Evidence of meeting #109 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was question.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
All right.
Mr. von Finckenstein, I'd ask you the same question.
12:45 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I agree with my predecessor. This problem was not raised in the past, and I believe that it can be resolved. We always have the possibility of going to court, but we're not talking here about crimes, we're talking about conflicts of interest. There are many means by which to resolve them, and we shall.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Excellent. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dion, you wrote the “Trudeau I Report”, the “Trudeau II Report” and the “Trudeau III Report”—
12:45 p.m.
Former Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, As an Individual
Actually, Ms. Dawson wrote the “Trudeau I Report”.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
That's true, you're correct. In your case, you wrote the second and third reports.
At that time, as an outsider, I saw a habit or, at the very least, somewhat of a cavalier attitude towards ethics. I don't want to presume an outcome, but what is your opinion? You had to examine this kind of situation a few times.
12:45 p.m.
Former Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, As an Individual
I think that I spoke about this at my last appearance when I was still commissioner. I hoped that some members of the government would take the issue more seriously. Some take it very seriously, but others take it a little less seriously.
12:45 p.m.
Former Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, As an Individual
That was my conclusion last year. Things may have changed for the better since then, but I don't know. Perhaps Mr. von Finckenstein—
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
That's true. I'm reminded by your answer. I'd asked you whether some government members were more flippant when it comes to ethics, and you replied that this was the case. So you're sticking to that answer. Thank you very much.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you.
Mr. Green, you have two and a half minutes. Go ahead.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
I have a question for Mr. Dion.
It's our committee's prerogative to try to provide recommendations, hopefully, and get something out of these studies. In retrospect, what lessons might have been learned from your involvement in the SNC-Lavalin affair.
12:45 p.m.
Former Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, As an Individual
Not many. We had the tools, and I was able to launch an investigation very quickly after the allegations emerged.
There's not much that needs to be changed, nothing I can think of at this point in time that relates to the conduct of the investigation. I think it works well the way it is now. There's a margin of manoeuvre that the commissioner needs, and the commissioner has the margin of manoeuvre. I would leave it at that for the time being.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
If the same situation were to occur again, notwithstanding the fact that the cabinet confidence issues were still present, are there no different approaches you would take to try to get more information?
12:45 p.m.
Former Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, As an Individual
When the people are interviewed—that's how we refer to them, as interviews—they are under oath. They are placed under oath. There is a stenographer present. There is a transcript. It's a pretty solemn event. People take it seriously and answer the questions. We use the transcripts extensively in preparing the reports. There are enough formalities.
I think my successor has enough powers to do the work, in my opinion. He may differ; I don't know.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
If there's enough, that's great. If we were to look at improving the standard, going back to the notion of cabinet confidence, is there anything we could contemplate as a committee that might trigger an automatic disclosure for certain levels, or are you simply saying, here in your testimony today, that everything's fine, there's nothing to see here, and should this happen again, we can expect the same kind of outcomes?
12:50 p.m.
Former Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, As an Individual
One thing I haven't said is that it would be hard to create such a list, because there are a myriad of possible scenarios. It's always dangerous to try to put in an exhaustive list of situations. That's why I think we need the flexible approach.
In terms of what I did with Mr. Shugart, my approach was that I tried to impose some pressure, if you wish, on getting more documents. I did not know until I received the reply what the reply would be—Michael can attest to that—because I didn't know what was in those documents that I didn't get to see. The answer was no. We accepted the answer. It's hard to imagine that a statute could change that.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
No worries, Mr. Green.
We'll now go four minutes and four minutes. I had already predetermined this in advance of Mr. Green speaking.
We'll have Mr. Kurek and then Mr. Bains for four minutes each.
We're going to give Mr. Villemure some time at the end of the meeting.
Go ahead, Mr. Kurek. You have four minutes.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thanks very much.
I appreciate the testimony here today.
Mr. Aquilino, Mr. Brock asked a question about the Prime Minister having “knowingly” influenced former justice minister and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould. Regarding that term of “knowingly”, it's my understanding that in civil and criminal law, it's a fairly low threshold, but it is interpreted the same.
I'd like your interpretation, if I could, Mr. Aquilino, of that threshold, and whether or not that threshold was in fact met, and your interpretation of the events that took place related to that question around his having “knowingly” influenced her.
12:50 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
When you apply the facts of what transpired here to the wording of the offence in subsection 139(2), you have to apply the “knowingly” standard to the act of obstructing, perverting or defeating the course of justice. Case law says that it takes more than a mere moral lapse or a lapse of ethical judgment. It takes an additional step—a corrupt intent, a criminal intent. This is where we have difficulty in establishing that intent.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
When it comes to establishment of that intent, I was not elected at the time; I followed the breaking story in The Globe and Mail on what transpired and the damning testimony that Jody Wilson-Raybould brought forward at committee. It was extraordinary to watch. I was very troubled at the time by how narrow the constraints were on the evidence that could be obtained by the office of the Ethics Commissioner but also, in light of that, by the justice committee and presumably the impacts that had in relation to the RCMP being able to get to the bottom of exactly what you've referred to, about knowing what that intent was.
Could having more evidence and understanding what the bigger context is...? Certainly, you don't know what you don't know, but if there was more information available, could that have influenced and led to you, the RCMP and others coming to a different conclusion?
12:50 p.m.
Former Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, As an Individual
It's purely speculative, so it's impossible to answer your question. Of course it could. Maybe it couldn't. I don't know.
March 21st, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
So it could have. I think that's the question. Why were the constraints so tight? Certainly that's an outstanding question that remains, and it's an incredible disappointment that there was not a willingness for the government to be more transparent. It leads one to ask what there is to hide.
I want to ask another question. Yesterday the Liberals tabled an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. In that, on page 2, there was a very interesting change to the election date. As the public, I'm sure, is very aware, MPs qualify for a pension after six years of service. The election was planned to be held on October 20, 2025. That would have been one day short for MPs elected in 2019 to qualify for their pension.
While Conservatives are calling for an election immediately, I'm just wondering. with regard to that delay on page 2 of this amendment, if it would be a conflict of interest for MPs to vote on something that would be the difference between either qualifying or not qualifying for their pension.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative