Finance Committee on Nov. 24th, 2020

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.

On the agenda

Government Spending, WE Charity and the Canada Student Service Grant

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ian Shugart Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office

Mario Dion Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

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.

5 p.m.

Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office

Ian Shugart

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.

November 24th, 2020 / 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.