:
That's a good question. I only have two minutes here.
The other question I have—obviously, this thing fell apart—is on this line that only WE had the capacity to deliver a project of close to a billion dollars. Now, we get different numbers—$530 million, $43 million, $912 million—but I'm looking at WE's record with the government: $40,000 for a contract, $24,990, $24,996, $17,050, $13,374. Then there are a few contribution agreements, and the highest is $3 million.
How in anybody's world, looking at WE's record with these penny ante contracts, could you have signed off and said, “I think we can give these guys $912 million and we're not going to have any problems”? That alone, without asking the questions about why they had to set up a shell company and the fact that they were in financial free fall when they came to the government for the money.... They don't have a track record of doing this—
:
I would say there are differences of procedure and of substance.
With respect to procedure, I think we have experienced what members of Parliament have experienced. The normal interactions out in the country with groups and communities were vastly curtailed. With respect to how we made decisions and so on, a lot of it was virtually, as the committees are experiencing, and often at all hours of the day and night, given the amount of business and the extent of the impacts of the pandemic. People were pressed. People were tired. Some public servants were doing their work but knowing that it was not being called on. Other public servants were under pretty unrelenting pressure to deliver. The same is true for ministers.
With respect to the substance, I would say that none of us have been happy with the speed at which analysis had to be undertaken. In fact, we conveyed informally, as did the former government during the financial crisis, to the Office of the Auditor General that we anticipated that there would be mistakes. We set out our objectives in advance so that there would be understanding in the Auditor General's office about the constraints that were affecting things.
In this particular case, if we had all the time in the world, I am sure—I'm speculating here—that one of the options to mount this kind of program would be, “How could we accelerate the development of the service corps?” In the circumstances, action was required sooner than that, and that led to what we're now familiar with.
I don't present any of that as an excuse for any mistakes that collectively may have been made or may subsequently come to light, but simply to provide background to the nature of the circumstances.
:
I have no intention of establishing any new doctrine of conflict of interest, of course, but in a situation where decisions are made and the decision-maker has an interest, a private interest, and that is not disclosed, that is an unacceptable situation because nobody can judge the basis upon which the decision has been made. Maybe it is private interests, and maybe it is public interests, but it's invisible. That's why the Conflict of Interest Act requires public office holders to declare their private interests, including their financial dealings and often what would be considered by many Canadians to be quite intimate details of their affairs and of their family. The purpose is so that the light can be shone on their interests.
That does not by itself solve all conflict situations, but it is one of the classic ways of resolving conflict of interest situations so that other parties can judge whether in fact there was a conflict, or, if there was, whether it was resolved in the public interest.
In this case, the was the Minister of Youth in the previous Parliament, and at the same time he had extensive background with an organization that at least in part deals with youth affairs. Therefore, it would not have come as a surprise that he would have had a relationship with WE. Whether that by itself constitutes a conflict of interest is a matter before the commissioner. I think, in his comments, the Prime Minister has indicated that he is willing to submit himself to that finding.
I simply meant that in terms of my own conduct through that period, it did not occur to me that there was a private interest here, because the interest and involvement and history with WE were anything but private. They were very public. At that time, therefore, I did not say, “Prime Minister, I understand that you have a background with WE, so maybe you shouldn't be part of this conversation”, because it was a very public thing.
:
That's interesting because we dealt with so much in our office. We were talking to ministers' offices, and nobody ever suggested we had a problem with volunteerism. We had a serious problem with university students not getting jobs.
I'm not saying this as an attack on the PCO. You were given what has already been put together by ESDC. We know that Craig Kielburger had already approached . He had approached ; 's office was involved. They had a first proposal, and they said no, how about a second proposal.
On April 23 the makes an announcement that sounds very similar to the Kielburger proposal. From that point on, it seems they are the only game in town.
I really need to know how this happened, that the Kielburger brothers who are in financial free fall can call three ministers' offices, get a proposal in, and have that proposal reflect almost what the 's saying, and then we're moving forward with a $900-million deal.
Those parameters that made them the only game in town, to me how did those parameters...? Was it the NGO? Was it WE that came up with those parameters, working with the advice they got from the ministers: , ? Is that how this happened?
:
Madam Chair, members of the committee, Canadians, I appreciate your inviting me today to appear before you. With me is my senior associate deputy minister, Gina Wilson. I will refer to her as my deputy.
We are here, as requested, to provide you with information on the safeguards that have been put in place within the federal government to avoid, mitigate and prevent conflicts of interest. These safeguards apply to the federal government policies on procurement, contracting, grants and contributions, and all other federal spending policies.
I would like to begin by pointing out that the Government of Canada is committed to open and transparent governance. What I mean by that is a government that gives all Canadians broad access to its data and information. Since 2014, the directive on open government has promoted transparency and accountability across all departments.
As Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, I received a very clear mandate letter from the . That letter is available publicly online. It states that, like all of my cabinet colleagues, I am committed to building a government that is transparent, honest and accountable to Canadians; upholds the highest ethical standards; pays close attention to the management of public funds; and exercises the utmost care and prudence in this regard. These values guide me every day in my work. That's true for me, it's true for my colleagues, and I hope we would agree that it is even true for my departmental officials. All the ministers received these guidelines in our mandate letters, and we are all subject to the same laws.
Whatever our role, there are mechanisms in place to guide us. All members of Parliament must comply with the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries must also abide by the regulations and measures set out in the Conflict of Interest Act. Our staff must also meet the high standard of probity and integrity as set out in the “policies for ministers' offices”.
It's in this context that I'm fulfilling the mandate I have been given and that I am passionate about: namely, to build a more open, diverse and inclusive country where all Canadians have an equal opportunity to succeed.
My responsibilities also include policies and programs in support of LGBTQ2 people and youth. It's a broad mandate that involves working with several ministers and departments, particularly Employment and Social Development Canada, Canadian Heritage, Women and Gender Equality Canada, Health Canada, Public Safety Canada and Justice Canada.
Public servants in all these departments are also bound by strict rules of integrity. They must all comply with the public service values and ethics code for the public sector. The public servants at Employment and Social Development Canada who support me through, among other things, the Canada Service Corps program. are governed by this code as are all the staff at Canadian Heritage who support me in the delivery of programs to promote multiculturalism and fight racism. They all receive training in this area. As well, employees involved in the delivery of transfer payment programs receive additional training to help them identify and deal with potential conflicts of interest. It's also important to note that all Canadian individuals and organizations applying for funding are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest at the time of application.
The distribution of financial support is governed by the Financial Administration Act and the federal government, as a whole, is governed by the oversight and accountability procedures of the Treasury Board Secretariat. Without naming them all, I would like to single out the policy on financial management, the policy on transfer payments, and the policy on results, evaluation and internal audit.
Unlike how the Conservatives are choosing to portray this, the policy on transfer payments, in particular, allows the government to ensure that these payments are managed in a manner that respects sound stewardship and the highest level of integrity, transparency and accountability. Government programs also have terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board Secretariat. The anti-racism action plan, for instance, includes terms and conditions to ensure that all organizations have equal access to funding. In this particular case, we are required to publish the program guidelines at least six weeks before the application deadline. There are also guidelines for communicating clearly with funding applicants.
Allow me to touch briefly on a few points that I am sure will be of interest to the committee.
The first is risk management. The Financial Administration Act helps us strike an appropriate balance between the high-risk decisions, which require input from senior management, and those that are more operational. Risk-based decision-making models allow us to assess the risks associated with, among other things, the funding applicant and the activities being considered for funding. They reduce program delivery costs, alleviate the administrative burden and reduce the time it takes to notify recipients.
The second is conflict of interest. I've already touched on the subject, and I'm coming back to it because it's important. Mechanisms are in place in all departments to prevent the risk of bias or conflict of interest. At Canadian Heritage, for example, the decision to approve a grant or contribution is never made by a single individual. In addition to regular internal assessments, they can call on peer reviews or reviews by internal or external committees. Government employees can also work with the office of values and ethics to address any apparent or potential conflict of interest situation. There are requirements to disclose the involvement of former public servants who are subject to the conflict of interest and post-employment guidelines.
The third is internal controls. In addition to government controls such as the policy on government security, several departments have internal control frameworks that outline financial management roles and responsibilities. These frameworks are designed to provide reasonable assurance that public resources are used prudently and that financial management processes are effective and efficient.
The fourth is transparency and accountability. Via the open government portal at Canada.ca, all Canadians can view grants and contributions that have been awarded. Canadians can also consult the various departmental websites for information on those departments' plans, outcomes, costs incurred, contracts awarded, consultations and evaluations undertaken, and a wealth of other information about government and public sector representatives. Mandate letters and transition materials are also freely accessible.
As stated in the Clerk of the Privy Council's 26th annual report, the public service of Canada has received “clean, unqualified audits” for two decades. It tied with the United Kingdom for first place on the 2018 open data barometer and is recognized internationally as one of the most effective public services. I would like to acknowledge and appreciate their work.
I would like to conclude with a concrete example that illustrates the rationale behind all these measures and safeguards.
Last May, in response to the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Canada adopted a series of measures to support individuals and organizations in many sectors of our economy. For my part, I insisted that my programs be adapted, whether by streamlining processes or speeding up payments, in order to support organizations that advance multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion and opportunities for youth in Canada. Thanks to the rigorous mechanisms that frame our actions, we've been able to respond quickly and effectively to the pressing needs of Canadians, but we are not out of the woods yet, and we have a lot more work to do.
We have adapted to the situation without compromising our rigour, and together we are continuing to build a government that is open and transparent to all Canadians.
Madam Chair, members of the committee, I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions. I've tried to keep my comments brief so that we can answer as many questions as possible.
Here's the thing. You were asked a straight question, but of course we have the record. It's on the record. The thing is, of course you weren't speaking about the Canada student service grant on April 17, because it didn't exist. It wasn't announced until April 22. It's again this splitting of hairs that I find frustrating.
Let's just jump forward, because you also told us that Rachel Wernick came up with this idea. She told us that she had been instructed by officials to reach out, but it's the Craig Kielburger connection to her that I want to bring to your attention. He writes her an email—his introduction to her—and he says, based on the meeting with , “In that spirit, we have proposed two programs—and we could deliver one or both programs”. You're Craig Kielburger's all-access pass.
I don't get how the fact that you were at some WE event at some auditorium is germane to anything, when it's the April 17 meeting you have with Craig Kielburger. You don't tell us this. This has to come out in the media. The fact is that Craig Kielburger uses you as the introduction to Rachel Wernick in saying that not only did they have the one program, but they had two programs they were ready to deliver. What happened in that conversation that led to having two programs instead of just one?
Please feel free to interrupt me at any point. I take no offence; I find it helpful.
Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for allowing me to participate by telephone. This allows me to use my accessibility software and participate in a more meaningful way in both languages, while having the chance to refer to my speaking notes.
I have with me today ESDC associate deputy Minister Benoît Robidoux. I'm hopeful today that my participation can be helpful.
It's my understanding, from your motion passed by this committee, that you are reviewing the safeguards in place, as you said, to avoid and prevent conflict of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contribution and other expenditure policies. In particular, I understand that you're using as a case study the speaking appearances for , Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau. I'll say at the onset that I had no prior knowledge of Margaret Trudeau's or Alexandre Trudeau's speaking appearances with WE Charity or otherwise.
I know that Margaret Trudeau is an advocate for mental health and wellness and admire her passion on this important issue. I know that the and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau had appeared at WE events in the past, and I considered this to be a well-known fact. They've both been advocates for youth leadership and youth empowerment for years.
Personally, I have spoken at one WE Charity event in November of 2016 in Vancouver. I spoke to thousands of young people about the power of inclusion and the everyday choices they can make to ensure no one was left out, in particular people with disabilities. I was not paid for this appearance and claimed no expenses.
As a member of Parliament and cabinet minister, I am very aware of my obligations pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons and the Conflict of Interest Act. I take the management of my public declarations and ongoing reporting requirements very seriously.
I offer no excuse or justification for the or thewith respect to their having not recused themselves from the discussions and decisions around having WE Charity deliver the CSSG program. Both have apologized and have acknowledged that they should have recused themselves, and there's an ongoing investigation by the Ethics Commissioner, and both are fully complying with it.
In this time of pandemic, the pace and breadth of decision-making has been beyond compare. As Minister of Employment, I have been at the centre of our pandemic response. For months our cabinet COVID committee met day after day to plan and implement our emergency response. The cabinet was also meeting regularly for many hours at a time. On any given day, we are making decisions that range from border closures to PPE distribution to whether we should be sending our military into our long-term care facilities because our seniors were dying.
My own responsibility included the CERB, Canada summer jobs, temporary foreign workers, disability support and various student measures. We've been operating under the guiding principle of delivering supports quickly and reliably to Canadians.
We knew from the start that things would not be perfect, and we were prepared to have the course corrected when needed. There was no time to test or pilot programs. We had to understand the limits of our existing systems and work within them. Anything new would have to be straightforward. I have tremendous respect for our public servants, with whom we've been working around the clock. They've gone above and beyond during these difficult times.
We've delivered to Canadians in three very important ways over the past few months, first through direct supports like the CERB, the student benefit and top-ups to the CCB, GST and OAS. Second, for the provinces and the territories, an example would be the essential workers top-up. Third, we have collaborated with third party intermediaries with extensive networks and proven track records that can deliver programs quickly and support individuals in a way that government simply can't. An example would be having Community Foundations of Canada, the Red Cross and United Way deliver our emergency community fund. Another would be partnering with Women's Shelters Canada to deliver funding to women's shelters across the country.
I offer the example of the community support fund and women's shelter fund to contextualize the decision to deliver the CSSG through WE Charity using a contribution agreement without an open competition. There was no competition in any of these instances, as it was determined that these organizations could effectively and efficiently get funds into the hands of the people and organizations that needed them while at the same time ensuring accountability on the part of the program deliverer. ESDC officials can provide the specifics of the accountability and oversight measures built into these contribution agreements, including audit, financial controls, monitoring and reporting requirements.
As the Minister of Employment I am the lead on student employment measures, the CESB, and the changes to the Canada student loans and grants program. The leads the Canada service grant given her responsibility for the Canada Service Corps. Our respective responsibilities are very clearly laid out in our mandate letters.
We both heard very clearly from young Canadians and student groups that they were facing a summer without many job prospects and the real possibility that they may not be able to afford to go back to school in the fall. They needed income support, increased student loans and grants, and jobs. They also wanted the opportunity to help out in their communities. We looked at existing programs in terms of how we could enhance them or leverage them. On April 22, the announced a $9-billion suite of measures for students. As ministers, we then rolled up our sleeves and set about delivering on the measures within our respective portfolios. For my part, I was focused on the student loans, employment and benefit measures. This was a big piece of work that included new legislation and regulatory changes. I first learned that WE was being recommended to deliver the CSSG on May 5 as I was preparing for the COVID cabinet meeting, on the same day that the proposal was being discussed. I understood the purpose of the CSSG to be to provide young people with meaningful opportunities to serve in their communities and to assist the non-profit sector with some much-needed capacity.
Given the speed, scope and scale of the program, I strongly believed that we needed a third party to move it forward. As lead minister of ESDC, I knew just how stretched the public service was and what their workload could or couldn't handle. The organization that would deliver this program would be tasked with the screening, onboarding, training and mentoring of young Canadians during these important summer months. It would also track volunteer hours and distribute grants. I can confirm that the CSSG proposal was scheduled to be on the cabinet agenda on May 8, but was taken off. I was not involved in any of the discussions about why this was pulled from the agenda and the request for more due diligence, as this was not my file. As you can appreciate, I cannot share the content of the May 22 cabinet discussions about the CSSG due to cabinet confidentiality, but as you know the cabinet decided to proceed with the recommendation to enter into a contribution agreement with WE to deliver the CSSG.
I'll conclude by stating that the CSSG was intended to be an innovative way to provide support for students, non-profits and communities, and more than ever Canada really needs bold ideas and innovative solutions. While WE Charity is no longer delivering the program, we remain as committed as ever to supporting young people and non-profits. I can assure every member of this committee that our government takes its ethical responsibilities seriously. We've not been perfect. I reiterate that both the and have apologized for having not recused themselves. I regret that this has taken the focus away from what we wanted the focus to be on.
Thank you.
:
I know that a lot has been said over the past weeks about why Canada summer jobs didn't just do this. You know, we modernized the Canada summer jobs program to reflect the realities faced by COVID, and we did increase funding to increase the number of jobs from 70,000 to 80,000 jobs this year. We created tens of thousands of other jobs through other student employment programs. I know what a successful program this is. I know that businesses like it, students like it and MPs like it.
Here's how Canada summer jobs works. We set objectives, we assess jobs against those objectives, we fund jobs that meet those objectives and then we post the jobs. We don't help individuals find these jobs. When ESDC wants to provide a more direct support to individuals, we always do it through a third party using a contribution agreement. Think of the YESS program, the youth employment and skills strategy. We fund local organizations to help youth at risk get jobs and flourish in these jobs.
The CSSG was different from Canada summer jobs. The goal, as I said in my opening remarks, was to provide young people with meaningful opportunities and also to help with the capacity issues that non-profits were facing. The organization that was delivering this program would be doing a lot of one-on-one with young people through screening, onboarding, training and mentoring. They would be tracking volunteer hours and distributing grants.
As much as this was a capacity issue, as I said, Canada summer jobs actually isn't built for, and the ESDC isn't in the business of doing, this kind of thing. I hope that makes sense.
:
Thank you for the question.
[English]
I take my responsibilities very seriously both as an MP and as a cabinet minister. I have sat on the board of the Canadian Centre for Ethics and Sport. In fact, I taught an ethics course at Algonquin College in Ottawa. I'm aware of my reporting obligations. I'm aware of the Conflict of Interest Act and the conflict of interest code. I hold myself up to high standards and, quite frankly, I hold my team around me to very high standards.
We, my team and I, consider whether my involvement in a file or a decision would be a real or a perceived conflict of interest. For me personally, that means it protects or kind of insulates my own personal integrity, but it also insulates the process that leads to these decisions. I'm up to date on my reporting obligations.
I can reiterate that we all come into these jobs with a history. We have met a lot of people; we know a lot of people. We've had past affiliations, relationships and friendships. I've worked with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on a proactive basis when I've had questions or wanted to be sure of a particular circumstance to make sure there was nothing that was even remotely perceived as a conflict. I've dug in because of my personal interest in ethics on my own personal approach to this, in this job.
As I said, I participated in one WE Day event. It was in Vancouver in November 2016. I actually brought my two daughters with me. We were there for about an hour and a half. I didn't get paid and I claimed no expenses.
To be honest, these jobs are really hard, and they're hard on our families. They take us away from our families. When I first got elected, my younger kids were two and five, so my husband and I really wanted to do this job as a family and really show my kids why I was away so much. When I got an opportunity to speak at WE, I brought my two daughters with me to show them what I was doing.
It was also really important for me to speak about inclusion at the WE Day event. This was an opportunity to talk to thousands of kids, young people, on how they can choose to include. As a kid with a disability, I wasn't included. I've seen other MPs be so impactful on that stage. went on WE and brought Jaden with him, and they talked about autism. It was so impactful. I have such respect for Mike for doing that and sharing their story, because it makes it easier for other families. To be honest, I maybe overzealously was super keen to do it and to share it with my family like I'd seen others do.
:
I could do that, Minister.
Madam Chair, the bulk of the due diligence about the organization and its capacity to deliver and all the details that were discussed up to now is done within the contribution agreement. As others have testified today, it takes time to do that because of that, so as a result we have a special team at ESDC that does only grants and contribution agreements, to a large extent, and they are experts at that. They are supported by the CFO and by the legal team to make sure that Canadians get value for their money.
It covers accountability oversight measures. Built into these agreements are audit, financial control, monitoring and reporting requirements. Basically, as soon as a program gets cleared to go, with objectives and outcomes that are looked for in terms of the program, it can take the policy team a lot of time to develop that agreement, in this case with the WE Charity organization. All the controls are in that agreement.
In terms of the controls before that, it's not really the same type of control. There is no report before that. That could be the report you could go to when those documents are released, to see the back-and-forth on these controls. Before that, it's more control on the policy side to know if the organization could indeed deliver a program like the one that was announced on April 22. Are they able? Do they have the capacity? It's a high-level check and I was not involved in that, but the WE organization is one of the largest not-for-profits in Canada dealing and working with youth, so it's not very surprising to me that they were involved there, and it's why we had them discussed in the preliminary discussions I was involved with.
:
Ms. Dawson, it is so nice to see you.
We are so thankful for your patience. Yesterday you waited during the 45 minutes of committee time and for half an hour before that. You gave us a good chunk of time yesterday, and we are certainly very thankful for your patience and also, subsequently, for your willingness to come back today.
Ms. Dawson, thank you so much. We certainly owe you a debt of gratitude.
Ms. Dawson, as you know, on July 22 this committee passed a motion: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contribution and other expenditure policies”.
Ms. Dawson, you come here today at our request to speak to this motion, of course, with your expertise concerning ethics, as you did formerly serve as the ethics commissioner.
We are going to give you 10 minutes for opening remarks. From there, we're going to give members around this table the opportunity to ask their questions.
Ms. Dawson, I will do my best to be polite, but there may be times when I need to interrupt in order to bring a question round to an end in order to respect time and make sure that each member has an opportunity to ask their questions today.
Ms. Dawson, without further ado, I will turn the floor over to you.
You have 10 minutes for opening remarks.
:
Thank you very much. I don't know that it will take 10 minutes, but I have put a few comments together.
Thank you for your invitation to appear before the committee. I have great respect for the institution of Parliament in its various aspects, so I have accepted your invitation. I hope I can be of assistance in responding to your questions.
I was the first commissioner appointed under the Conflict of Interest Act when it came into force in July 2007. I held that position for 10 and a half years. I have now been retired for two and a half years. It doesn't seem that long.
The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner administers both the Conflict of Interest Act and the members’ code. These two instruments are quite similar, but they differ in some of their detailed provisions. I believe the focus today will be on the act.
The public office holders covered by the act include ministers and parliamentary secretaries, both of whom are also covered by the members’ code, as well as ministerial staff and advisers and deputy ministers. The act also applies to most Governor in Council appointees, with a few exceptions, such as officers and staff of the Senate, House of Commons and Library of Parliament, and judges.
The main activities of the conflict of interest office include giving advice, providing outreach and education, receiving information from public office holders, some of which is made public, and carrying out examinations in relation to alleged contraventions of the act. As commissioner, I felt that the most important activity of the office was assisting public officer holders in avoiding contraventions through its advisory and educational role.
Those public officer holders who are full time or who are on an annual salary—in the act, these people are referred to as “reporting” public office holders—are required to provide the commissioner with personal information at specified times throughout their tenure. When they are appointed, they must, for example, report their assets, liabilities, previous income and previous employment. They must update this information annually. A summary of this information is reported publicly.
Every new reporting public office holder is assigned a member of the staff of the office as an adviser to meet with and discuss their disclosures and work through any potential conflict of interest issues. This initial adviser normally remains a contact point for advice on any matter of concern or any other information relating to the conflict of interest regime. Together, they may need to work out appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the act. This could include such compliance measures as conflict of interest screens or dealing with the divestment of certain controlled assets, such as publicly traded securities, that could be affected by government decisions.
The other important activity of the office is carrying out investigations of possible contraventions of the act. When an investigation is formally launched, it is called an examination. There's a lot of confusion in the use of those two terms in the media, I have found. An examination may result from a formal complaint made by a member of Parliament or by a senator if he or she identifies the relevant rule or rules in the act and has set out reasonable grounds to believe there has been a contravention, or the commissioner may self-initiate an examination if he or she has reason to believe there has been a contravention of the act. Examinations are carried out in private. A court reporter takes notes of all the proceedings. The commissioner has the power of a court to summon witnesses and to order the production of documents.
I hope this brief overview of the activities of the Conflict of Interest Act while I was a commissioner was of some assistance.
I will make one final observation relating to the provision that describes when a conflict of interest can occur. Section 4 is the “Conflict of interest” section, and it reads as follows: “For the purposes of this Act, a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity”—I underline “provides an opportunity”—“to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.”
Now, looking at that definition, a conflict of interest occurs if the exercise of a power, duty or function merely provides an opportunity to further a private interest. It's not necessary that the opportunity be acted upon so as to actually attempt to further a private interest, or that a private interest actually be furthered, nor would any intent to further a private interest be required to meet this definition.
Many, but not all, of the more important compliance rules in the act are built around the concept of conflict of interest, and the description of that concept will be relevant in determining whether any of those substantive rules have been contravened. The meat and potatoes of the actual contravention are contained elsewhere.
I have one final comment. It may be that this committee may wish to consider potential amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act once it has completed its proceedings. The one mandatory review of the act that was required under the act, and there was only one required, took place in 2013-14, but no amendments resulted from that review.
In case it would be of interest, I do refer you to the submission, dated January 30, 2013, that I made to this very standing committee in connection with that review. That submission included 75 suggestions for improvements that I thought might be considered for amendment to the act. Some were editorial but others were more substantial. I summarized a few of my key suggestions in my final annual report as commissioner for 2016-17, which was published in June 2017.
There was at least one other suggestion I have made that was not included in those submissions, and that is the exception for friends that's found in the gift provision, section 11. I do not believe it should be left in section 11 as an absolute exception, because the words of section 11 do the trick in any event, I believe. I think the exception for friends should be removed from that section.
However, having mentioned the 75 suggestions for amendments, I should add that I think the act is generally pretty good. By way of example, while I was commissioner, I received a number of delegations from various countries, all of whom were trying to learn from our act and from how we administered our regime, and were looking for advice for amendments to their legislation or, in fact, new legislation, in some cases.
Thank you for your attention. I hope I can answer your questions.
:
I'm not an advocate of extra penalties.
As you undoubtedly know, there are some penalties in the act, but they're small ones and they're only directed at failures to meet.... They're called administrative, monetary penalties, and they're directed towards failures to meet deadlines to get mandatory information in, and those have been used frequently.
Aside from that, one has to bear in mind that this is not a criminal piece of legislation; it's an ethical act. It's interesting that the word “ethics“ is only used in its title; it's not used anywhere in other parts of the act—not its title, but the title of the commissioner, actually. That's the only place that word is used. In any event, it's a civil level of proof that goes on under this act, reasonable probability, not the criminal level, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. There are also lots of provisions in the criminal sphere, such as bribery, fraud or whatever, that would apply potentially in a similar situation. In fact, there's a responsibility to, if one appeals.... If there has actually been a criminal offence, as commissioner one is required to pass it on to the principal people who look after criminal matters, and one must discontinue the investigation, if one has begun.
Basically, that's my justification for thinking I'm not too concerned about penalties.
:
Thank you, Madam Dawson. It's so great to have you back before the ethics committee. You have spoken to us many times over the years.
I'm very interested in the “Trudeau Report”, because I think it will help certainly my Liberal colleagues in getting a better sense of how the Conflict of Interest Act works. Your findings in it are very interesting. We get the impression that conflict of interest is something like bribery, where somebody offers you money and you give them a deal, but in the “Trudeau Report”, it was much more complex in that it was the family members who were very much engaged in the back-and-forth.
You know, the meets with the Aga Khan in November 2015 in Paris. It's a private meeting, which it may have been. Then it's the Aga Khan's daughter who reaches out to Ms. Grégoire to invite her to their first trip to the island. So it's through the family that the decision's made. Then, two days before she goes on that vacation, the Aga Khan's officials reach out and start talking about the $15 million.
So in terms of the findings you made, you had a number of areas where you found the responsible. One is that the whole thing of...that a public office holder will recuse himself from any discussion, decision, debate or any matter on which he or she would be in a conflict of interest. Section 6 of that act says that...should “reasonably” know that in making that decision, he would be in a conflict. It's to “reasonably” know that it's a conflict...when this was something that was very beneficial to the family, because at Christmastime, in the famous trip, it was Sophie Grégoire who then reached out to the Aga Khan, asked if they could come and have a vacation, and the family said yes. So how is it that?
I would just like to get your comments on that report in terms of the fact that it can be family members involved too, thinking they're just getting something really nice and normal, that actually puts the public office holder in the conflict.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Dawson, thank you for being here today. You headed the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for 10 years, and I can bear witness to that. You had an iron fist in a velvet glove and you always did excellent work.
Philosophically speaking, when we look at what is happening today, we see that the work you did and that the new commissioner Mario Dion is doing does not seem to change public opinion a lot. Someone who is found guilty by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner should certainly lose an election, because being ethical is an essential part of the bond of trust with the electorate. However, when someone continually places themselves in a situation of conflict of interest and investigations confirm it, that bond of trust with the electorate does not seem to be broken.
Whether the commissioner's office really does its work or does not actually give the results of its investigation to the electorate, it does not carry a lot of weight in public opinion. We saw that in the last election. The was found guilty twice, once about his trip to visit the Aga Khan and once with the whole SNC-Lavalin affair. However, people still voted for the current Prime Minister again. Most members in the House take this seriously, but the voters do not. That troubles me.
Ms. Dawson, now that you have retired and you can look at this situation from the outside, does it trouble you?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Dawson, let us indulge in fantasy. Let's say I am Prime Minister of Canada and you are the ethics commissioner. I consult you and I tell you that I have an important decision to make. We are getting ready to award a contract of $43.5 million to an organization to manage $900 million in student grants. I tell you that, given the emergency, the decision must be made in an unusual way, that is to say without calling for tenders. I also tell you that there has been no full due diligence of the company to confirm its ability to run the program.
Then I tell you that the organization in question has, in the last two years, paid my mother a quarter of a million dollars for speaking engagements. I tell you that the organization has also paid several tens of thousands of dollars to my brother for the same things, that the organization retains the services of my wife as an ambassador, and that I myself have spoken on behalf of the organization and encouraged people to work with it.
Lastly, Madam Ethics Commissioner, I tell you that the situation is troubling me, and I am asking you for some clarity.
Should I participate in the decision-making process? What advice would you give me?
:
Oh, my goodness. When I left the office, I picked out some that I thought I would highlight. I have them here. I'll just run through them.
Increasing transparency around gifts was one of them. Another was lowering the threshold for disclosure.
There are some terminology issues in there. The code covers entities, but the act covers only persons. Entities, sometimes, should be covered as well. There are some proposals I made to diminish the onerous provisions over people. I won't go into them.
Strengthen the post-employment obligations. There's no reporting obligation for a post-employment person. The rules just tend to go on for a year or two post-employment. There are rules that have to be followed. It would be good if there were slight reporting obligations there. For some non-reporting public office holders, there might be a couple of areas they should be reporting on. They're not covered.
I mentioned harmonizing some of the provisions of the act and the members' code, because it's confusing to members, especially those who are ministers, when there are two different rules.
Then I mentioned one in my opening remarks. I do think section 11 creates.... There is no definition of “friend”. It doesn't need to be an exception to that gift rule, because “reasonably be seen to have been given to influence” does it, anyway. If they were a friend and it's not in a funny circumstance, it would have done it anyway. That's something that was unnecessary there and I think it could be improved.
There are a lot. As I said, I have 75. I'd say 30 of them are probably technical, drafter's little nitpicks. There are some, in a couple of places, where the French and English aren't exactly the same—all sorts of things. There's nothing dramatic, I don't think, with those exceptions.
That's a little smattering.