Information & Ethics Committee on March 27th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Commissioner Dawson.

We will go to the seven-minute round. It's likely we'll only have time for the seven-minute round today, because we have some committee business to deal with. So members may want to consider splitting their time if they want to have more members on.

I'll go to Mr. Angus for seven minutes, and that includes his question and the commissioner's response.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Dawson. As you know, we have enormous respect for the integrity of your office and the work you do. You're now set up under section 81 of the Parliament of Canada Act, where your budget is defined. You don't negotiate directly with Treasury Board; you deal with the Speaker, and that is passed to the Treasury Board. Is that correct?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Our concern is ensuring you have the resources you need to address the numerous issues in your file.

I'm particularly concerned about your last report on March 22 on Mr. Christian Paradis. When he was Minister of Public Works and Government Services, you reported in your findings that he contravened the Conflict of Interest Act by providing special treatment to Mr. Rahim Jaffer, a former caucus colleague, and his company, Green Power Generation, when he directed his staff to arrange a meeting between that company and departmental officials.

Specifically, you found that he contravened section 7 of the act related to preferential treatment, and subsection 6(1), which prohibits office holders from making decisions that would place them in a conflict of interest. Yet it took two years for us to get the finding.

Do you believe you have enough resources to be able to go after offenders like Mr. Paradis?

[Mary Dawson]

It wasn't a question of my resources. It was a question of the number of witnesses we had to interview. We can't spread one file among a whole bunch of different interviewers, because we want to have a core group looking at them.

We also had delays in getting documentation and getting some of the witnesses. It took two years. That's the longest investigation we've had to date.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

This is of central importance to me, because this is the first time we've had a minister found guilty of being in conflict of interest, of putting himself in conflict. In fact, it's the first time we have a sitting cabinet minister who has been found in breach of the law. These are very serious issues, because if unchecked they will speak to underlying potential corruption in government.

You said: ...facilitating access to decision-makers or those who may influence them is captured by the Act’s prohibition against providing preferential treatment. Ministers are in a position of power and have a special responsibility to ensure that that power is exercised fairly and in a way that is open to all Canadians.

This didn't happen in the case of Mr. Paradis. I'm concerned about the delays and the stalling that may have happened with witnesses and documents, because there was an election in between. If Canadians had known that Mr. Paradis was guilty of this kind of behaviour, they might have been able to make a choice. But he was allowed back into cabinet and is now in a senior position. The Prime Minister doesn't seem to think it takes any action.

If we had managed to get this settled in a timely manner, do you think Canadians would have been better represented?

[Mary Dawson]

I really can't comment on that. It's up to the Prime Minister to determine what action, if any, to take. My report stands on its own feet. It gives the facts.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you for that.

The Prime Minister has said that as long as a cabinet minister doesn't commit what he called “substantial harm”—to me that's not even a bar that gets up above the dirt. As long as a minister doesn't do substantial harm, it seems Bob's your uncle and he can get away with whatever he wants.

I'm asking you this because of the resources. You talk about the uncertainty in your budget because you don't know how many complaints.... But I'm wondering if we're going to need a whole special investigations unit just to keep Mr. Paradis on the straight and narrow.

We have him being found guilty and he's still in cabinet. We have the issue of government offices being moved to Rimouski, apparently to a building owned by one of his relatives. Is that an ongoing investigation?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, there's an opened investigation on that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Then we also have the issue of a hunting trip with Monsieur Aubut, who was lobbying the Canadian government to help build a $400 million arena, and Mr. Paradis was off spending the weekend with him at his lodge. Do you believe you have enough resources to make sure guys like Mr. Paradis actually stay on the straight and narrow?

[Mary Dawson]

So far I've managed with the resources that I have.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I guess I'm concerned because these are serious issues. These are serious breaches of conflict of interest, and yet you have no ability to assess penalties. You say your role is educational.

Mr. Paradis tells us he's going to learn his lessons and go back to business as usual. But when you're in breach of conflict of interest and a serious cabinet minister, don't you believe there should be higher levels of standard of accountability?

[Mary Dawson]

We're coming up within the next year or so to a five-year review of the act, and I think that will be the time for members to take a look at the rules. At the moment, we have in our legislation the capacity to impose penalties, but it's primarily for delays and that's it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, thank you for that. Certainly we see that the Conservatives have loopholes that they're driving Mack trucks through on a regular basis, so your advice will certainly be helpful to us.

I think this is a serious issue for us. In light of Madam Dawson's testimony, I was thinking that it would probably be good for us to move a motion on this: that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics formally request the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner undertake an investigation into the potential breach of the Conflict of Interest Act by Mr. Christian Paradis, the Minister of Industry, and allegations that in 2009, while Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister Paradis stayed at the lodge of Marcel Aubut, former owner of the Quebec Nordiques, while Monsieur Aubut was seeking funding from the federal government for a $400 million arena in Quebec City, pursuant to subsection 44(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act.

I think this motion will be found in order and I think it's something we, as committee members, should all be willing to ensure that we have accountability on, and I put it to committee.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Just before I recognize the point of order, I'm going to treat that as a notice of motion, Mr. Angus, because the matter before the committee has to do with the estimates today. So I'll treat this as a notice of motion and it'll be on for our next meeting.

Mr. Del Mastro, you have a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

You made my point. The motion requires 48 hours' notice. It has nothing to do with the estimates.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Your time is essentially up, Mr. Angus. You have four seconds.

So we'll have Mr. Del Mastro for seven minutes.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Welcome, Madam Commissioner. I appreciated your presentation to the committee today.

First of all, I don't have a lot to say about Mr. Angus' comments. Obviously, he has his partisan political rationale for saying the things he said. As we've indicated, we appreciate and accept the conclusions of the report you just tabled in Parliament, and we do appreciate the efforts that you're making on behalf of Canadians, and indeed, parliamentarians.

In drawing up your budget, your office is not required to follow the same procedure as departments and agencies of other officers of Parliament. In particular, you don't negotiate with the Treasury Board Secretariat. You negotiate directly with the Speaker of the House of Commons, who then submits to Treasury Board on your behalf.

How do you determine the resources that your office requires? When I look back over the last couple of years, in fact, you have planned spending, you have a budget, but your actual spending tends to come in at anywhere between 10% to 14% below your budget. How have you been able to maintain that? Are you submitting with some due diligence—i.e., in case you should require additional resources? Are you putting that into your budgetary request at the beginning of the year?

Maybe you can enlighten us as to what that process is.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes. Well, as I think I mentioned, in the past years we have not spent our whole budget. This year we've come fairly close. In fact, we went over on our salaries slightly, but a little bit under on our other.

Basically, I think we're functioning as we should be at the moment. One never knows, but we do have a little bit of a pot in case of emergencies, but it isn't a big one. Maybe I should ask my corporate person to add to that.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Sure, that would be great.

[Denise Benoit, Director, Corporate Management, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

Just to pick up on what the Commissioner mentioned, our biggest challenges over the last few years has been on the staffing issue, and now that we're fully staffed it has a direct impact on our spending. So what we are lapsing at the end of the day, which will be close to maybe 5% to 6% of our budget, is really the reserve that the Commissioner is keeping for investments that will need to be done at the last minute.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay, that's great. Thank you.

In the past, you said that the Speaker doesn't do a critical analysis of these amounts. Has that changed or is the process still the same. Essentially, you submit what you feel is appropriate, and the Speaker's office essentially....

I guess what I'm asking is does the Speaker's office rubber stamp this or do they come back to you and ask you some questions about the budget that you're preparing?

[Mary Dawson]

I'm not sure exactly what they do, but I haven't had them come back to me.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay. All right.

Do you think it would be helpful for your office to submit your own proposal to Treasury Board? Would that be a structure that you think would be better? Or are you content with the structure the way it works today?

[Mary Dawson]

I'm satisfied with the structure. It's very important that my office be independent of the government—