Evidence of meeting #99 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gift.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
As I said the last time I was here, there should be a provision to appoint an assistant commissioner to make decisions if there is no commissioner or if the commissioner is absent, for example for health reasons.
Otherwise, a number of other elements would warrant revisions or amendments. In other acts, such as the Bank Act and the Patent Act, there is a mandatory review every five or ten years. It would be very helpful to have a periodic review like that in the Conflict of Interest Act.
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
If you have any other suggestions, could you submit them in writing to the committee?
11:25 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much.
Your term is coming to an end. It will be in March, I believe.
11:25 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
11:25 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's a decision that will be made by the Privy Council and the Prime Minister. It's not my decision to make.
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
11:25 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's correct.
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Okay, thank you very much.
Earlier, you were talking about assessing the acceptability of gifts. Is that correct?
11:30 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, that's correct. I talked about it when we talked about extraordinary gifts.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Villemure.
For your information, the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 2022.
The revised code that came from PROC was concurred in by the House in March 2023. I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood the timeline of where we're at.
Mr. Green, go ahead for six minutes, please.
January 30th, 2024 / 11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much. I would like to welcome you both back.
As you know, I have a line of questioning that is often very rapid, and if I interject to bring my time back, it's certainly not personal. I do have some questions that may feel personal at times. I'm going to put it to you that the questions are not intended that way.
I want to begin on the topic of sponsored travel. This was certainly an issue that I raised back in October in referencing the earlier testimony regarding Stephen Ellis, Rosemarie Falk, Philip Lawrence, Shannon Stubbs, and John Williamson. For me, this committee can hopefully come to a recommendation to eliminate sponsored travel. I'm going to state that.
There's ambiguity on the topic of what is material and what is not material, what is accepted, what is not accepted, who is funding what, what is being done indirectly that can't be done directly, and I reference our ongoing conversations around foreign interference and the impacts that it has on our democracy. When I hear you talk about what is lavish in terms of material, I'm from Hamilton Centre and I would put it to you that $3,400 for champagne and wine is lavish and $1,000 for a steak dinner is lavish, and I think it's completely unacceptable in the context of the work that we do.
What I would propose to this committee right off the bat, for those who are interested in actually changing the page on these ongoing sagas of what I think are scandals that take away from the legitimacy of our democracy, is the elimination of sponsored travel and its replacement with two international travel credits on our MOB, free of any kind of idea of influence, whether foreign, corporate, or otherwise. This would allow us to do our work in international diplomacy in a clear and transparent way.
On the topic of clarity and transparency, I've heard you refer to the confidential nature of the consultations, Mr. von Finckenstein. Do you believe that we could contemplate at this committee a process that is more transparent, perhaps one that would include, for the purpose of the public good, a public disclosure of requests to your office on the content of people's inquiries, or is it your opinion that confidentiality is a cornerstone of your office and is required in order for you to be able to do your work correctly?
11:30 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It's the latter. I hate to say it, but I really can't see how you can.... When you come to me with a conflict of interest, you basically disclose to me your personal relationship, your financial involvement, your familial situation, or whatever it happens to be, and you'd be surprised how complicated the lives of some people are. You don't want to share that with the public. You don't want me to disclose it, etc. What we have here is is that we give you advice and you follow it. Those things that can be disclosed, or must be, are disclosed, but they're disclosed in redacted form. If we don't have that confidentiality, people won't disclose. All it would mean is that I would be forever investigating, which is not good for the people who—
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I would put to you an adage of my old football coach: “Chances are, if you have ask, you ought not to be doing it.”
As complicated as things are, the point is that we're in positions of trust to make decisions that could be complicated by externalities, like influence. We're dealing with that right now in a very significant way with foreign interference.
In my mind, there ought to be a way to consider disclosures that might not have the degree of information that you're suggesting but would give the public an understanding of the types of muddied relationships that tend to happen on the Hill. I think about the revolving door that happens between the PMO and lobby groups, and the relationships that happen there. We just referenced sponsored travel.
You know, there's a lot of work at this committee that I don't enjoy. I don't enjoy the political mud-throwing and muckraking that happens here, or the full outrage, quite frankly. I say that because, as much as my Conservative friends want to make this an issue here today, I would put to you that an $80,000 trip is an issue for my constituents in Hamilton Centre, but let's think about Stephen Harper's $45,000 trip to a baseball game and Broadway. These things happen.
My question to the witnesses, through you, Mr. Chair, is this: In relation to substantively changing the code, what would your recommendations be to avoid our having to do this Groundhog Day of scandal—whether it's Liberals, Conservatives or what have you—and finally put an end to it and provide clarity to a code that would provide an equal weight of what is legal and ethical?
I would put to you that the code, as it's written now, provides legal opportunity and legal cover through your advice. It's certainly not ethical, at least not on the face of it.
In your opinion, what are some ways for us to gain some kind of value out of this study, beyond the media circus, and actually improve the legislation?
11:35 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Well, if you look at the code, to which you are subject as a member of Parliament, you see that it says, “to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests”. This is a very well known concept in law that judges apply all the time to determine whether the parties before them are conflicted or not.
Strangely enough, that wording is not used in the act. The act has only a definition of what a conflict of interest is; it does not use the words “real or apparent conflicts”. You could put those in there anywhere—they have a jurisprudential meaning—and people would know how to apply them and how to advise you on whether something was not a conflict but rather an apparent conflict, and a rational man on the street looking at that would say, “This isn't right.”
11:35 a.m.
NDP
11:35 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Absolutely.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Green.
Again, I remind committee members that any review of the code is done through the procedure and House affairs committee. We can make recommendations—
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
—but ultimately it's up to them to review what's in the code, as they did in 2022—
11:35 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
If you'll allow me, Mr. Chair, I have just one item of information.
Our office has produced a guideline for the application of the code, which has to be approved by a committee of the House—a procedural committee—in order to help you live with the code, administer it and understand how we interpret it and how we try to be helpful before you even talk to us.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, sir.
We'll now go to the second round.
Mr. Brock, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.