Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[Mary Dawson]

Sorry, I was thinking code; we're in the act now.

Basically there are prohibitions against certain of their activity. So as soon as they become...if we're talking about MPs or a public office holder, they have to simply desist. They have the 60 days to tell me about it because that's the first report they have to make, and then they have 120 days to finish getting rid of whatever the problem is. Usually it would be a directorship, or something like that, or running a business. Sorry, I wasn't on your wavelength for the first answer; I was back in the code. But it would be the same activities.

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

Just for clarification, if I have another few seconds, is the last sentence of that paragraph inaccurate? You said you had not set a specific deadline. So there is the 120-day deadline, then. Is that accurate?

[Mary Dawson]

There's an absolute...the act can't work perfectly, because there's an absolute prohibition against doing some of these things, but sometimes it takes people a little bit of time to extricate themselves from it. What I'm saying is often they can extricate themselves almost immediately, but sometimes it's not so easy. What I say is there's no absolute deadline. It depends on the circumstances how fast they can extricate themselves. In practice, they have the 120 days before the final disclosure statement has to be completed. People take different amounts of time to sort out their issues depending on how difficult or easy it is. Sometimes it's a little bit of a cushion for them to carry on a bit longer, but there's not an awful lot we can do about that. We work with them as best we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Dawson, I thank you for being here. I read your report with great interest. Having sat on the subcommittee on gifts, I'm particularly interested in the potential for keeping members informed so they may understand the amendments brought to the code, specifically with respect to gifts.

In your report, you say that you made a great deal of effort to meet with members before the amendments were made. I know that you have met with the various caucuses. Were you well received? Were there many members there? Were the caucuses interested in what you had to say? Do you believe that at this point caucuses are the appropriate venue for conveying the information?

[Mary Dawson]

I believe so.

I'm open to any suggestions as to where we could continue to explain these provisions. We have sent the letter. We are having a session at the end of this month. It's interesting. We've had more inquiries I think from MPs than we have in the past about gifts. Is that correct, Lyne? We haven't had an awful lot more declarations of gifts yet, but it's early in the session.

The other thing is, we really have no idea how many gifts are being received out there. It will be very interesting to see whether the number of declarations increases.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I would imagine that you offer to provide information, and the challenge lies in measuring its impact. You did a first round last year. You've said that a number of sessions would be offered to members. I would sincerely advise you to get the various parties to organize groups, so that members can come together and ask more pointed questions or questions they might not feel like asking when all parties are combined, for a host of reasons. Perhaps that would be more appropriate, if you can establish a schedule.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wanted to call you to ask you to free up some dates so that we may alert members to upcoming meetings, specifically on amendments regarding gifts. I think it is important for members to be well informed on this matter. Despite your public meetings and those of the library, would you be open to the idea of holding private sessions for each party?

[Mary Dawson]

We would be pleased to do so.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé, Assistant Commissioner, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

I would like to add one thing. The most recent sessions were a resounding success. Unfortunately, they were not with members but only with members' staff. They were very successful and a number of people attended. The Bloc Québécois was lucky because the presentation it received was right after the amendment on gifts was brought in. So, you benefited from a more up-to-date session, because, in fact, we could report on the amendments. It was very well received. During these sessions, there were requests for regular meetings to be held. That is something we will be starting up again with the—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Generally it is a member's staff that manages invitations and accounting matters. It is important to train both the member and his or her staff, who are often called upon to get involved and handle all manner of documentation relating to gifts or who may... We are open, and you will certainly be receiving an invitation from us.

Because committee members have a better understanding of the code, I'd like to ask you a more specific question, Ms. Dawson. All members of Parliament have received an invitation from Rogers Communications company. This company films us and produces films for free that we can then broadcast on our community television stations and websites. Do you believe that having a communications company to which Parliament has granted a BlackBerry contract, among other things, offering us this service for free would be considered a gift? Should we require that Rogers assess and declare the value of this service? All 308 members have received the offer and recordings will begin on October 19.

I'm taking advantage of your appearance here to ask you this question. When we receive the Rogers clip as a gift, freely broadcast on community television, should that be declared or considered a gift?

[Mary Dawson]

We received some questions about this point. I will ask Lyne to respond.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

We checked whether this free service fell under the definition of a "benefit", and that was the case. Further to that, we wondered whether such a gift could cause a conflict of interest for members. The answer was no.

The question was asked in relation to Remembrance Day. We were asked whether members could broadcast a public service announcement of a few minutes in acknowledgement of Remembrance Day. We thought that, given members' roles, it was a good decision. It remains an advantage for the member. We did ask Rogers whether it could determine the value of this advantage. If its service was worth less than $500, no public disclosure statement was necessary. However, if Rogers were to offer something similar to the members over the Christmas season or on another occasion that were to be over $500, a public statement would have to be made.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I'm pleased to hear that because all 308 members have received the same invitation. Only a few of them have called you. It shows that not everyone has the reflex to do so. I would imagine that if it concerns everyone, you could send a note out to all indicating your decision. Perhaps it would facilitate members' disclosure statements.

In closing, Mr. Chairman—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me, your time is complete. We will have another round.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I thank you for being here with us. Forgive me for being late. When you sit on two committees, one meeting ends at 11 and the next starts at 11. I don't know if anything can be done about this conflict which is not a conflict of interest but a scheduling conflict.

I'd like to get back to Ms. Jennings' question regarding the 20 members who did not comply within 120 days. I'm not asking you to repeat everything.

Could that be new members? More experienced members already know the procedure, but new members have a great deal to learn. Most recently we heard that a senator did not even want to vote because he was new. Can you imagine? Could it be that for new members 120 days is not enough?

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

On our website there is a status report. There is a list of all members and it states whether members are in compliance or not. So, you can take a look at the 20 names yourself. Among those that are not in compliance, there are five new members. These issues are indeed more complex for new members.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...more money for us. If that is all that is involved, there's no problem.

[Some honourable members]

Oh, oh!

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

I really cannot refer to specific cases. We have to work more with new members, to make sure that they comply with the code. In short, it has to do with five people. The list is on our website and you all have access to it.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Is the 120-day deadline reasonable or not?

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

Yes.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

So members should be complying within 120 days.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

The code does not refer to a 120-day deadline. It is only in the act. Members may therefore be non-compliant for an indeterminate period, because there is no specific deadline indicated in the code. However, under the act, public office holders have 120 days to comply. A 120-day deadline is reasonable in most cases to ensure the needs of public office holders are met.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Are you suggesting that we should ensure consistency between the code and the act?