Evidence of meeting #5 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There's only a maximum penalty of $500 for failure to do some fairly routine things, such as getting certain reports in on time or doing something within a certain period of time. They're very, very technical things.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Have you opened any investigations involving NDP, conservative or liberal members?
9:40 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes.
9:40 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There are five.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
9:40 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There are only two in the public domain.
9:40 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Neither one involves the NDP.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
How many are there that involve the Conservative Party?
9:40 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Thank you very much, Madame Brosseau. Your five minutes are up.
We will now go to Mr. Carmichael for five minutes, please.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Commissioner and team.
First of all, as a new member of this committee and the House, I want to begin by complimenting you and your staff on the orientation process for new members. As a new member, I found the input from your team very supportive and helpful. It certainly helped to clarify issues on the way in the door, including your point about putting up a screen for future problems. It certainly made a big difference to my understanding of the ground rules.
To Mr. Martin's earlier comment, I found the civics lesson helpful. So don't walk out of here feeling that this wasn't taken with the good intent you brought it forward with.
Your comment regarding Mr. Day was interesting. Here we have a former member who took the time.... And I have to be honest and say that to my knowledge, he represented probably the highest of integrity in the office that we hold today. So I would expect him to go to you for clarity. Obviously he did, and he did it in advance of taking any further actions in the career path he was choosing.
As I look to some of the history the NDP brought up today, it's interesting. These generally are old cases. In the Dykstra case, you found no breach. You did your investigation and, as I understand from your comment, there was no breach or finding of his being in conflict of interest. Regarding Ms. Raitt, I actually read the report. When I was in your office, it was newly pressed. Again, it goes to the facts to ensure that for future influence, the screen is well in place. I find all of that very helpful and I applaud you for doing it.
What I'm trying to understand today, and I'd appreciate your input on it, is the following. When there is an investigation against a public office holder or an MP and you find there is a serious violation or something that is going to result in a response, what happens then and how do you deal with it?
9:45 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
After I find there has been a contravention?
9:45 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I then write the report and table it. If it concerns a public office holder, it goes to the Prime Minister. It's also immediately made public on our website. If it's under the code, it's tabled in the House of Commons through the Speaker. And if it's during the summer, I make it public and then it's tabled the first thing, like the one that's current now.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Right.
So the response in fact comes from you.
Do you actually impose penalties, or is that left to others?
9:45 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No. The penalty scheme is totally separate from the investigations and the examination. There are different words for these under the code and the act, which is confusing: it's an “examination” under the act and an “inquiry” under the code.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
From your presentation today I'm sensing some frustration about the limits of your office and the extent of your authority, as there seem to be some blurred boundaries between offices. You mentioned, for example, just in terms of the scope of your work, that you have two organizations that you've recommended should perhaps be consolidated into a single one.
Is there a case for that? Have you built a case around that yet?
9:45 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The fact of the matter is that they're two separate regimes now. I've suggested that maybe we could look at putting them together and at least consolidating some of the rules, which are very similar but have slight nuances between them. It's very confusing for a member, particularly a minister, who's covered by both.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
To the operating side of that and the operational mandate, you talk about a $7.1 million budget and 50 staff. If you did that, would there be an opportunity in that consolidation to create greater efficiency and flow? With the number of calls that are coming in to your place--you talk about 1,600 calls last year, 500 from MPs, and you've had 13 investigations since 2008--I just wonder if that would help you in some way.
9:45 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I don't think it's primarily a budgetary issue. We'd have the same amount of work either way. The only thing is it might be a little clearer. There would be slight differences. I have to table two reports, but I'm increasingly duplicating significant sections in each of the reports. Each year I try to make it a little bit simpler.
Similarly, from time to time I've had investigations under the act and the code at the same time. I tried to put them in one report this last time, so I'm gradually trying to deal with that problem.
The real issue is that the rules are slightly different. It would be nice to just take a look to see whether they need to be slightly different.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson
Thank you very much, Mr. Carmichael .
We'll now move to Monsieur Dusseault for five minutes, please.
September 29th, 2011 / 9:50 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank you, Madam Commissioner, for coming here today and talking to us about your work. At the start of your presentation, we learned that your mandate does not enable you to investigate the things that were put forward previously in Mr. Del Mastro's motion. So we are going to address things that fall under your mandate.
I would like to go back to the Conflict of Interest Code for Public Office Holders. There is a message from the Prime Minister at the start of the code. Part of it reads: "Our government must uphold the public trust to the highest possible standard … beginning with Ministers."
I find it surprising that there were so many cases, including those of Ms. Raitt, Ms. Guergis, Mr. Dykstra, Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Paradis, and now one involving Mr. Clement. I simply wanted to put things a little in parallel with that. We know that Ms. Raitt and Mr. Dykstra received a report from you.
Has there been a case in the past where a minister was found guilty of violating the code or the Conflict of Interest Act? Could you refresh my memory on this?