Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 30th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to our second round now.

Mr. Gourde, it is your turn for five minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Tassé, thank you for being here today. We are always glad to have you, and your remarks are always very insightful.

I would like to revisit something in connection with the WE Charity situation.

We heard the Prime Minister say that he had followed the recommendations of the country's top public servants with respect to introducing the Canada student service grant. When we questioned those top officials and the Clerk of the Privy Council this summer, however, they ended up telling us that they were under considerable political pressure to make sure the WE Charity got the contract. The clerk even said that the WE Charity had helped develop the program before it was launched.

Do you consider it a conflict of interest when the architect gets the contract to build the bridge they designed?

[Marc Tassé]

It's hard to say because it depends on how involved the architect was. That is an important consideration. Is their participation limited to providing some clarification or does it involve drafting the whole contract?

The first question is whether that person needed to be there when the contract was being drafted. Then, if people say they felt pressure, it's necessary to determine how much. Were they asked to provide quick responses or were they not allowed to ask certain questions?

You said you didn't get all the answers. It comes down to transparency. You were not given the answers, but that does not necessarily mean the documentation is non-existent. It may just mean you were not able to obtain it. Those are questions worth asking.

I am fairly certain that all the steps in the process were documented. Otherwise, I would be very surprised; that would be at odds with best practices. I find it hard to believe a senior official would not follow best practices deliberately. If there was any outside involvement, it was most likely documented in the file. At least I hope so.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

That's a satisfactory answer. Thank you.

We all know that programs to support Canadians were rolled out quickly. Some organizations and professional fraudsters were able to take advantage of the situation, and many Canadians had their personal information stolen. As a result, more than 100,000 Canadians are soon going to get a T4 that shows they collected the Canada emergency response benefit despite not even applying for it. They have no idea.

Could the government be proactive and warn Canadians who received the Canada emergency response benefit or other support measures even before T4s go out? Otherwise, it will be a huge mess in a few months when it's tax time.

[Marc Tassé]

That's a very good question. Being proactive would be one solution. If the names of the people the government sent out payments to are already in the database, the government could send each person a letter of intent stating that, according to government records, they received money. The letter could say something along these lines: “Please be advised that, within the next two months, you will be receiving an information slip indicating that the amount is taxable. If you disagree with the information, please contact us.” That approach would be much more proactive than reactive.

Another important thing to remember is that, very often, the money is deposited into accounts the fraudsters open up in the individual's name. Victims who receive the letter will realize that they never collected the benefit and will alert the government.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

That's a great suggestion.

Lastly, I want to discuss the access to information regime. It's an excellent tool to bring certain issues to light. Do you use it often?

[Marc Tassé]

No, I do not.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

You can't say, then, whether the wait times are long or not. I was told that they were extremely long, that it takes more than 14 or 15 months to get information on certain matters—information that is needed right away. That is not very helpful.

In short, with everything that has happened over the past few months, do you think there are any lessons we can take away or measures we should put in place so that these kinds of things don't happen again?

[Marc Tassé]

The best lesson of all is to realize just how important ethics is. All of this publicity has really raised the profile of ethics; three years ago, no one really knew what ethics meant. Now, people can see how ethics rules apply to public servants, ministers and members of Parliament. It's important to give ethics the importance it deserves by underscoring its role.

As I said earlier, if there is a problem with the act, amend it; do not look for loopholes. That is what's dangerous. That is how credibility is undermined and how people lose the confidence they normally have in the system.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Tassé.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde and Mr. Tassé.

Now we'll move on to Mr. Sorbara for five minutes.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair; and good morning, everyone. It's good to be back here on the Hill.

Mr. Tassé, thank you for your testimony today. I often like to say and philosophically think about how, in any society in the world, we can ensure that we have a good system of government. What that means is that we have what's called equality of opportunity for all citizens, such that they can pursue their dreams and passions without having any systemic barriers in place, and secondly, that the government has the ability to efficiently deliver products and services to citizens, be it health care or programs that governments are called upon to deliver in extraordinary and unique periods of time, such as the one we're in. That, to me, is how governments are judged; that, to me, is how society is judged; and that, to me, is how society evolves.

In Canada, citizens every day rely upon government for many things in their lives, such as safety. We drop our kids off and want them to be in a safe classroom with good teachers, and we require standards. For me, that goes into a lot of what you do and you speak to in terms of governance, supply chains, credibility, and so forth, so I thank you for your area of expertise and I thank you for your testimony this morning.

I wish to focus my comments on due diligence, because due diligence goes a long way in government and in organizations. That's why we have audit committees in organizations and audit committees in governments, or similar things, and that's why financial statements are audited. It's to ensure integrity.

As to my first question, we heard that as a part of any contribution agreement, for any specific contribution the performance is usually measured at stages throughout the contract, and compensation is awarded and funding continues to flow only if key performance indicators are being met. I'm being very specific here. Obviously we're referring to what we have in front of us. Would you not agree that this is a prudent and responsible approach?

[Marc Tassé]

Yes, it is. I would agree.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Excellent. Thank you.

One thing I brought up during the finance discussions from the summertime when I was asking questions was due diligence in terms of asking second and third questions.

I'm a big believer in asking why we are doing something. I tend to ask my kids why they are doing that, and I tend to ask all individuals why they believe that. I ask second and third questions, because I really want to get at, on this level, whether a policy is the proper policy.

I just wanted to make sure. During the testimony, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Shugart, was asked whether the Prime Minister or his chief of staff asked for WE Charity's financial integrity and ability to administer the program to be scrutinized. The answer from the Clerk of the Privy Council was that the Prime Minister's chief of staff did make the point, which was accepted by everyone, that due diligence and care needed to be exercised with regard to that organization, given the scale of the program.

I think that goes into the due diligence and asking the questions, especially in specifically in this case, that we need to ask to exercise further due diligence.

Aren't those appropriate questions to ask during talks between government and an organization?

[Marc Tassé]

I do think you need to ask the right questions, and especially the ones that you know people will not want to answer.

There are normal questions that we always ask, and that's part of the due diligence. I think whenever we're in a time of crisis and we're awarding large contracts, especially sole-source contracts, we need to go with what we call “enhanced due diligence”. You need to ask those questions.

You see it more in a macroeconomic way: “Are you going to be able to do the contract, and why are you the only one able to do the contract?” Very often, if only one person can do the contract, you need to ask yourself why there are not more competitors. Is it because no one wanted to actually do the contract? Is there something that we don't understand in the specifications we asked for, and no one wants to go for it because it's not going to be possible?

You need to ask questions and ask the person, “What's in it for you?” I know it's pretty stupid, but in business very often we say that. Ask a single question: “What's in it for you? Why are you the only one who is actually proposing for this project?”

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's all the time we have, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I wish to say thank you for your testimony this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Now we'll move on to Madame Gaudreau.

This is fast, Madame Gaudreau. You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know the report is expected to come out sometime in 2021, and we look forward to the findings. I would nevertheless like to know your take on something, Mr. Tassé.

It has to do with subsection 11(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act and accepting a gift or contract. The provision 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, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the public office holder in the exercise of an official power, duty or function.

I asked the commissioner this, but I'd like to hear your views on what constitutes an advantage. Are a gift and an advantage two different things?

[Marc Tassé]

The interpretation can be quite broad. In my view, a gift tends to be something you receive immediately, whereas an advantage can be something you receive in the future. That's how I see it, anyways. You can receive a gift right away, for example, a bottle of wine or a painting. An advantage, however, can be a job offer when someone retires—after two years in the case of a minister or after one year in the case of other public office holders.

I like the expression

“undue advantage.”

The word “undue” is perfect.

An advantage can be gained from being a person's friend. For some people, being friends with a person constitutes an advantage. For others, the advantage could be career advancement.

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

I understand why public office holders are asked to keep their distance for a period of five years. It's to avoid any possible conflict of interest.

My last question pertains to having reasonable knowledge. Subsection 6(1) of the act 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.”

What are your thoughts on that?

[Marc Tassé]

The word “reasonably” means that the public office holder made an effort to find out whether a given situation would put them in a conflict of interest. That may involve the public office holder asking Mr. Dion, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, whether taking part in a given discussion would put them in a conflict of interest.

It might also involve the public office holder seeking legal advice or asking their superior, depending on their level. Being reasonable means thinking to get the information. The person might tell the public office holder that they will get back to them in two weeks, but the public office holder may have no choice but to attend the meeting in an hour. That is what “reasonable” means, in my view. The person has to be quick-witted enough to ask the question.

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

Therefore, when someone says they have a doubt, it is reasonable for them to report a conflict of interest. Is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madame Gaudreau, that's all the time we have.

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

Thank you.