Evidence of meeting #23 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Did I hear correctly that we're not supposed to mention names, or am I...?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I didn't say we shouldn't mention names. I said that we were talking about the act and the code and to see that the questions ask about that.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
While I have the floor, let me note that there have been a few side meetings taking place. You all know that your chair has a bit of a hearing problem, and when that happens I don't get to hear the witness as well as I could. So just try to keep those to a minimum.
Let's go back to your answer, please.
11:50 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I think I have finished.
11:50 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I just want to finish up the debate on the Dykstra affair.
Ms. Bélanger, I take issue with the explanation you gave me. In the report, you state the following:
Although the owner's suite is not generally available to the public in the sense that it is not explicitly advertised along with the other luxury suites listed on the Rogers Centre website, it is often rented out to third parties, including businesses and non-profit organizations, who can obtain access by requesting use of the owner's suite through contacts that they may have with Rogers.
Therefore, the suite is not available.
Imagine! You're saying that someone using his contacts with Rogers and Mr. Dykstra using his contacts with a lobbyist is not an issue! It's not something that's available to the general public. It's as if one of my MPs wanted to use the Montreal Canadiens' suite, which is the most beautiful suite at the Bell Centre and belongs to the owner. If that person told me this, I would hit the ceiling. I would tell them that it's not right, that they can't do that, and that, even if they paid $3,000 for it, no one has that privilege.
In addition, you say that the suite isn't available, that it's not advertised on the website and that there's no problem, but if we have contacts with Rogers, we can perhaps get it, whether we are ministers, parliamentary secretaries, MPs or anyone else, there is no problem.
Oddly enough, I'm still under the same impression: if the case had involved one of my MPs, the report would have had a different outcome than it did for a Conservative member. To be honest, I have a lot of trouble accepting that. The suite is not available to everyone, and contacts are necessary. I take issue with an MP having ties to a lobbyist.
As for my MP we discussed earlier, she gives the policies to a non-profit organization; she doesn't keep them. However, Mr. Dykstra keeps the money because it's not only for his constituency, but also for his political fundraising. I take issue with that. Don't you feel something's wrong with that picture?
11:55 a.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I don't know how I'm supposed to answer that. Rules are rules as they are written. Dealing with lobbyists is perhaps not right, but it's not covered in the code. We only looked into whether Mr. Dykstra had received a gift.
If you're telling me that the mere fact of having a conversation is a gift and is unacceptable, the code needs to be amended.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
No, access to the suite is a gift, madam. It's access to the suite. It's not something that just anyone can get.
11:55 a.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, but he paid for the suite, just like all the other non-profit organizations.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
But the suite is not available. You said so yourself.
11:55 a.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It is available to organizations.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Contacts with Rogers are needed to get the suite. A contact is needed. Madam, when we talk about contacts in politics, we're talking about political contacts. I'm sorry, but when MPs use their position to establish political contacts, I feel that we have a problem. Otherwise, are you perhaps telling me that we need to amend the legislation.
In your report, you say that political fundraising was involved, and that's not covered under the code.
So basically, if it is done for political fundraising, there's no problem, we're in the clear. However, if we do it to help a non-profit organization, like my colleague, it's not right. We're not supposed to help a non-profit organization, we're supposed to do it for political fundraising. I am having a lot of trouble accepting this.
11:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'll just add one little thought.
I accept that fundraising and lobbyists need guidelines, which is what I have said in my observations in those reports. But we have to go to the strict letter of the code and the act when we're deciding whether somebody has contravened them. That's why I go on in my observations to comment on where I think there are gaps and where more work needs to be done to develop some guidelines or rules. It is a dicey area.
October 5th, 2010 / 11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Ms. Dawson. My question is rather specific, since I did sit on the Subcommittee on Gifts.
On page 9 of your report, you mention that volunteer services have been removed from the definition of “benefit.” Unless I've misunderstood, you are suggesting that, had they not been removed, your analysis of the case involving the MP for Halton would have perhaps been different.
Could you explain to me how removing volunteer services has changed the analysis of the MP's case?
11:55 a.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
As part of the discussions it held about changes to the definition of gifts, the committee talked about the fact that volunteering should be removed from the definition since you trust volunteers, which is totally natural and acceptable.
We had some doubts, in the Dykstra case and in the Raitt case, as to whether the MPs, as a committee, had really looked into the possibility of a lobbyist also being a volunteer. I don't think that would have necessarily changed the finding in the Raitt case, since Ms. Raitt was not even aware of the fact that the lobbyist was involved in her campaign or in the event.
However, that did make us consider removing lobbyists from the volunteer services exclusion. An MP should perhaps not accept volunteer services from a lobbyist, since a conflict of interest is rather obvious in that case.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Is that on your list of changes to the next code?
11:55 a.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, possibly.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Madam Dawson, if I'd been better prepared I would know the answer to the beginning question. You investigate complaints from members of Parliament and can self-initiate investigations. What happens with complaints or issues that are raised by the public? You say you've had communications from the public, e-mail and telephone calls. What happens to that information? Can that lead to an investigation when someone from the public contacts you?
