Evidence of meeting #36 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 code.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.
Mr. Dion, you just said a few moments ago that you believed Mr. Trudeau when he said that he didn't know about the nature or extent of the benefits that his family received from the WE Charity. Ultimately, on that basis, you cleared him.
As we know, Mr. Trudeau postponed his meeting for a week or two because he was uncomfortable and afraid of being in a conflict of interest. If Mr. Trudeau had checked with you beforehand and told you that he didn't know about the extent of the compensation or benefits that his relatives received, would you have advised him to find out before sitting and making the decision, or would you have told him to turn a blind eye and proceed?
1:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
First, hypothetical questions are always dangerous. Asking them isn't dangerous, but answering them is.
We tell people in a similar situation that, when in doubt, it's best to recuse yourself. I certainly wouldn't have said what you provided as a second option, that's for sure. We often give advice to public office holders. We tell them that, if they have any doubts, they probably have a good reason to recuse themselves. It's always safer to do that.
Of course, I don't know what I would have done if Mr. Trudeau had checked with me, based on the hypothetical situation described. However, I probably would have taken the usual approach.
You have nothing to gain by getting involved in a decision where there may be some doubt about the objectivity of the decision. The decision can always be made by someone else.
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Yes.
I understand that we're talking about hypothetical situations. I don't want to add anything, but I just want to address your comments regarding what Mr. Trudeau told you. Sorry if I'm misquoting you. Correct me if that's the case. Since Mr. Trudeau told you that he was unaware, you concluded that he didn't actually violate section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act. However, if he had spoken to you beforehand, you would have advised him to get informed and not to participate in the decision-making process.
Is that right?
1:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, that's what I would advise.
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay.
I'll go back to my earlier question. Given the magnitude of this issue, shouldn't amendments be made to the act to ensure that situations of this nature don't happen again?
I understand that you don't want to talk too much about hypothetical situations. However, as the Ethics Commissioner who advises parliamentarians, don't you think that situations involving a conflict of interest, or at least such a blatant appearance of a conflict of interest, should be avoided in the future?
1:55 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We have all sorts of ways of talking to people. For example, we have what we call screens, which are published in the public registry, by the way. If you check the public registry, you'll see that a number of ministers and other reporting public office holders established a screen to avoid any situation where they would have the opportunity to make a decision on an entity or an individual—
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
You're out of time. I do apologize. This is the problem with these short turns.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We're going to turn to Mr. Angus now for the next two and a half minutes.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Dion, for coming. On behalf of the Canadian people I would like to thank you for this report that really shows the shocking level of insider access that's happening in Ottawa.
When we began the study of the WE Charity issue, we thought we were dealing with the crisis of the pandemic and that quick decisions had to be made and a few mistakes may have happened, but what you lay out is a pattern of inappropriate breaches of all the rules that should be in place to protect the public interest—and this goes back. This is the operating culture between the Kielburger brothers and the Liberal government.
In June 2017, Mr. Kielburger and Mr. Morneau meet, and they decide that the finance minister's office is going to help them get their funding for their accelerator hub, that they are going to start using public resources to hustle for the Kielburgers. In November 2017, they are establishing pre-budget consultations in the Kielburger's offices, and the WE brothers are promoting this for the finance minister.
In December 2017, there were separate emails to various chiefs of staff from Bill Morneau's office to ministers within the Government of Ontario introducing Craig Kielburger as a “dear friend” and a “great local partner”, and asking provincial counterparts to make time to meet with Mr. Kielburger. When they get the provincial funding, Mr. Morneau's office is the first one notified and then he calls his bestie, Craig Kielburger.
I put it to you, Mr. Dion, we would never have learned this if it hadn't been for your investigation, so I take from that, for other groups like the Kielburgers, why bother to register as lobbyists? They were able to fly under the radar. They were able to have insider access, and all the normal rules were able to be broken. We don't know if they had this access in Minister Chagger's office or any other minister's office. We just know from your report.
How do we stop this abusive insider access of the public interest? How do we ensure that, if they're not going to bother to be registered to lobby, and if there is no lobbying investigation, the Kielburger brothers and their like can't carry on and do what they want. It's not right.
1:55 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I think one of the uses of such a report is to analyze, and for others to analyze, because my role is limited to determining the particular facts in a situation—if there was a breach of the Conflict of Interest Act. I hope these reports will also serve policy people within the government and within political parties to try to create systems that in the future will prevent the repetition of such behaviours, but it is not my role to do that. I am not equipped nor resourced to do that.
1:55 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Thank you. I appreciate it.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
We're going to turn to Mr. Carrie now for the next five minutes.
Go ahead, Mr. Carrie.
May 28th, 2021 / 1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Dion, for being here.
I got on to committee halfway through, and there are some questions that I think you might be able to help me answer. I want to talk about the conflict of interest code as it relates to “The Trudeau Report”.
In the code, part 2(e) says that a member of Parliament should not “accept any gift or benefit...seen to compromise their personal judgment”. Part 14(1) says that it should not reasonably be seen “to influence the member” and it could be “related to attendance at a charitable or political event”.
Mr. Dion, with “The Trudeau Report”, did you get any evidence of the value of the promotions and branding that ME to WE—not the WE Charity, the for-profit company that the Kielburger's own—charge corporations and companies for their attendance and promotions at the ME to WE events, WE Day?
2 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's an aspect, Mr. Chairman, that I believe we have not examined at all, because it was not necessary in order to determine whether there was a contravention of sections 6, 7 or 21. We have not looked at this issue whatsoever.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you for that.
I don't see how you could have looked at it because when I asked the Kielburgers the questions, they hemmed and hawed.
I don't know if you're aware, Mr. Dion, but at their for-profit company the Kielburgers charge corporations to come up on stage with them to be vetted by the WE organization to say they're a good guy. They charge literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for that, but Mr. Trudeau received that for free.
When I look at the parts 2(e) and 14(1) of the code, it may not have been in the scope of this investigation, but for me, as a politician, to go up on stage to be presented to tens of thousands of future voters who are being told by an organization that has been built up as the wonderful WE organization that I've been fully vetted and supported, that's of great value to me. They were actually charging corporations. This was not a donation to a charity. They actually paid for advertising and branding, hundreds of thousands of dollars.
They even made a promotional video for Mr. Trudeau. I asked them how much the value of that was, and of course they didn't tell me. We got it just a few weeks ago, so you could not have possibly known the value of that video they gave to Mr. Trudeau at these events. It was $121,000 for 10 videos, and his was one of them. If we just do a division, it would be $12,000 for his video. If you've ever seen it, it's a very good, snazzy video, a promotion that, for any politician, if they received it, would be an extremely high-value product—and he received it.
My question for you would be this. If you had known thatMr. Trudeau had received from ME to WE, a for-profit organization, benefits that a private company would be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for and a promotional video very close to the election worth at least $12,000, would that be something that under the code, parts 2(e) or 14(1), would be seen as questionable?
2 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Again, it's a hypothetical question. It's always difficult to answer such questions.
At any point in time, if a member of Parliament believes the code has been breached, they can actually make a complaint about the alleged behaviour and the alleged breach. However, I would remind the member we always look at whether the subject matter of the complaint really relates to the person's position as a member of Parliament or to the person's position as the minister, governed by the Conflict of Interest Act.
The short answer is that, if and why I have to analyze it, I will and I will determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe an inquiry should be launched, but—
2 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Okay. Thank you very much.
Like I said, there's no way you could have known the value of that when you were writing your report. To get the Kielburgers to actually come to committee to answer some questions was extremely difficult. We did not even receive a written response to that value of the video until within the last couple of weeks.
It concerns me, Mr. Dion, because the code is very clear where it says “not to accept any gift or benefit connected with their position that might reasonably be seen to compromise” .
Especially given the relationship of the Trudeau family and the size of the contract these Kielburger brothers were searching.... That's a lot of money. If it's a charitable donation, that's one thing, but this was their for-profit company that companies paid. Mr. Trudeau received the exact same benefit and didn't pay anything for that.
Maybe that's something we could investigate a little bit further.
Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
You are out of time, I think.
Mr. Dion, is there anything that you would like to respond to with regard to those questions?
2:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, Mr. Chairman, I think I have responded.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Perfect.
Mr. Dong, we'll turn to you now for the next five minutes.
Mr. Dong.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
I want to thank the commissioner for coming today, and for your hard work and your staff's hard work in putting together these two reports given the time frame.
For the record, did your investigation find the Prime Minister intentionally offered the WE Charity preferential treatment?