Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[Nigel Wright]

I appreciate that question, because a number of people not in this room have told me that they're very curious as to how this committee appearance goes. They think it is very valuable that people from outside of Ottawa, people who aren't insiders, get a chance to come and play a role in government, so long as they're doing so in compliance with the act and all of their ethical standards.

For me, really all my life, I would say, public policy has been a passion of mine. For three decades I've had some involvement in the political process. It manifested itself through the party system but also in things I've done in my community on a voluntary basis. I came here as a young man to be a staffer on the Hill, so it's been a real passion of mine.

To be asked to come in a senior role by a Prime Minister whose values align with mine in every single way just felt like a completely unique, once-in-a-lifetime privilege, impossible to do anything with other than say yes. So I come here very eager to get going, extremely committed to making this work and getting it right.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

You come with an enormous track record of experience, an unimpeachable reputation, and you've been distinguished mostly, though not exclusively, by your work in the business sector of society. Can you comment, generally speaking, about what your background as a successful businessman brings as a skills set to the job you'll be doing in the Prime Minister's Office?

[Nigel Wright]

I think sometimes when I was in business I was working at really the kind of nuts and bolts level of the economy, making investments, figuring out how to make companies more productive, taking out waste, creating jobs and employment. I understand, as another member commented earlier on, that business and government are different, but understanding at the grassroots level actually how jobs are created, how employment growth occurs, how businesses grow is something that will be valuable. We are in a recovery, but it is in a fragile stage, Mr. Chair, and it needs good public policy.

I've also been a staffer in Ottawa. And maybe there are not enough people in this country who have experience in both how government works and how business works. I'm hoping to bring that to the service of the Prime Minister.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Can you explain the purpose behind the blind trust?

[Nigel Wright]

I don't know about venetian blind trusts. This blind trust follows a form that was created and drafted by the Ethics Commissioner. I transferred all of my controlled assets into the blind trust in late October. The blind trustee is the legal owner of them all now, and I'm not to have any communication of any sort--no direction, no advice, no information about what's in there. I do not know and will not know what's in there. Once a quarter I'll be told what the value of it is.

There is a direct link between the Ethics Commissioner and the blind trustee so that the Ethics Commissioner's office will have the ability to know what's going on, but the purpose of the blind trust is to remove me and any knowledge I may have about my controlled investments and have them administered by a third party.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I just want to make a clarification, Mr. Chair, because there seems to be some misunderstanding in the way this has been debated by some members. On the term “private interest”, I will quote directly from the process for establishing a conflict of interest screen:

“Private interest” does not include an interest in a decision or a matter that is of a general application.

And as such, we have to recognize that there are going to be people in this public service world who come from different backgrounds and who the government interacts with, obviously. But that is a strength for our country. We look forward to inviting people from various sectors, in this case the business sector, but from all sectors, to make a future contribution to our country.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.

Thank you, Mr. Wright.

That, colleagues, concludes the first round of seven minutes. We're now going to the second round of five minutes.

We'll start with Ms. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Thanks very much.

Thanks very much, also, for providing the documents in advance. That's been very helpful to us.

I have a concern that you've taken a very transactional approach to the idea of government dealings with Onex. You've said, even with this diagram, that you think it's a limited amount of contact. But it's a veritable universe of public policy.

If only 1% of box office receipts are for Canadian films, would you be able to participate in a conversation about Canadian content on Canadian screens in Canada, for example? Would you be able to have a conversation about corporate tax cuts with borrowed dollars? Really, how can you do this?

The other piece is that we have some concerns that you're reporting to your inferior--somebody you can fire. That isn't usually the way this would be sorted out, in terms of having a separate officer from maybe the Ethics Commissioner's office or some other way of doing this. It seems odd that the person who will be managing your ethical screen is your junior, so to speak.

I guess the other piece is in terms of what you come in with and what you leave with. Is there a reason the code of conduct, in terms of the cooling-off period, wouldn't apply to you?

[Nigel Wright]

Mr. Chair, I'll answer the first two questions I heard, and I may ask the member to repeat the third question, because I'm not sure I understood it properly.

The first question had to do with what's in and what's out, what's covered and not covered, if I take a transactional approach. I think the essence of the ethical wall is the understanding that fair-minded people may differ as to what is or isn't covered. That decision will not be my decision.

Whether something is or is not covered by the ethical wall will ultimately be determined by the Ethics Commissioner. In doing so, she'll look at the statute, I believe, and she'll see that a private interest does not include a decision or matter that is of general application affecting a public office holder as one of a broad class of persons. She'll look to that definition in the statute.

The point I really want to make in answer to the question is that I won't decide on my own behalf. The Ethics Commissioner, who has approved this system, will make those decisions.

The second question has to do with the supervisor of the ethical wall within the PMO. I think the member will understand that there has to be somebody within the PMO to whom matters I cannot deal with will go. The supervisor of the ethical wall is that person. That person is the person on the other side of the ethical wall, if you will, who is able to receive communications or participate in briefings that I cannot. But that person is not the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn't covered by the wall, or whether the wall is or is not being effective. That person, by statute and by design of the wall, is the Ethics Commissioner.

I'm sorry, I missed the last part of the question.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

The question is around cultural policy, screen time, corporate tax cuts. I mean, you've only declared aerospace. My concern is that when you go back into the private sector--and I think it's an odd thing that you're keeping this tether for what you've said is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity--will you have to obey this guideline of a one-year cooling-off period?

[Nigel Wright]

Again, I'll be very quick.

There are two quick questions there. The first has to do with all kinds of matters that may or may not be covered by the wall. The fact is that I can't answer hypotheticals about what is or isn't on the wall; someone other than me will make those decisions.

The answer on the post-employment code is that I'm covered by the post-employment code. The statute applies to me. The statute does say that I will not accept an offer of employment with an entity with which I had direct and significant official dealings. That is true. I simply will not have those dealings with any Onex company.

The statement was also made in the question that I've only declared Canadian aerospace manufacturing industry as an area of scope, and that's not so. There are other areas of scope, including anything that touches on any of the companies listed in annex A of the documents provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you have a question, something very quick? Or we could leave it.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I guess the post-employment piece is still....You will have touched on almost everything in the PMO, on all matters of public policy, which is of concern to us, because we think Onex is affected by all of those policies. When you go back.... You're taking a very narrow view in terms of the transactional approach to Onex's companies instead of all of the matters of public policy.

If it says “an entity with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year”, you will have set the policy for all of them, or you will know what's coming down the pipe. It seems unusual that you wouldn't have to have the same one-year cooling-off period, for the reason for which this code was written.

[Nigel Wright]

I'll be very straightforward in my response, Mr. Chairman. The act applies to me as it does to everybody else. One day I assume this will happen: upon leaving the employ of the Prime Minister, I will be consulting with the Ethics Commissioner to determine how best to comply with the act. I will be complying with the code.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Bennett.

We're now going to go to Ms. Davidson, five minutes.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Wright, for being with us this afternoon, and Mr. Wild. We've been anticipating this day, and it's a pleasure to have you here.

I'd like to echo the comments of my colleague as well, to say how much we appreciate the fact that you are showing an interest in being a part of the government. I think it's very important that we can have people of your calibre who have the interest to give service to the country. So thank you very much for that. We appreciate it.

We talked a little bit before. My colleague asked you about the process you undertook with the Ethics Commissioner. You outlined a few of the things. You talked about the first meeting in April. You talked about looking into the leave of absence process and setting up the ethical wall and the people put in place to monitor that.

What would your impressions of that process have been?

[Nigel Wright]

Thank you.

It was actually very satisfying. I'm not sure I should do this, but I'll have to pay a compliment to the Ethics Commissioner and her office, because I uniformly dealt with people who were thorough, professional, inquisitive, clearly knew not just the statute, but the principles and objectives they're charged with upholding.

I did find a system was in place to deal with people like me. When I needed blind trust agreements, those were provided immediately. The questions around the disclosures I've made have been very detailed. The confidential report is an extremely detailed report and will be taking some of my time to complete.

In my view, it's clearly a tough system. The act is clearly the toughest act this country has ever had to deal with these matters. But it's being administered by people who really get it, in my view, and really want to make it work.

My sense and my belief going forward is that this system is working and will work in my case.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Now I want to talk to you or have you talk to us a little bit about the ethical wall, because I think there's maybe some confusion or misunderstanding about what this ethical wall is. Can you tell us what your expectations of that ethical wall are?

[Nigel Wright]

Sure. Thank you.

The ethical wall was established by my signing the acknowledgement that I am bound by it and distributing a memorandum to the distribution lists that the members see, advising people that it now exists.

The next step, as you might expect, is that briefing sessions, both within the PMO and PCO, will occur later this week to describe its functioning to the people charged with administering it and who will be dealing with it, and to receive any questions or clarifications that need to follow.

What will happen, both on the public service side of government and on the political side of government within ministers' offices, is that when anybody is preparing a briefing note or a policy initiative that they think might or might not touch on an area covered by the wall, they will elevate that to their direct report and ultimately to chiefs of staff within ministers' offices and the deputy chief in the PMO. On the public service side, it will go to Monsieur Roy and Mr. Wild.

Those individuals will set in place procedures that are outlined a little bit in the documents I've given--protected documents, password protections, double envelopes, all those kinds of things--to make sure that information is dealt with. The Prime Minister is never deprived of advice, so the information is dealt with by people other than me in a timely manner.

Whenever there's doubt about whether something touches on the wall or not, there's a process in place for that doubt to be elevated to the Ethics Commissioner in a documented process. So the question itself and the answer to it will be documented, I think to meet the standards of transparency that we want to see in place.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Wright, has this ethical wall been used before? Was there a template, as such, you set this up from, or was it just developed from scratch?

[Nigel Wright]

I didn't design it.

I wonder if the chair might permit Mr. Wild to respond to that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Sure.

[Joe Wild, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All of the documents on the wall, other than the document that sets out the scope of the wall, are based on a few different sources of information. The first is a template and a checklist that I drew from the American Bar Association. It follows basically a typical practice used in most law practices in both the United States and Canada. It's also based on my own experience putting these sorts of walls in place when I was counsel with a crown corporation. It also draws on some of the information in the public domain on the wall that was put in place under Mr. Shapiro, when he was the Ethics Commissioner, and former Prime Minister Martin.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Davidson.

Ms. Thaï Thi Lac, you have five minutes.