Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 5th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll call the meeting to order. As I look up, I see an old friend, and that's great.

This is the twenty-third meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) and the motion adopted by this committee on Thursday, September 30, 2010, we have a report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's activities in relation to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, as referred to the committee on Wednesday, July 21, 2010.

All that means is that you've sent us a report and we want to hear from you and hear what you've done.

Madam Dawson, it's great to have you here again. I'll let you give an opening statement and introduce the people who are with you. Then we will certainly have the committee ask you some questions afterwards.

I apologize ahead of time--and I do this for all witnesses--but this committee takes place from eleven to one o'clock, and therefore some of the members will be eating in front of you, as it's their only way to get sustenance for the afternoon. I apologize ahead of time for that.

I also apologize for the fact that we have a bit of committee business to do right at the end of our meeting, so we may break about five minutes early just so we can get that committee business completed today.

With that, Madam Dawson, it's great to have you here again. Please give us your report.

[Mary Dawson, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

Thank you very much.

I have with me Lyne Robinson-Dalpé, the assistant commissioner, advisory and compliance, and Nancy Bélanger, head of our legal advisory services.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear before you today.

I would also like to take this opportunity to personally welcome your new members. My office has enjoyed a productive relationship with the committee, and I look forward to continuing to work together effectively in the coming weeks and months.

In the next 10 minutes or so, I am going to summarize some of the highlights of my 2009-2010 annual report on the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. My remarks will include reference to my inquiry reports, in which I raised several issues that I would like to bring to your attention today.

Then, I will briefly review our proposals for amendments to the code that are currently before the committee.

As noted in my annual report, in the last year my office has acted on a number of fronts to improve our administration of the code, including in the areas of advisory and compliance, and outreach and communications. We have also conducted a number of inquiries. We improved our compliance processes, implementing a system of reminders to help members meet the code's disclosure and reporting deadlines. We upgraded our electronic case management system so our advisors can give members more timely advice and guidance. We're in the process of adding annual review dates to our online public registry—in fact, I think they are all up there now—in order to further encourage respect of compliance deadlines and to enhance transparency.

In keeping with the code's requirements, we're also making all supporting documents related to sponsored travel available in the registry. These measures were complemented by ongoing research and communications activities, which in the 2009-10 fiscal year included several presentations to parliamentary caucuses and members' staff, and an information session held as part of the Library of Parliament's seminar series.

The last year has been particularly busy in terms of inquiries under both the code and the Conflict of Interest Act. My office has released the findings of three inquiries under the code. In these recent reports I've also commented, where appropriate, on several issues reflecting broader ethical concerns that could raise questions about the integrity of elected public officials and governing institutions.

In April I reported on my inquiry under the code into allegations that 60 members had used partisan or personal identifiers on ceremonial cheques or other props in connection with federal funding announcements. I found that enhancing political profiles is a partisan political interest and not a private interest within the meaning of the code, and that the code, as written, does not cover partisan political interests. I concluded, however, that the practice of using partisan or personal identifiers in announcing government initiatives was inappropriate because it has the potential to diminish public confidence in the integrity of members and the governing institutions they represent.

The distinction between personal and political interests was the focus of my other two inquiry reports, which raised issues of fundraising and lobbying as well. In May I reported on my inquiry under the code into the activities of the Hon. Lisa Raitt, member of Parliament for Halton, in connection with a political fundraising event organized by the Halton Conservative Association.

In September I issued a report on my inquiry into the activities of Mr. Rick Dykstra, member of Parliament for St. Catharines, in connection with a political fundraising event organized for the benefit of the St. Catharines electoral district association and held in the owners' suite at the Rogers Centre in Toronto.

In both reports I pointed out the need for effective fundraising guidelines in relation to political fundraising events for members of Parliament. In the Dykstra report, I reiterated the recommendation that I made in the Raitt report that consideration should be given to amending the code to possibly include prohibitions against solicitation of funds, broader recusal obligations, and provisions for establishment of conflict of interest screens.

I've had the privilege of working with the committee to bring about a number of amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, and I'm grateful for the assistance you continue to provide in ensuring its effective administration.

I was pleased to see that many of the amendments I proposed last year to the code's gift provisions were adopted by the House of Commons in June 2009. The changes to the gift rules will no doubt help members respect those rules more consistently. In my annual report, however, I noted that gifts and benefits from a riding association or a political party or services from a volunteer working on behalf of a member are no longer covered by the code at all. While such gifts would not usually place a member in a conflict of interest, I am concerned that the changes reduce transparency by removing them from the disclosure requirements and that lobbyists could gain access to members by volunteering for them.

A perennial challenge I have with respect to the gift rules is the tendency of members to think that the $500 gift value threshold relates to acceptability. It does not; it relates to disclosure. I don't know how many times I have to say that. I find myself taking every opportunity to remind members that the value of a gift or other benefit does not determine whether or not it may be accepted. The conflict of interest test applies no matter what the value of the gift is. So I'll continue to make that message, I think.

In March 2010, I submitted to the committee for its consideration two sets of proposed amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons in response to the invitation you issued to me in October 2009 as part of your ongoing review of the code. Some of the changes I suggested are technical in nature and relate to the code's disclosure and public reporting requirements. Among other things, they would establish distinct disclosure processes for annual reviews and the re-election of members. Their purpose is to ensure that the code reflects the way it's being administered, and they are, as I say, technical amendments.

The other changes I have suggested relate to the inquiry process and raise more substantive issues. For example, I've proposed that the commissioner be allowed to make public the reasons for not pursing an inquiry where the matter is already in the public domain. I've also proposed that the commissioner's power to summon witnesses and compel their testimony be made explicit in the code. That power is explicit in the Conflict of Interest Act. I believe I probably already have this inherent power, but I've not yet had to use it. I would be pleased if the committee would proceed with these amendments as expeditiously as possible. I will gladly discuss them with you at any time.

Since submitting my proposed amendments in March, I have identified one other amendment in connection with inquiries that I would like to see adopted. Because of the different procedural requirements for releasing reports under the code and the Conflict of Interest Act, it could be problematic when the House of Commons is sitting for me to produce a joint report for parallel investigations under the two regimes. I would hope to make it clear that I can produce a single joint report whether or not the House is sitting; you may have noticed that I did issue one when it wasn't sitting. I have a proposed amendment that I could add to the package that I submitted to you last year in relation to inquiries.

I've identified in the Raitt and Dykstra reports a few other areas where amendments might be considered, and I'd be pleased to pursue these as well with the committee at an appropriate time.

I'm also seeking House approval of a new inquiry request form, which was included in the March package, that would help streamline and expedite the inquiry process. The issue of having to obtain the committee's approval of our forms and guidelines under section 30 of the code is one that I've raised before and that continues to concern me. Under the Conflict of Interest Act I can issue forms and guidelines without further approvals--indeed, I issued a request for examination form this spring that is similar to the one I have before you for the code--but I'm prevented from doing so under the code.

Because of the potential delays involved in seeking and obtaining formal approval, we've been using other tools at our disposal--namely, advisory opinions and communiqués--in order to communicate with members in a timely manner, but we cannot proceed with the guidelines without specific approval of this committee. Perhaps the committee could take this opportunity to consider whether it still feels there is the need for this approval requirement.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the committee taking the time to review my 2009-2010 annual report on the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, and to examine the issues raised in it.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We will go to questions.

You mentioned in your opening comments that there are a couple of other pieces of information, other amendments you've written, that you may want to share with this committee. Please do so through the clerk and we'll use them when we look at the rest of the report.

[Mary Dawson]

Terrific. There's one that relates to the inquiry area in particular that might just slip into the ones you already have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You slip anything in there, we're bound to look at it.

Ms. Ratansi, you're up first today.

We're going to go to seven-minute rounds. We're fairly flexible, but if we're flexible one way it will require others to be flexible another way, so....

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I'll try to maintain my time.

Welcome. I'm one of the new members on this committee, so you will have to pardon me if I sometimes ask questions that may not be along the same lines.

I have a question concerning Mr. Nigel Wright, one of the incoming staff of the Prime Minister. It has been reported that you have given him the green light.

Can you expand on that? What do you mean by giving him the green light? What documents would you have reviewed? Being an auditor, those things come to my mind. What is the audit trail you did to ensure this potential employee has met your requirements?

[Mary Dawson]

First of all, I can't discuss individual cases. Everything that's brought to me for advice or for compliance is done in confidence. I can tell you in a general way what we do when people come for advice or come to comply with the requirements of the act.

It was not my statement, the one you quoted there.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Fair enough.

[Mary Dawson]

We have certainly met with Mr. Wright, as we have very frequently with people who are about to be appointed. We always communicate to people who are actually appointed.

I might note as well, of course, that Mr. Wright is under the act and not the code, and it's the code that I'm here to discuss. He's a reporting public office holder and not a member of Parliament...which is the document that we're discussing here today. But I can, if you want, tell you a little bit about what we do.

When there's a new reporting public office holder, there's a requirement that lots of information be given to our office within 60 days....

Actually, no, there's no deadline. In the act there's a deadline, but in the code there are no deadlines, so I get confused when I'm talking about it.

At any rate, with an MP we would always send out a letter as soon as an election is held, and we would solicit a lot of information, which is set out in the code. When that information comes in, we take a look at it and see whether there are any issues that we want to discuss. And then there are measures that could be taken, such as sometimes under the act....

The problem is that I don't know whether you want me to talk about the code or the act. Under the code, there are not a lot of requirements.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

It's whatever applies to Mr. Wright.

As I told you, I'm a new member to this committee, and therefore I will seek your guidance as to how we can do things properly.

[Mary Dawson]

Right. Okay, I'll move to the act.

Under the act, there is a deadline for receiving this material of 60 days. Once we've received it, there are another 60 days that we spend, if necessary, going over any details in order to make some arrangements. Sometimes holdings may have to be put into trust if there's a potential conflict. Sometimes there are conflict of interest screens established. Sometimes the public office holder is advised of being careful about recusal situations.

Then a portion of the material and information that we're given is ultimately made public in a disclosure summary that appears on our website, but it does not contain all the information that we've received. It's a summary of that information.

So that's the process.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Okay. So help me understand something else, then.

Mr. Wright's company has stated that “Nigel will start work in Ottawa at the end of October and will return to Onex in 18 to 24 months to resume his leadership of the Aerospace and Defence and Energy verticals”.

Were you aware of these things, and aware that within his job at the Prime Minister's Office—you talked about recusal—he would have to recuse himself from discussions around health care, for example, or discussions around defence, or discussions around a lot of things that Onex has its tentacles in? Did you go through that process, or were you aware of it?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes. We can't comment on individual cases, as I said, but we certainly would have been aware of Mr. Wright's situation when he came to consult us. And certainly there's been enough press about it that we're aware of anything that's in the press.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Okay.

You talked about the public office holder, and I have paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Conflict of Interest Act, which states that “No reporting public office holder shall continue as, or become, a director or officer in a corporation or an organization”.

Mr. Wright seems to have frozen his involvement, but it doesn't seem to be clear-cut as to where he's going to go with that position. What advice would you give us, or what advice would you give him? I know you can't talk about individual cases, but for us to understand whether we are following due process and that the offices are following due process, could you help me?

[Mary Dawson]

Well, I'll give you the general rules.

When a new public office holder, or a “reporting” public officer holder--there is a distinction--comes in, we ask for information. It's required that we be given information on holdings, activities, outside activities. So we would expect a full disclosure of all outside activities.

There are prohibitions in the act. If, for example, one is a director of a corporation, one must relieve oneself of that directorship when one becomes a public office holder--again, a reporting public office holder; a lot of these rules don't apply to a plain public office holder, which is why I keep making the distinction. Anybody who is full time, generally speaking, is a reporting public office holder, although there are some exceptions to that.

So the very first thing we do when we examine the holdings or the situation of a reporting public office holder is we discuss the divestment of those responsibilities as well as the divestment of certain types of holdings. That's exactly the sort of thing we'd be working on in that period.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I have just a little--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Ms. Ratansi. Your time is up.

Mr. Reid, you're up next.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

Maybe you can help me with something that my colleague Mr. Hoback and I were discussing as you went through your report. You mentioned a second time, in your comments, the term “conflict of interest screen”. What is a conflict of interest screen?

[Mary Dawson]

It is an arrangement whereby some sort of arrangement is put between the individual and the business in which he's operating--in other words, in somebody's office or whatever--so that files that relate to something where there is a potential conflict would not be shown to that person, generally. There'd be a screen basically between that person and whatever might create a conflict situation.

We have some of those up on our website reported now. They are in a sense an alternative to the recusal mechanism. If you have the screen, you would not normally need a recusal unless it hits you suddenly, unexpectedly, from somewhere.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

A screen that relates to an individual office holder: would that be part of the public disclosure associated with that individual, or would it be done confidentially?

[Mary Dawson]

It could be done either way. I have the authority, under section 29 of the act, to make it public if I feel that it is appropriate. These things are becoming of such public interest generally that I'm increasingly making them public.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

So someone could go to your website and find examples of ones that already exist.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, you could. That's right.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Okay.

With regard to your website, you mentioned Mr. Wright's information. The part that's disclosable would go up on the website. Is that up yet?

[Mary Dawson]

No. He's not even been appointed yet.