Information & Ethics Committee on May 28th, 2021

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Gourde, you have the next five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Commissioner. It's always a pleasure to meet with you and talk to you.

Mr. Dion, you worried me earlier when you said that MPs were subject to the rules regarding the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, public office holders, who are either ministers or parliamentary secretaries, in which case they're also MPs, or senior officials, wouldn't be subject to potential sanctions for the appearance of a conflict of interest.

My question is the following. Since ministers and parliamentary secretaries are also MPs, where does the legislation state that they become subject to sanctions for an appearance of a conflict of interest?

[Mario Dion]

The key is always to determine what duties the person was performing at the time of the decision. That's what must be done. Whenever a person has both statuses, meaning that they're subject to both the conflict of interest code for MPs and the Conflict of Interest Act, it's necessary to determine whether the person was acting as an MP or a minister at the time of the decision. If the person was acting as a minister, the act applies to the situation. If the person was simply acting as an MP, the code applies. Each situation must be reviewed in this manner.

In the case of the WE Charity, Mr. Morneau and Mr. Trudeau were obviously acting as ministers, not as MPs for a constituency.

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

Although parliamentary secretaries don't make any decisions, because the department always makes the decisions, they're subject to the same act. Why are they still exempt in the event of an appearance of a conflict of interest? In what context does this apply?

[Mario Dion]

Again, it's necessary to determine the context in which the parliamentary secretary acted. Often, the decision has nothing to do with their role as parliamentary secretary and is simply made as part of their role as an MP. For example, when an MP is consulted with regard to the awarding of government grants, the MP, not the parliamentary secretary, is involved. The situation is then analyzed according to the conflict of interest code for MPs.

We've already seen situations of this nature. It's always necessary to determine the person's role in order to find out which instrument applies. A parliamentary secretary and an MP must do the same thing. That's why I said that it's complex and that it's necessary to develop the right responses and to understand the conflict of interest rules in order to avoid violations and issues.

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

When you spoke about potential sanctions for MPs, what were you referring to? Are they fines or other penalties?

[Mario Dion]

Only the House has the power to impose sanctions on an MP. The code says that, when I investigate a situation involving an alleged code violation, I can recommend a sanction. Since the creation of the conflict of interest code for MPs in 2004, I believe that a sanction has been recommended on only one occasion. I was the one who did so recently in the case of Mr. Maloney.

Obviously, the House must make the decision. For example, an MP may be suspended for a certain period. The House has full authority, within its jurisdiction, to decide on the sanction to impose. My only role is to make recommendations within the framework of the conflict of interest code for MPs.

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

Did you recommend a suspension with or without pay?

[Mario Dion]

In the case of Mr. Maloney, I recommended a reprimand. I called for an apology to his colleagues. My major concern in this case was that, of the 338 newly elected or re-elected MPs, only one had failed to fulfill his obligations regarding confidential statements. Most MPs don't like having to prepare these statements. I recommended that he apologize to his colleagues for failing to comply with the provisions of the code, when all the others had done so. That was my recommendation. Mr. Maloney then apologized to the House on the day that the report was tabled, if my memory serves me correctly.

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

Confidential statements are an annual exercise and often there aren't many changes to report. However, the exercise must be done every year.

Do you think that this practice could be changed or should it remain the same?

[Mario Dion]

It's the same as filing an income tax return every year with the Canada Revenue Agency. Every year, I must declare whether I'm still married, even though I've been married for 43 years, and whether I live in Quebec or Ontario. Once a year isn't a big deal.

This also prevents oversights. When people must go through a form before declaring that nothing has changed, it forces them to think about whether they have a new car or a new car loan, for example. That way, they don't forget things.

I think that the current code's requirement that the exercise be repeated every year works well.

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

I recall that, when submitting a new statement, we used to have access to the information provided in the previous year's statement. Now we get a blank form. We must then go back and look at the previous year's form or start the exercise over from scratch.

This has changed since you became commissioner, hasn't it?

[Mario Dion]

Yes, this has changed since I took the position. One of my priorities is to adhere not only to the spirit, but also to the letter of the code. The letter of the code clearly showed that this was the right thing to do. That's why I made the change.

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

Thank you, Mr. Dion. I have no further questions for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Monsieur Gourde.

We're going to turn to Mr. Fergus now, for the next five minutes.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Dion. It's a pleasure to see you again at the committee. Thank you for the work that you and your team do. On several occasions, I needed to seek the advice of your colleagues. I must tell you that they responded promptly to my concerns each time. I'm very grateful for that.

I want to address the Conflict of Interest Act and ask you a few questions, particularly with regard to the Trudeau III Report.

Subsection 6(1) of the act states as follows:

6(1) No public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.

You concluded that the Prime Minister didn't violate this subsection of the act. Please explain what brought you to this conclusion.

[Mario Dion]

First, thank you for your comments on the quality of the services provided by our office. I'm very grateful for that. Our service standard is to respond to requests from MPs or public office holders within three business days. We succeed in doing so 90% of the time. So thank you again.

We concluded that subsection 6(1) of the act wasn't violated because, in our view, the connection between the decision to award the contract and the potential impact on the situation of the family of Mr. Trudeau was much too tenuous to determine that a conflict of interest existed. That's the real reason.

It's quite difficult to summarize such a complex report in a few words. However, as I recall, we also concluded in the report that Mr. Trudeau obviously knew that his brother and mother had been involved in many activities for the WE Charity. That said, he told us that he didn't know the nature of the relationship or the compensation received. He didn't know whether there had been any compensation or how much it might have been. I believed Mr. Trudeau.

Since the connection between the contract awarded and the compensation received by the family members of Mr. Trudeau was much too tenuous, I concluded that there wasn't any violation of subsection 6(1) of the act.

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

Thank you.

On a similar note, section 7 of the act states as follows:

7 No public office holder shall, in the exercise of an official power, duty or function, give preferential treatment to any person or organization based on the identity of the person or organization that represents the first-mentioned person or organization.

Did the Prime Minister give preferential treatment to the WE Charity and violate section 7 of the act?

[Mario Dion]

The report draws a very clear conclusion on this issue. The answer is no. There wasn't any violation of section 7 of the act, given that there wasn't any special relationship between Mr. Trudeau and Craig Kielburger. However, the situation was quite different in the case of the Morneau report.

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

You came to this conclusion after an extensive review of over 40,000 pages of documents.

[Mario Dion]

That's the process.

I'll take 30 seconds to explain the process.

When we receive a complaint and begin an investigation, we start with a completely neutral mindset with regard to whether a violation occurred. In 99% of the cases, I have no opinion on the matter. We collect as much information as possible. We ask people to send us what they have and we cast the net very wide. We ask people to send us documents that cover long periods and extensive information fields.

It doesn't always happen, but in this case, there was full co-operation, and we received stacks of documents. When we check such a wide range of documents and we don't find evidence of anything, it's probably because there isn't any relationship. In the 40,000 pages, absolutely nothing suggested that the Prime Minister and Craig Kielburger had developed a special relationship since they met, I believe in 2012, when Mr. Trudeau became an MP.

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

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus. Your time is now up.

Madam Gaudreau, we'll turn to you again.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe that my colleague had a few more questions. I'll give him the floor.