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

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

Okay. So it would only happen when....

[Mary Dawson]

Well, it would happen when the arrangements were sorted out. As I said, there are 60 days to get the information. In certain cases, though, we have discussions with people before they're appointed, in preparation to see whether they really can stand all the rules or whatever, and so they know what they're getting into.

Then there's this period of another 60 days, because the deadline for getting the summary up on the website is 120 days. So during that second 60-day period...and it doesn't necessarily have to take that long, but during the period when we iron out the details and get the documentation in place, and get the divestitures made and the trusts set up or whatever, that's what happens then. And then it would go up on the website.

So it's quite possible that it wouldn't be up on the website for 120 days. In certain cases, I'm sure, people might want to get it up sooner.

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

Okay.

I have just one last question. Just to be clear, there's nothing in legislation or a conflict of interest code that prohibits an individual from becoming an office holder while on leave of absence from a corporation, is there?

[Mary Dawson]

No, there isn't. The only thing is that if somebody's on leave of absence, we're aware of the fact that they're going back, and there is a provision in the code that requires that you can't have direct or significant dealings with somebody that you're going to go and work with after you finish your job. In those kinds of cases, we would be particularly vigilant to assist that person to find mechanisms, such as conflict of interest screens, to avoid dealing with somebody they knew they wanted to work with afterwards.

That happens quite frequently; we're consulted when people are about to leave their positions.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid, you have about three minutes left.

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

Oh, is that right? I put my watch out here and I had the idea that I was actually out of time, but if I have three more minutes, I will ask another question.

Without naming any names, can you advise us as to whether there have been other public office holders who have worked for the government while on leave of absence from corporations in circumstances roughly similar to the one Mr. Wright is in?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, there are some instances. Maybe Lyne could fill you in.

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

Again, without naming any particulars, yes, there are some people who come into public office to become reporting public office holders and who are on leave of absence from their home organizations. I can't say much more, unfortunately.

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

I'm just guessing. As a matter of history, there were the famous dollar-a-year men from back in the day, in the golden age of the Ottawa mandarinate, who in many cases would have been people on leaves of absence of some sort or another, during the forties and fifties and so on.

[Mary Dawson]

I don't know that the same rules would have applied at that time, but in any event.... And the dollar-a-day person probably wouldn't have been a reporting public office holder, I don't know.... It would just depend on the circumstances.

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

Sure. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, do you want to take the last minute and a half of his time?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Further to what Mr. Reid was talking about, Ms. Dawson--and thank you for being here--if there have been public office holders who have worked for previous governments while on leave of absence--and there's nothing particularly wrong with that--what safeguards and rules would have been in place to apply to such an arrangement?

You talked about the screens that we've put up. But what other mechanisms might be put in place to ensure that all compliance with your code--and the act, I should say in this case--is being met?

[Mary Dawson]

Well, for example, any holdings, any sort of publicly available shares and things like that, have to be divested. That's an absolute rule. Those are measures that are quite often taken and are reflected on the website when done. Basically, there are the conflict screens, the advice on recusal, the divestment, and of course getting out of activities you're not allowed to be involved in under section 15.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Are you comfortable...? I assume these arrangements and the safeguards that currently exist with an individual like Mr. Wright or others in his position.... I assume that you're comfortable with these arrangements, that they're appropriate, and that there's nothing more that needs to be done in order to sort of protect the public integrity and the taxpayers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Give a fairly quick answer, please. Mr. Lukiwski is out of time. He can have more later.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, I think generally they work quite well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's great.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Dawson, I had previously been a member of the committee and I am now here again. I am also the chief political organizer for my party. A week ago, I asked you for an opinion. The name of one of my MPs was drawn by the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada. She was given 50 policy coverages that she could give to an organization in her riding. The policies were intended to help accident victims, especially victims of fire. The names of five members were drawn. I asked for your opinion, and you said, among other things, that the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada is an organization registered as a lobbyist. You wrote me the following:

Therefore, given the IBAC's role and its relationship with MPs, the provided policy coverages [...], even when awarded through a draw, could reasonably lead one to believe that they were provided with the purpose of influencing the member in the fulfilment of her public duty. For those reasons, our office believes that [member's name] cannot accept this donation on behalf of a non-profit organization in her riding.

I take no issue with this opinion. However, I read the Dykstra report, which states that MP Dykstra asked Ms. Bonnell for access to the Rogers Centre suite. Ms. Bonnell is a registered lobbyist. You said so yourself. In your conclusion, you said that you could not intervene because a fundraising activity was involved. It appears to me that if my MP were to give those policies away as part of her fundraising activity, it would be legal. Something's off about that, and I'm having a hard time accepting it. I can accept the letter that you wrote me regarding my MP and the fact that she cannot receive policy coverages from a lobbyist and then give them to an organization in her riding, but I am having trouble accepting your report conclusions. You said that Mr. Dykstra, who spoke with Ms. Bonnell, a registered lobbyist, in order to get a Rogers suite, had the right to do that because it was related to a fundraising activity. Unless you tell me that my MP could give those coverages away as part of a fundraising activity, there is something here I don't understand. This actually doesn't come under your jurisdiction. I am just trying to understand.

[Mary Dawson]

The difference lies in the fact that the person in question paid to use the Rogers Centre.

I find that the cases are quite different because full market value was paid for the use of those premises. The premises were available to others, so it wasn't a special arrangement.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Rogers has its suite, which is not available. You actually said that it is not available to the general public. I don't want there to be two different scenarios: one for the Conservatives and another one for the Bloc Québécois members. That's what I'm worried about. If that were the case, Ms. Dawson, I would have a lot of trouble accepting your finding. However, that is the feeling I get from the letters you have written me if I compare them to the reports you have written about Conservatives.

[Mary Dawson]

Those are all multi-layered issues. We have to analyze a situation very carefully before we determine in which category it falls.

Do you have anything to add, Nancy?

[Nancy Bélanger, General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

Good morning. The commissioner shares your concern about those suites possibly being available only to a certain group of individuals. That's why we launched the investigation. However, we quickly realized that that location was rather popular and that people had access to it if they followed the necessary steps. Access to the suite was not really discriminatory. In addition, our investigation was intended to determine whether Mr. Dykstra had received a gift. If we focus on the terminology, the words used, we realize that he did not receive a gift. The cost of the suite and the food consumed were paid in full at the price anyone else would have paid. We did our homework and looked into the matter. There was simply no gift involved. That's why the code was not breached in this case. I don't know if this helps you at all.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That will help me. The letter I sent you mentions the four other MPs whose names were drawn and the fact that there are others who received coverages in previous years.

Will you follow up on this and deal with the people who have not contacted you? MPs have received coverages and benefits in the past, as you say. People are breaking the law. What are you going to do if they are Conservatives? I just want to make sure that you also come down on Conservatives and not just Quebeckers.