Information & Ethics Committee on March 21st, 2024

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The RCMP Commissioner admitted to not really understanding your mandate or not knowing where it started and ended. Perhaps he needs some training.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

As my predecessor just mentioned, the mandate is clear. The question that remains is to determine whether the documents are required. In this case, we're talking about confidential documents from Privy Council.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

In addition to his report, Commissioner Duheme made a general comment about not really understanding your overall role. I think that it's in your interest to clear that up with him. Obviously, it's not the same role, but I think that he would benefit from understanding your role in that regard. I was surprised to hear that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure. I gave you a little more time, due to the interruption.

Mr. Green, the camera is facing directly at you. You have six minutes. Go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I do appreciate that. I'm dealing with some technical difficulties on my end with Adobe with those licences, but that's another story,.

For me, at the crux of this, and one of the things that I've been really stuck on, is the convention of cabinet confidence and the issue of the position of the government—particularly this government, I would say—that by being both the client and the solicitor, they have basically that client-solicitor privilege, and then that broader stroke of cabinet confidence as a convention.

I'm wondering about each panel member's thoughts on the effectiveness of that, and whether or not, for issues that require greater scrutiny or third party non-partisan oversight, having access through their offices to key documents and information would help provide a better check and balance to the PMO or the Privy Council.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

The act is quite clear: We have access to those documents if we require them and we need them. Obviously, if there's a refusal in each case to give some or part of the documents, we look at whether they are essential to the investigations or not. If they are, we will push it to the outer limits. We can always go to the Federal Court if we think it's so germane and so central to an issue. Most of the time you work this out. You understand there's some reluctance. You make sure you get the documents that you need in order to reach your decision: Was there a breach of conflict of interest or not?

That in the past has always been worked out. I'm pretty sure it will be in the future. That being said, the law is quite clear. If we need access to those documents, we can get it.

Mario, did you want to add something?

[Mario Dion]

I will just add that this is precisely what I did. I did assess with the documents and the refusal to provide further documents whether I had enough to proceed, and I concluded that I did.

There were several instances during my five years when Michael and other lawyers who worked at the office were able to gain access to cabinet confidences in a very practical and formal way. This was actually the first time that we were opposed with a written no that said we will not gain access to additional documents.

The problem with cabinet confidences is that you don't know what you don't have. You have no idea of what you're not seeing. However, I determined I had enough to do section 9, so I proceeded.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think for me, in listening to the testimony of the RCMP, and when I hear things like investigations cannot proceed based on the information that is available....

I'll start with Mr. von Finckenstein.

Do you believe that the RCMP, particularly in relation to criminal matters, should have access to cabinet confidence documents in order to adequately provide oversight?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I think you should put that question to the RCMP rather than me.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. If you don't want to answer, I'll go on to my next question.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Obviously, nobody should be able to hide criminal acts, and the investigators should have access to all the facts necessary to determine whether a crime has been committed.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Stories were posted this morning about additional information related to the Prime Minister's trip to Jamaica. In particular, I note the way in which the information is coming out in trickles, dribs and drabs. First there's a bit of denial, and then there's a bit of deflection, and then there's a dig-in, and then we find that there's more and more information.

In light of the various Trudeau reports and in light of some of these discrepancies, do you believe that amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act should provide, particularly to the office-holders and to the Prime Minister...?

What do you suggest we do to tighten that up so that the perception of a conflict and the real conflict are dealt with in a way and a seriousness that helps to restore public confidence and trust?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

You used the word “perception” right now, and I think it's very important to do that. Unfortunately, the act deals with conflict of interest. There is no ”apparent” conflict of interest provision. There isn't that code for the members of Parliament or the House of Commons, as you know. That's a question you could put—that it is not only a real conflict, but a perception or an apparent conflict of interest.

Here is another one, since you're talking about the Jamaica trip. Should there be a ceiling on gifts? Right now there's a complete exception for gifts from a friend. You could say that's fine, but if a gift is too large, it may create the wrong perception. Maybe we should have a monetary limit on it.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I deeply appreciate that, because I know that there was a past commentary that wealthy people should be able to give wealthy gifts. I think to the average person watching, the average person struggling in this economy, extravagant gifts in the tens of thousands of dollars, $80,000-plus, in these luxury settings.... It goes back to my earlier points about sponsored travel and other things. In a time of conspiracy theories and distrust in government, there needs to be that cap, so I'm glad to hear that reflected in testimony today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

That concludes our first round of questioning. We have five-minute rounds followed by rounds of two and a half minutes and two and a half minutes. I will remind the committee that I want to leave some time because Mr. Villemure wants to bring an issue in front of the committee that should not take too much time.

Mr. Brock, go ahead for five minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their attendance today on this important study.

I'm going to read to you a portion of a mandate letter that Justin Trudeau supplied to one of his ministers, Minister Anand. He talked about raising “the bar on openness, effectiveness and transparency in government.”

It also means humility and continuing to acknowledge mistakes when we make them. Canadians do not expect us to be perfect; they expect us to be diligent, honest, open and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.

However, on February 7, 2019, The Globe and Mail cites unnamed sources and reports that Justin Trudeau and his aides attempted to pressure Jody Wilson-Raybould while she was Attorney General to intervene in the prosecution of SNC and that exasperation and her lack of co-operation was one reason for shuffling her out of the justice portfolio.

Justin Trudeau, when pressed by reporters at some event in Canada, looked Canadians right in the eye and said that the Globe story was “false”. He lied to Canadians.

He ultimately received your report, Mr. Dion. He said that while he disagrees with some of the findings, he accepts the report and takes responsibility for the mistakes that he made, whatever that means. He didn't elaborate.

We all know your conclusions. Your conclusions were well founded. Your conclusions were based on all the evidence that you received. You took it upon yourself, Mr. Dion, to identify all the relevant witnesses and the evidence that you hoped for to be able to discharge your responsibility. Is that correct?

[Mario Dion]

Yes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I've totalled 14 individuals that you ultimately either interviewed or received by way of affidavit or some other written documentation.

I contrast that to the RCMP. I can't express how profoundly disappointed I am, as a member of Parliament and as a former officer of the court, a former Crown attorney, in the slipshod way that they conducted this investigation. They only interviewed Jody Wilson-Raybould, twice; Jessica Prince, her chief of staff; Nathalie Drouin, the deputy attorney general; and nobody else. When I asked the commissioner not too long ago why he didn't actually seek out some information from the Prime Minister himself, the person of interest, he said that didn't think they had sufficient grounds to do that. That really disturbs me, sir.

I'm not going to be asking you about RCMP decisions, but what I am going to ask you about is this: When you interviewed Justin Trudeau, was he forthright with you? Did you get the impression that he was giving you all the information you requested? Was he holding anything back?

[Mario Dion]

I recall the interview vividly. It was long, over two hours. The Prime Minister was accompanied by a few lawyers. He did respond to every question we asked. There was no feeling of resistance or trying to indirectly avoid questions. He did provide answers to every question that we had.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Your standard for referral to the police, I believe you said, is on reasonable grounds. Is that a reasonable grounds test?

Mr. Aquilino, is it the same reasonable grounds test that law enforcement uses in terms of laying a charge?

[Michael Aquilino, Legal Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

I believe so, yes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Again, Michael and Mr. Dion, we all know that there are two elements to any criminal offence: the actus reus and mens rea. The actus reus is the act of the pressure exerted either by Justin Trudeau himself or by his aides. The mens rea requires a specific intent.

I want to circle back to your report, Mr. Dion. I'm going to read paragraph 284. It's very brief:

Here, in contrast, the evidence abundantly shows that Mr. Trudeau knowingly sought to influence Ms. Wilson-Raybould both directly and through the actions of his agents.

"Knowingly" is the operative term I look for as a former Crown attorney.

I'd like to know your opinion and perhaps Mr. Aquilino's. In terms of the reasonable grounds test, did that not give you the ability to make that referral, based on that finding?

[Mario Dion]

I think that those are legal issues. Criminality aside, in the Conflict of Interest Act, “knowingly” in the context does not necessarily mean “knowingly” for mens rea purposes under the Criminal Code, but that's a legal issue.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I disagree, respectfully. I think “knowingly” means the same thing. It's an intentional act to do something knowingly, as opposed to innocently or accidentally. “Knowingly” is purposeful—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Mr. Brock. You're going to have another opportunity to ask questions, if you like.