Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 30th, 2020

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

The testimony has been very helpful thus far. I do want to go back to the issue of credibility. Obviously, in the issues we're reviewing, we have found it very difficult to corroborate different versions of the events that have happened thus far.

As has even been mentioned by Liberal members today, there are things that went wrong. There wasn't enough oversight or there weren't enough protections to ensure that wrongdoing, or at least the perception of wrongdoing, wasn't undertaken.

We had the former finance minister receiving tens of thousands of dollars in luxury vacations from the group to which he not only gave money but to which he was going to give significant amounts more. We know that this group was involved in partisan activity, supporting the minister at fundraisers as well as giving high-quality production assistance to the Prime Minister in terms of his own public perception through production of videos and different things. All of this was done by this group.

Then we had the chair of the group come and say that people who spoke at events weren't paid. We found out later that members of the Trudeau family had been paid to speak at these events, or to attend corporate elements of these events, which poses a whole other set of problems, if it was, in fact, that they were there to garner support from corporate interests in support of this charity.

We found out that money had flowed through to this organization, and not only to this organization but to an affiliate of this organization that had only recently been created, which was supposed to be there to undertake financial interests for real estate holdings.

There is a lot of confusion, and the credibility of all of the testimony now renders the public left to their own imagination. I believe that more than ever, the need for transparency and release of documentation that would corroborate this evidence is heightened.

I'm not sure if you can give any perspective on what you think should happen with regard to transparency and the release of documentation that would either corroborate or clarify what actually happened.

[Marc Tassé]

In terms of accountability, transparency is required. The information would be helpful because of the fact that people who actually gave statements were not credible. They changed their exposure a couple of times.

The only way to finally find out what's going on is to have access to information that is accessible within the limits of the law. That's the one thing that's sure, because we're not doing a forensic investigation, or it's not the Office of the Auditor General who is doing it. You want to make sure that the information that can be shared will be shared in a timely manner and that it would put light on the statements that were made, which might not be credible.

As you were pointing out, it's true that in order for people's trust in the system to be reinstated, they need to have access to accurate information.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Fergus, please go ahead for five minutes.

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

Mr. Tassé, thank you very much for your opening statement. It was extremely interesting. Given your considerable reputation and expertise in these matters, your contribution is very useful indeed.

The Clerk of the Privy Council appeared before the committee in the early days of the pandemic. The Government of Canada anticipated that errors would be made in relation to the emergency measures that were rolled out in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic. That is why the government was proactive and took the initiative to reach out to the Auditor General of Canada. She informed the government that she certainly expected that audits would be performed and errors would be identified.

Let's be frank here. In a situation as unprecedented as a global pandemic, isn't that the most prudent thing the government could have done, in your expert opinion?

[Marc Tassé]

It was a very good move, but it's hard to say whether it was the most prudent move.

The important thing was to ask whether you were abiding by the processes already in place and, if not, which processes you thought that you couldn't abide by. The issue was whether there was any appearance of potential conflicts of interest. The other important thing was to seek the opinion of Mr. Dion or his team members. This was indeed a precautionary approach, but it was based on a risk assessment.

You said earlier that some issues were expected to arise. It always depends on our risk sensitivity. We generally determine what risks are tolerable, what risks we think are a little high, and what risks we don't want to take at all. When the government contacted the Auditor General, was it based on risks considered too high or on normal risks? That would be the question to ask. To answer your question properly, we would need to know the level of risk considered.

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

The government took proactive action because it was in a pandemic situation. At the start of your presentation, you said that it was important to acknowledge that the situation was unusual, but also that steps had to be taken to ensure that the situation was managed in a way that minimized risks. If I understood you correctly, one approach was to take proactive measures. Isn't that right?

[Marc Tassé]

Yes, that's right.

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

To what extent should political actors interfere in the awarding of a contract or the process managed by public servants? If there's interference, should it be discreet or blatant? Should there be no interference at all? Is there a general rule that you think should be followed?

[Marc Tassé]

To establish the broad outline, there must be some involvement.

Afterwards, in terms of the administrative process leading up to the awarding of the contract, there should be a reserve right to withdraw and decide to not get involved.

In the example that I provided on the principle of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, I suggested that the spirit of the law be defined and then that people be allowed to define the letter of the law. In this case, the spirit or purpose of the program should be determined. Senior public servants should then be allowed to go through the normal contracting process.

However, if there were exception rules, I'd suggest that the political actors shouldn't interfere in the administrative work. Instead, the administrative staff should return to see the politicians to validate certain decisions that they must make.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

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

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

That's too bad.

Thank you, Mr. Tassé.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Tassé, on behalf of the entire committee, thank you for your patience in working through the technical difficulties we had and thank you for your testimony. It will be very valuable in moving forward.

Colleagues, that's all the time we have. We're actually over our time by about 12 minutes. We will see you on Friday.

The meeting is adjourned.