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.
11:45 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The definition of “conflict of interest” in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members includes the words, “improperly further”.
What does “improperly” mean? It's actually just a reference to ethics. That's the only way I can interpret it.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
In the view of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, that complies with the code?
11:50 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Based on your prior experience, do you think something can be legal while also being unethical or unjust?
11:50 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, that's contradictory.
11:50 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I don't see how something can be both legal and unethical. The way we write legislation, I think it's impossible for the two to coexist.
However, we're talking hypotheticals here. I'd rather you provide an example of a case in which you think there's a legal issue, but not an ethical one.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I might be able to do that in two and a half minutes, but I certainly understand what you're suggesting.
Anyway, from an ethics point of view, you're saying the situation complies with the code.
11:50 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
My colleague is pointing out that we just give advice. We don't judge. We give advice, and, in that context, we say there are ethical aspects that are unacceptable.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you.
Mr. Green, you have two and a half minutes. Go ahead, please.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
I think there are some really important points being made around the nature of disclosures.
You mentioned that it takes 30 days for a disclosure to happen. It's inferred that if a disclosure wasn't made, everything is okay.
Through you, Mr. Chair, is it the testimony today that it's completely up to us to self-report? Is the whole code of conduct around this a process of self-reporting?
11:50 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It's a code of conduct, but it starts with the assumption that you're an honest person and you want to avoid conflict. If you are in a situation where you find difficulty, you come to us—
11:50 a.m.
NDP
11:50 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'm sorry. To answer your question, you asked whether it's about self-correcting. Obviously, if there's a problem, we expect you to self-correct—
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's not “self-correct”; it's “self-report”. There's a difference. Specifically for you, sir, you say that if it's not 30 days, then there isn't a problem. My question to you is, how do you know?
I'm not saying this as an indictment of you—
11:50 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, no—
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
—but I'm saying that we have a scenario in which, in your time, there have been plenty of complaints and very few deep investigations that have resulted in any substantive findings.
That's not an indictment of you; I'm saying that it's an indictment of the code, the process and the systems in place for how we hold each other accountable.
What I'm taking from this is that if I don't report it, you would never really know. Would you, yes or no?
11:50 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, that's not quite it.
You come to me with a problem and I say to do as I say. You can accept this item, but if it's over $200, you have to report it. If you don't report it, I'll start an investigation.
11:50 a.m.
Interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
If you do report it, the world knows, and your electors are the judge of whether that's a proper gift for you to accept or not.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, and we contemplated this scenario in which I talked about the absurdity of the current legislation, under which I can't accept an $800 bottle of champagne, but somebody can send a limo to my house, pick me up and fly me across the country, and we can drink the $800 bottle of champagne together and that's okay. That's what's absurd about what we're talking about here today.
I want to put this last question to you.
Is it your opinion that if we eliminated sponsored travel, your work would be a lot easier in terms of dealing with perhaps more important issues after this grey area of self-reporting and ambiguity around limitations had been eliminated?