Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 27th, 2020

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Say, for example, a member of an opposition party or the general public thinks that your advice was to set up a screen, and the general public feels that doesn't live up to public scrutiny. Would you feel compelled to defend your recommendation, especially when that could mean big reputational consequences for the person involved? Why or why not?

[Mario Dion]

Our role is to provide advice to MPs and to public office holders. We do not discuss in any way, shape or form the advice we've given them with the media or with members of the public. The only body to which I have to defend my advice and my decisions is Parliament itself, and maybe the Federal Court of Appeal, if somebody seeks judicial review. That's it.

We don't have to justify, and we basically are barred from revealing any information, without which it's impossible to understand the advice anyway.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you.

I want to go back to the conversation you had with my colleague, MP Fergus.

I was listening carefully about the role of the committee and your role. In your opinion, should the committee not do these types of studies?

[Mario Dion]

By “these types of studies”, do you mean today's study, today's motion?

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Yes, I mean that, or running an investigation parallel to what you're doing.

[Mario Dion]

I think today's motion is very different. It doesn't amount to an investigation. Of course, I would not welcome...but the committee is free to do whatever the committee wants to do, but I would not be happy that the committee was investigating something that was identical to what I was investigating. However, the committee's free to do so.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you.

The reason I'm asking this question is that if the committee and your investigation on the same matter yield different results, outcomes, decisions or recommendations, would you feel in that case that there's any requirement for you to defend your decision or your rationale publicly?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Sorry, I have to interrupt. The time has expired.

I'll need to go to Madame Gaudreau now. You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have three questions for you, Mr. Dion.

I would like clarification on something. Earlier you said that, when a witness appears before a committee, they are not necessarily giving sworn testimony, contrary to when you speak with a witness. In that case, the witness's testimony is given under oath from the outset.

Did I understand that correctly?

[Mario Dion]

That is indeed what I said.

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

Very good.

Practically speaking, I think we can all agree that writing a report is arduous work. You said your investigation findings would be released next year.

We are in the midst of a pandemic, when everything is moving so fast. The public trust needs to be restored and the government has a duty to account for its actions in relation to the pandemic. Taking all of that into account, would it not be possible to release the report sooner?

[Mario Dion]

When I said “next year”, I was speaking in legal terms. It could be as early as January of next year. It does not mean it's a year away; it just means sometime next year.

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

We might get a nice surprise early in the new year, then. Is that right?

[Mario Dion]

My aim is to ensure the work we do is fair and top-notch, and that we comply with the act in doing that work. The sooner we complete the process, the better.

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

My last question has to do with section 44 of the act. I want to make sure I'm clear on something. Subsection 11(1) refers to possible contraventions and reads as follows:

11 (1) No public office holder or member of his or her family shall accept any gift or other advantage, including from a trust….

Explain that provision to me, if you would, particularly what “advantage” means.

[Mario Dion]

The term “advantage” is defined in the act, so it's easy to explain.

Sorry, I thought it was defined in the act, but it isn't. However, the expression “gift or other advantage” is defined and can refer to a situation where an amount of money is loaned and there is no obligation to repay it.

It can also refer to “a service or property, or the use of property or money that is provided without charge or at less than its commercial value”. In other words, if someone charges you $19 a night to rent a condo in Mont-Tremblant, that would constitute an advantage given what the rate would normally be.

I hope that answers your question.

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

Therefore—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Dion, Madame Gaudreau, thank you. Two and a half minutes went blisteringly fast.

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

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

[Mario Dion]

You're welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Angus, you have two and a half minutes.

[Mario Dion]

Mr. Angus, would you like me to finish my answer on what we can do to prevent former public office holders...?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Angus, it's up to you for two and a half minutes, sir.

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

I will take my two and a half minutes.

I think it's very interesting that my Liberal colleagues are very much trying to get Mr. Dion to tell us that we should not do our investigations because of course it's their MPs who are under investigation. It's an old standard.

You said you're interested in the testimony. I would refer you to the testimony on July 22 of Mr. Bill Morneau. There were two fascinating points. One, I asked him if he'd ever read the Conflict of Interest Act, and he seemed very surprised. He said he'd been given a bunch of documents when he was first elected, so I'm surprised that there was no follow-up with him on conflict of interest. That was the point where he told the public, and you became aware of it for the first time, that he had received $40,000 in travel.

You have cleared Mr. Morneau. I understand that—well, actually, I don't understand that—but that's your decision, and I accept your decision. It's not so much that it's a gift but that it's the creation of a relationship with the Kielburgers.

On April 10, 2020—and I wrote to you on November 17 about this—Craig Kielburger wrote directly to Bill Morneau, asked about his family, wrote in a very familiar tone and 11 days later had a $12-million contract. I find that to be extraordinary.

Would you not agree that these kinds of relations, with people are being flown around and feted and gifted.... Mr. Morneau may have forgotten that it was $40,000, but it created a relationship that could have influenced his decision. I think that in light of section 7, the obligation not to show preferential treatment, that's an extraordinary amount of money to have been granted in a very short space of time.

[Mario Dion]

In 2021, there will also be a report called the Morneau II report, in which we will discuss all the various aspects of what went on between WE Charity and Mr. Morneau. That will be covered in the report itself, including the reason that led me to discontinue that portion of the investigation. The reason will be in the report as well.