Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Wright. Thank you for appearing before us this afternoon.

In your presentation, you said that you wholeheartedly accepted the Prime Minister's offer. You decided to reach an agreement with Onex, and you do intend to go back to work for them following your term of office in government. That, to me, is not a sign of a wholehearted commitment.

After your appointment, you have 120 days to provide the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with a statement. You said that you came to testify here as a private citizen, and that your appearance was voluntary. But we know the hard line this government is now taking with regard to the appearance of witnesses.

Would you be as kind as you are today if, at a later date, the committee sees fit to invite you here again to testify and answer our questions? Earlier you indicated that you could not answer questions dealing with hypothetical situations.

If after having submitted your documents, i.e., within the 120 days mentioned earlier, the committee wanted to hear from you again, would you be just as kind as you are today or would you follow the hard line dictated by your government and not appear before us?

[Nigel Wright]

Thank you.

There are a couple of questions in there. One I want to address really clearly is that I have made one choice. That choice was to leave Onex to come to serve the Prime Minister, to devote 100% of my time, attention, and energies to serve the Prime Minister, and through him, this government and the country. My decision was made without hesitation and is completely in effect. That's the choice I've made. In 2013 I'll have another choice about whether to continue or what to do next. Today I've made one choice, and that choice is to come here to serve. That is what I'm about. It's what I'm going to do.

On the second question, what I want to say is that I'm here to answer any questions people may have today. I'm very pleased to answer any questions. Whether it's today or 120 days from now, I am not the right person to be answering questions about whether particular matters are inside or outside the scope. The whole design of the ethical law, Mr. Chair, is to remove from me the responsibility for determining whether I am in conflict in a matter or not. That's just good common sense. I would urge members to ask questions about the wall today.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

As chief of staff, you will have to take up positions with regard to the party and commit to key policies. You said that you came here in good faith, as a private citizen, and that you cannot answer questions that deal with hypothetical situations.

I simply want to know whether you will appear here again once you have taken up your duties. We might have other questions to put to you regarding information that we do not currently have, but that you will be providing within 120 days following your appointment. I believe that it will be up to you as chief of staff and the Prime Minister to make that decision.

[Nigel Wright]

Again, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the question. I think I have to give it the same answer. That is, the office and the person who is best able to answer questions on the scope of the wall will be the person who's actually making those determinations, which would be the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

You said that you will not partake in discussions from which you have to recuse yourself. Will you avoid participating in discussions? If not, will you be physically absent?

[Nigel Wright]

Mr. Chair, it does mean that I will not be present in the sense that I can neither participate in nor listen to nor hear any conversations relating to matters that are the subject of the wall.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Very well.

Should Onex acquire new corporations, you will be asking for a reference from the commissioner. We know that you asked for a reference and, recently, have received instructions from the commissioner. In April, you asked for a reference on your situation, and have recently received instructions.

If you were to ask for a new reference from the commissioner, would you withdraw from discussions during the time it takes to conduct the research and draft the response? If not, will you participate until you receive an indication to the contrary? What will be your position?

[Nigel Wright]

It's a very good question, Mr. Chair.

I think that in the administration of the wall, wherever there is any doubt and if that doubt leads to a reference to the Ethics Commissioner, and that takes a bit of time, that doubt is going to be resolved in favour of my not participating in that matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Thi Lac.

Mr. Albrecht, for five minutes.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Wright and Mr. Wild, for being here today.

I think it's important at this point that we remind ourselves as a committee that we are not conducting a Governor in Council appointment review. Mr. Chair, you pointed that out very clearly previously.

The Prime Minister has certainly indicated his confidence in you. I think our primary role as a committee is to be sure that the process that is in place has in fact been followed and that we're confident that this will result in good service to Canadians, and one that has the highest ethical and integrity markers.

I want to run through the process briefly again. You indicated that in April you met with the Ethics Commissioner and then subsequent to that you took time to familiarize yourself with the act, and that the Ethics Commissioner from that recommended that a conflict of interest screen--or as you're terming it, “ethical wall”--be established. In fact, the Ethics Commissioner appeared here not too long ago and indicated to this committee that she had received total cooperation from you through that process.

I also have the privilege of serving on the procedure and House affairs committee. It was just a few weeks back when the Ethics Commissioner was talking to us about the importance of not having such rigid guidelines in place that it actually cuts government off from the possibility of having people like yourself, from the business community, the private sector, actually being able to serve Canadians.

I'm confident that Canadians can have confidence in the process you've indicated, in the transparency that is currently in place in the conflict of interest screen or the ethical wall, and also in your track record as a business person.

Mr. Martin suggested earlier that possibly you came up with this term “ethical wall” out of some daydream one day. But it's obvious from your presentation that this ethical wall is something that's being used in the private sector and in other government sectors.

I'm just wondering if either you or Mr. Wild could give some examples of other areas where these ethical walls or conflict of interest screens have in fact been implemented, how they have operated, and how the process may compare to the process you followed in this particular instance.

[Nigel Wright]

Thank you.

If it's okay, Mr. Chairman, I might just give a short response and then ask Mr. Wild to talk about precedents.

My response to the member's question is that I personally took a lot of comfort when this Parliament passed the Accountability Act and the Conflict of Interest Act. I think it was important legislation. It goes to the core of rebuilding trust in government.

Something that I think is also important to rebuilding trust in government is making sure that it's not just the preserve of people who've always been inside the system, that people can come whether it is from business, the arts, or wherever. People can come from other walks of life—and yes, put in proper protections and procedures always, but without being on the basis of no evidence or just insinuation accused of having negative motives coming in. I think that's actually very helpful to connecting the government properly with the people from outside Ottawa.

On the question about other examples of walls, maybe that's for Mr. Wild.

[Joe Wild]

With respect to other examples of walls, the core principle behind this wall is that you have a process in which a scope has been identified, and you have a clear written understanding among all parties potentially involved in decisions or discussions as to what is or is not within that scope. As well, you have a process in place through which that information then gets flagged, so that it will not be shared with the person who is subject to the wall. I think that's a fairly typical conflict of interest screen or wall; as I mentioned, you would find examples of that in most major law firms. I have put those types of walls in place for Governor in Council appointees in a crown corporation I've worked in. So there are a number of examples out there.

I would also say that there's nothing particularly unusual in the structure of this particular wall in terms of what it's based on or its foundation. There are a number of approaches. One approach is that you simply place a memo on the file that says “this file is not to be shown to person X”. This procedure goes further than that, in that it clearly sets out what happens in the event that for some reason information does go to Mr. Wright when it shouldn't have. It makes clear who's responsible for ensuring that files are segregated, whether they are electronic or physical files, and it makes clear that any questions around scope are ultimately to go to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

So in that sense, it's a well-documented process and procedure, and the fact that it's made public will mean that people will be able to judge whether it is being honoured.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albrecht.

Mr. Martin, you have five minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Wright, I think what strikes me most is the extraordinary lengths people have gone to, to essentially make a round peg fit into a square hole, to craft things so that you would be suitable for this position when the sheer scale of the steps that have to be taken clearly indicates that you're not.

I'm reading through some of this arcane stuff that Joe has developed here. Point 7 is worthy of Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister. It says:

Should an official identify an issue which falls within the subject matter of the ethical wall, the official should raise the matter with his or her director, who will then discuss it with the Deputy Secretary for the secretariat, who will be responsible for referring this to the Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet...and Counsel to the Clerk.

You've created a whole mini-bureaucracy just to try to keep you away from documents. And it also says any such files shall be labelled as “not to be shown to Nigel Wright”. So half of the cabinet documents floating around or generated by the Harper administration will be stamped with “not to be shown to Nigel Wright”. Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

[Nigel Wright]

Mr. Chair, as I think Mr. Wild has said, the actual design and administration of the wall fit within well-established practices that have been used not only in the Government of Canada but elsewhere widely across this continent. So I'm not sure that I would describe it--no offence to Mr. Wild--as being elaborate, but certainly I wouldn't describe it as being unusual.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You've even created a new category: the supervisor of the ethical wall. It sounds like something out of The Wizard of Oz. It's really odd.

One of the chief functions, as I understand it--I've never been in the PMO--of the chief of staff to the Prime Minister is to deal with a lot of inquiries from the chiefs of staff for ministers, to be a go-to guy. You won't be able to take meetings with most ministers, and you'll have to assign your deputy chief of staff to take those meetings.

Isn't it true that your deputy, under your direction, will be undertaking a lot of the work that would normally be done by the chief of staff? And if that deputy is under your direction or control, how are you completely arm's length from the issue?

[Nigel Wright]

Mr. Chair, one of the reasons I was very glad to come here today is to make sure the documents I presented are understood properly. It's why I wanted to appear. Therefore it's very important that I clear up any misconceptions in the readings of these documents.

The way the ethical wall is designed and will function is that any matter that touches on the Canadian aerospace manufacturing industry, areas identified by the Ethics Commissioner, the two tax policy areas identified, or any matter in which any of the companies listed on annex A as a private interest will be dealt with as the ethical wall determines.

That is not the same thing as saying that anything that is within the purview of the Department of Health is covered by the wall.

Again, I will not be the person making those decisions, but the wall is not built around departments of government. It's built around potential conflicts.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If we look at item 6:

In the event that Nigel Wright comes into possession of government information from employees or appointees of the Government of Canada related to the subject matter of the ethical wall, Nigel Wright will notify the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Supervisor of the Ethical Wall and immediately turn that information over to the Supervisor of the Ethical Wall.

Then a bunch of action gets triggered. An enormous amount of energy and administrative capacity is now dedicated to keeping you away from files.

Again, it's just crazy.

[Nigel Wright]

Mr. Chair, I don't accept the member's description.

I can only speak to my experience, and my experience is that the amount of interaction between Onex and the Government of Canada has been extremely limited. When we look at two other examples, Mr. Chair--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

But the number of issues that Onex deals with as government issues--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Order, please.

[Nigel Wright]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we look at two other examples of very senior public officials, Prime Minister Martin and the Honourable Belinda Stronach, both had very extensive business dealings. When I count the number of times it was published that matters came to their attention requiring recusal, it was between 10 and 15 a year.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Belinda Stronach was outside the cabinet room more often than she was in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, Mr. Martin, that's your time. Thank you very much.

We're now going to move on to Mr. Easter. Mr. Easter, you have five minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will admit I'm a little more worried than when I came in. Mr. Wild, you indicated screens have been set up in law firms, in Governor in Council appointments, etc. They are really often single or a few issues. This is the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, the centre of government. And when I look at this chart it seems to me you are creating a whole new system within the PMO to keep information away from the chief of staff. How can he do his job as chief of staff when he's not provided the information on the whole of the Canadian government? It's going to be pretty nearly impossible.

So I have a couple of direct questions to clear things up. Number one, Mr. Wright, one of the big plans of the federal government now is corporate tax cuts. We think the money could be spent in other places. Will you be dealing with the corporate tax cuts file?