Finance Committee on Nov. 24th, 2020

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Could you give us the names of these—

[Mario Dion]

There's also their supervisor, of course.

Martine Richard, senior general counsel, is responsible for investigations and legal services. She oversees all these activities. In this case, Marie-Josée Smith is the investigator and Michael Aquilino is the legal counsel assigned to the Trudeau and Morneau files.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

These individuals saw all the pages and what was or wasn't proposed to be redacted. Is that right?

[Mario Dion]

Sorry, Mr. Chair. We didn't make any comparisons with what the Standing Committee on Finance received. We didn't try to make any comparisons, because we asked for and received tens of thousands of pages.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You're unable to say whether the pages were redacted correctly. Is that right?

[Mario Dion]

Because we would have needed to—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I'll change the subject, since you received them in their entirety.

[Mario Dion]

That's right. There were no redactions on our end.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Dion, do you remember seeing, in the documents that you looked at, information regarding a due diligence report prepared before the awarding of the contract in this case?

[Mario Dion]

I haven't reviewed all the documents myself. I didn't see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there at all. We aren't at that stage yet.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Can you tell us whether the documents that you received include a due diligence report?

[Mario Dion]

As I said in my presentation, I'm not free to tell you anything disclosed to me during an examination until I've written my report.

I can't answer your question. If it's relevant, it will be included in the report and it will be disclosed at that time.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Okay.

This significantly limits the questions that we can ask you. We're talking about the theory and definition of ethics. It's almost a university course.

I gather that you can't answer any questions about the documents. You can't answer any questions about the content of the documents.

[Mario Dion]

I can answer general questions, as I did earlier. As I said earlier to the honourable member, I don't know whether the audit report done by the former deputy solicitor general was part of the collection of documents.

I can't start discussing the relative importance of documents until the process set out in the act has been completed.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

We may invite you back at that point.

That said, Mr. Dion, I'll focus on the theory of the issue. I want you to speak about the responsibility of people who redact a document. I understand that a process requires documents to be redacted to protect cabinet confidences and confidentiality. That's fine.

Earlier, with Mr. Shugart, I saw that between 12 and 25 individuals, not including some supervisors, see all the documents. Mr. Shugart is ultimately responsible for the redaction. From an ethical standpoint, given the disclosure obligations resulting from the committee's July 7 motion, and given the restrictions on redactions, what's the level of reliability? How can we verify that the redacted material was redacted correctly? If there was a redaction error, for example, if an individual decided to redact a section that shouldn't have been redacted, how would the committee know?

[Mario Dion]

I have no idea. This isn't within my purview. Only a court could decide whether the exemptions and exclusions were applied correctly. In matters of parliamentary privilege, courts have no authority.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

From an ethical standpoint, you can say that the government authorities must comply with the committee's requests. Is that right?

[Mario Dion]

I've worked in the public sector for almost 40 years. I've always taken for granted that we're accountable to Parliament.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Okay. However, if a committee order requests documents, the authority in question should normally send the committee all the information requested. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is the last question.

[Mario Dion]

I don't know. I'm not an expert in parliamentary law. I think that the law clerk could shed some light on this. However, I don't think that the committee has the power to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I almost feel as if we bothered you for nothing today, Mr. Dion. That said, thank you for taking part in this exercise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Rhéal, I'm sorry. We have to move on to Mr. Julian.

Mr. Julian, we're in a six-minute round.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dion, for your presence here today. We certainly hope you and your family and loved ones are staying safe and healthy during this pandemic.

You're getting a bunch of questions in part because this committee was shut down in August. At the end of July and in early August, we had important testimony on ethical considerations, and then the entire Parliament was shut down in mid-August, as you know, with prorogation. Subsequent to that, the finance committee has been held up for the last two months because Liberal members didn't want these documents discussed. So, it's been four months since the finance committee has actually been able to question a witness on these important things.

I guess I apologize on behalf of the entire committee. Because of all this shutdown and basically the committee's being suppressed, we now have a bunch of questions to ask.

My questions relate to the Prime Minister's testimony before us on July 30 and Mr. Shugart's on July 21. Mr. Shugart testified just before prorogation that there were two cabinet discussions around the issue of the WE Charity and the substantial funding that the federal government wanted to put. He also testified that the Prime Minister had concerns—and the Prime Minister testified about this as well—around possible conflicts of interest.

I want to ask you, first, if the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office contacted you or the Ethics Commissioner's office around a potential conflict of interest? Would you expect that they normally would, if there were potential conflicts of interest, actually reach out to you? Have you received the cabinet documents that reference the two discussions that cabinet had around this program?