Evidence of meeting #6 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We will have to end it there. Thank you, Mr. Shugart, for spending this time with us.
I believe there are two or three areas where you have agreed to provide further information to the committee, and we will figure that out, I guess, when we see the blues.
November 24th, 2020 / 5 p.m.
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
Very good, Chair.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
With that, I thank you again.
We will suspend for a couple of minutes and bring up Mr. Dion.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We shall reconvene.
Welcome, Mr. Dion.
We have for this session for the next hour, from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
I believe you have an opening statement, and we will then start into a round of questions, I believe, with Ms. Jansen first.
Mr. Dion.
5:05 p.m.
Mario Dion Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Finance for inviting me here today to speak to a matter that has already generated a great deal of attention at many parliamentary committees. I have obviously followed the committees’ work with interest.
You have asked me to speak about documents that I have already received within the framework of examinations related to the WE Charity matter. You probably wish to know if they contained redactions, omissions or exclusions. In particular, you have asked me to discuss “Cabinet confidence” exclusions.
As we have already received a large portion of those documents, I believe that I might be able to help.
First of all, however, I'd like to explain to members of the committee how the examination process works in order for the office to obtain documents. Examinations may be initiated by the commissioner himself, or through a member of Parliament or a senator. There are two ongoing examinations in the public domain, requested by several members of Parliament who have brought me before you today, involving the conduct of the Prime Minister and the former minister of finance.
The first step we go through in any examination—they are called “examinations” under the Conflict of Interest Act—is to seek documents, which we ask be in writing. We seek documents from organizations and individuals and ask that they be shared with us. As always, we ask to be provided documents without edits or redactions. It is expressly mentioned in the letter that we send each individual or organization. We do not want information to be redacted, and that is made clear in those letters.
In our view, to ensure a proper examination that is fair and impartial, we need to be the arbiter of what is and what is not relevant to an examination.
Since my arrival almost three years ago, there has only been one instance in which I did not receive the information I requested, and I explained that situation in the “Trudeau II Report”, which was just discussed with the Clerk of the Privy Council.
The second point I would like to make, however, is that there are strict confidentiality provisions under subsection 48(5) of the Conflict of Interest Act that severely limit my ability to share information collected in the course of an examination. We ask; we get, and we examine, but I am working under some constraints under subsection 48(5) of the act, which says that unless otherwise required by law, the commissioner, and every person who works with me, may not disclose any information that comes to their knowledge in the performance of their duties and functions under this section, unless the disclosure is essential for the purposes of carrying out my powers to examine, or in order to establish the grounds for any conclusion contained in a report. Then there is another exception, which is not applicable to the situation we are discussing today.
On cabinet confidences, we seek all information. We say, “Please do not send us redacted, excluded, exempted material. Do not exempt material. Do not exclude material.” On cabinet confidences—and my position is based upon my reading of the relevant parts of the act—my view is that we have a right to have access to all needed information for an examination, including cabinet confidences.
In Part 4 of the act, under Mandate and Powers of the Commissioner, subsection 44(9) reads as follows:
The Commissioner may not include in the report any information that he or she is required to keep confidential.
So the protection is there for cabinet confidences.
Former commissioner Mary Dawson addressed the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on the topic of cabinet confidences, as did I in the “Trudeau II Report”.
In her submission back in 2013, regarding the five-year review of the Conflict of Interest Act, she said:
It must be clearly understood that the Commissioner has the authority to access any document needed to conduct his or her investigations. Moreover, these documents must be provided directly to the Commissioner and not vetted by any other party, so as not to compromise the integrity of the investigative process.
We've talked about the “Trudeau II Report”. I have made the observation that to avoid potential delays in examinations and to carry out my proper investigative mandate, I must have access to all information I consider necessary to carry it out.
I've mentioned some sections. There are some further other obligations under section 51 of the Conflict of Interest Act that pertain to recusals when a matter is under cabinet confidence, as well as under section 90 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
They are a vital component. I must see those cabinet confidences, and they are properly protected by the office, both in preparing the report and in making the report public. As an independent officer of Parliament, I must have unfettered access to that.
Since your committee began its study last summer, there have been dozens of hours of witness testimony. If only I could use this testimony, I would be able to finalize my reports more quickly and avoid wasting the time of the many witnesses involved in the matter. From a legal point of view, I am not able to refer to it at the moment as it is protected by parliamentary privilege.
The Speaker of the House of Commons informed me about 10 days ago that he did not have the sole authority to grant my request. I actually asked if I could use the testimony given before the Standing Committee on Finance. He therefore suggested that I direct my request to the Standing Committee on Finance. I am doing that this afternoon.
Therefore, for the purposes of the Office’s two ongoing examinations that I have mentioned, I respectfully ask, Mr. Chair, that you recommend that the House waive the privilege associated with witness testimony before the Standing Committee on Finance in the context of its study on WE Charity and the Canada Student Service Grant.
Mr. Chair, those are my remarks. I would simply like to remind members of the committee that there are considerable limits to how open I can be in answering your questions here today as I must be mindful of the strict confidentiality obligations set out in the Conflict of Interest Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Dion.
We'll start into the six-minute round with Ms. Jansen, who will be followed by Ms. Koutrakis
Ms. Jansen, the floor is yours.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Mr. Dion, first of all, thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Chair, I want to ask him about the letter he sent in regard to the inquiry we had talked about concerning Mr. Morneau. I'm really confused by your ruling on not beginning an inquiry into Mr. Morneau's unpaid travel with his family funded by WE Charity.
It's my understanding that since 2017—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, what does this have to do with discussing cabinet confidence exclusions to public disclosure?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think I will allow this one, because it does relate to the WE Charity.
Go ahead, Ms, Jansen.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I am having a really hard time hearing. I think the audio is coming through both the room you're in as well as from Ms. Jansen. I'm just having trouble hearing.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
It sounds as though it's better now.
Can I continue?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay.
It's my understanding that since 2017, the year of his trip, WE Charity has received over $5.3 million in federal grants and contracts. In section 15, the ethics code states that trips costing over $200 must be disclosed within 60 days, and we all know that he didn't do so. Yet you say, in your ruling, he didn't travel—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Ms. Jansen, I'm not going to allow you to go too far by talking about all of those things. Try to relate it to the purpose we invited Mr. Dion here for, not to making another case.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Well, I guess it's really hard to ignore the fact that the WE Charity government funding increased exponentially after his trip.
On what basis, then, do you decide that he's not wearing his MP hat? How do you make those decisions?
5:15 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
As I mentioned, there is an examination currently underway in relation to the former minister of finance. I will, in the report that will be made public at the appropriate time, discuss the reasons for which I decided not to pursue the aspect of the trips and reimbursement for the trips. I will explain that in the public report. I have no authority to do so until then.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay, so reading through your ruling.... Of course, I'm new, so I want to make sure I understand well. You mentioned in your decision that since Mr. Morneau's wife made all the travel arrangements, that was proof he didn't go officially.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm going to give some leeway here so that we can get a final answer from Mr. Dion.
Go ahead, Ms. Jansen.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
What I understand from that, then, is that if my husband Byron organized a trip to, say, Kenya for the two of us to visit a charity, and later that same charity got five times the government funding it had had prior to my visit, as long as I wasn't involved in any of the coordination of the trip there would be nothing ethically wrong with that? However, from where I sit, the perception would be that I hooked them up. I wonder if you could help me with that?
5:15 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I will as soon as I publish the report, which will explain fully the reasoning behind the decision not to pursue that matter further.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay.
The ethics code says that a member of family or a member can accept a gift that could reasonably be seen to compromise them in their office. I realize that Mr. Morneau's family could quite easily afford that trip, but judging by the increase in funding the WE Charity got after their visit, isn't it fairly reasonable to assume that something changed? It really appears that someone put a bug in someone's ear.