief overview.
We assist the House of Commons in managing the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, which was adopted in 2004. We also do essentially the same work in relation to the Conflict of Interest Act, which dates back to 2007.
The purpose of the act is to set clear rules around conflicts of interest and post-employment activities for public office holders who may be either ministers, parliamentary secretaries, members of their staff or Governor in Council appointees. There are currently about 2,400 public office holders, of whom 1,300 are reporting public office holders, which means they have additional, more stringent obligations. Of those 1,300, 700 are staff members in ministers' offices.
The pandemic has had and will continue to have an impact on the work of our office because of the two high-profile investigations related to the Canada student service grant. As well, it has had an impact, as we will discuss in a few minutes, through the issue involving Mr. MacNaughton, which of course has generated some work as well. It was pandemic related. In relation to that file, I ended up making an order against nine senior officials involved in the matter, basically prohibiting them from talking to Mr. MacNaughton for the next year.
The workload of our office has increased very significantly in the past year, but it's not mostly because of these things; it's because of a significant rise in the number of exempt staff. There's been an increase of 65% over the last year in relation to people who work in ministers' offices. This is in addition to the 98 new members who were elected. These were new members compared to the legislature at the last general election. I think it's fair to say that new ministerial staff and new members require more support because they have to quickly familiarize themselves with a complex set of rules and provide a lot of information to us.
Upon appointment, under the act, all public office holders are provided information about their obligations, and a compliance process is undertaken. Essentially it's the same thing as you've done under the code. When they have completed the initial process, we analyze this information. We also make sure there is an annual review that takes place with each reporting public office holder each year. Throughout their term, public office holders must be vigilant about any recusals, any gifts of $200 or more or any material change to their situation, which they have to report to us in very short order.
Our role is not only to advise, to confirm exceptions or to explain requirements but also to engage in oversight activities to ensure compliance with the provisions set out in the act and the code as well. Our role is to guide members and senior officials individually, independently, thoroughly and consistently. That's where the lion's share of the office's resources is directed.
There was an important reduction in the advice given by our office in the first part of this fiscal year because of the shock caused to everyone's activities by the sudden onset of the pandemic. That's my diagnosis, at least. It has since picked up. I'm pleased to say that we anticipate a marked increase year over year. People come to us and seek advice. That's the way it should be. While I'm not hesitant to use the enforcement powers provided in the act, I believe compliance based on understanding one's obligations is always best.
For example, in the middle of the pandemic, in November, earlier this month, we organized an educational teleconference on the duty to recuse, because I sensed there may be a need for it. It's very important to be able to identify situations where one should recuse oneself. We had more registrants than we could accommodate on our Zoom licence. We had over 200 people who registered for this one-hour session on recusals.
I intend to do more in the future on subjects [Inaudible—Editor] return areas where it really matters that you understand your obligations.
Insofar as the pandemic is concerned, I've mentioned three related investigations, two of which have yet to be completed. We also had a few dozen requests for advice that have a link back to the pandemic. This is quite marginal.
In terms of post-employment—and we will talk about the MacNaughton file—there is a part of the act that applies. It's very short. It's 10 sections and it sets out basically that when you are a former public office holder, you have obligations, some of which are forever and some of which are limited for a period of one or two years after you've left.
I always invite people to read these provisions as they become public office holders, because they should prepare mentally to abide by them once they leave. However, it's very seldom that former officials seek advice from us.
They are prohibited from doing a number of things. I'm not here to give you an exhaustive list, because I don't have the time, but I think it's important to situate the MacNaughton matter to understand that Mr. MacNaughton, being a reporting public office holder, had left a while ago and basically engaged in some activities for which there were requirements in part 3 of the act, which he did not follow. He did violate certain aspects of his post-employment obligations and acknowledged, with the benefit of hindsight, that certain communications and meetings, to the extent that they could have furthered the interests of his new employer, Palantir Technologies, were contrary to section 33.
I bring up the issue of investigations because I know you understand that I have the authority to conduct investigations, whether under the act or the code. Usually this is as a result of a complaint made by a member of Parliament. I can also initiate investigations on my own initiative when information provides me with reasonable grounds to believe that a contravention has occurred.
I will skip a few parts, because I see that I may have already exceeded my time.
In terms of Mr. MacNaughton's file, rather than continuing to investigate a case where there was a clear issue and a number of contraventions, I decided instead to issue an order to prevent the recurrence of these events. As a result, nine public office holders were prohibited from having official dealings with Mr. MacNaughton. This ensured that the situation would not happen again. The order is available on our public registry.
Since I have been in office, for almost three years, our goal has been to complete the investigation reports within one year, barring extraordinary complications. Since my appointment, we have been able to meet this objective and have completed 18 reports under either the act or the code.
Interest varies depending on the person involved or the seriousness of the offences. This serves as an important educational component—
1:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, Mr. Chair?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I always hate to interrupt anyone, but we gave you an extra couple of minutes. I know my colleagues are going to hold me to account, so we'll need to carry on to questions. If you have something you want to cover, you can certainly cover it during our question-and-answer period.
1:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, of course. I'll stick to less than two minutes, as you will see, Mr. Chair.
1:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Oh, you mean we're over. Okay, that's fine. I will cover other aspects as part of the questions and answers.
1:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, I know.
1:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I watch you on CPAC from time to time.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for joining us today.
Speaking of time, Commissioner, I'm wondering if you could tell the committee the expected timeline for your office to report your findings on the investigations of the Prime Minister and the contraventions of subsection 6(1), section 7 and section 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act.
1:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, I can't, for two reasons. First, the act prohibits me from exchanging any information while an investigation is in progress. Second, even if I was not barred, I frankly don't know at this point how many more months we will need to complete the examinations that we've started in relation to Monsieur Trudeau and Mr. Morneau.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Okay. Thank you very much.
Can you summarize section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act for the committee?
1:15 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I will try, although sometimes it's more complex than it appears. I will try. I will do my best.
Here is section 9. I still use paper, because I was called in 1980, Mr. Barrett. I'll open up the page. It says essentially that “No public office holder shall use his or her position...to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder's private interests or those of [his] relatives or friends or to improperly further another person's private interests.”
The focus is on seeking to influence a decision that has to be made by another person. You occupy a position. You try to influence somebody else who has to make a decision in order to further the private interests of a relative, a friend, or to improperly further another person's private interests.
I know I'm reading back the provision to you, but I'm trying to put some emphasis on the key aspects of it.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thank you very much.
Section 9 of the act is one that you found Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had contravened. Is that correct?
1:15 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
In the Trudeau II Report, yes, we did.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
It was a personal interest of the Prime Minister to attempt to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. That's a very brief summary of your finding in that report. Would that be fair?
1:15 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We found that he had improperly furthered the interests of SNC-Lavalin by seeking to influence the decision made by the Attorney General.
November 27th, 2020 / 1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Not being a lawyer myself, on the face of it, it looks similar to section 139 of the Criminal Code, which states that “Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding” is guilty of obstruction of justice.
Those are not your words, sir. That is my reading of the section from the Criminal Code.
The reason I bring it up is that I'm wondering if you are able to tell the committee if you were ever in contact with the RCMP regarding the Trudeau II Report.
1:15 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I am not able to tell the committee whether I was in contact with the RCMP.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Okay. Thank you very much.
We know that you had trouble. You stated as much in your Trudeau II Report. You had trouble collecting the information and you were blocked at certain points during the investigation. Was that unique to that investigation, or have those hindrances or obstructions persisted in past and current investigations, or more recent investigations?
1:15 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It was unique to that investigation. That's why I decided to talk fully about it in the report itself. I was surprised and I wanted to take steps in the report to try to limit the potential for repeating the same situation.