Evidence of meeting #69 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gifts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
February 19th, 2015 / 11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thank you very much.
I have several questions. I hope I have time for most of them.
The first one is in relation to service standards from your office with regard to responses on requests for rulings and things like that. I have to be honest. I've read through your report. I'm not as familiar with the act or the code as you are, so I want to get some sense as to what is currently in there, if anything, in relation to service standards in terms of length of time your office would be required to respond to a request for a ruling. This is very important in light of the fact that in your report you're suggesting some recommendations here that would add some very specific deadlines to complete review processes for members. You're suggesting significant lowering of the threshold for reporting of gifts, significant expansion of what constitutes a gift. There are several things in there that obviously could impact a member's ability to meet what you're requiring of them without there being some service standards in your direction.
I'm wondering what's currently in the code—
11:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There's nothing in the code on service standards, but we're very cognizant of that issue and we have our own internal service standards, which are really quite vigorous.
Lyne, do you want to add some detail on that?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Maybe just before you do that, could you comment on why not have a recommendation in here? It would be good, especially in light of looking to significantly expand the responsibilities of members to report—
11:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We probably don't because we don't think there's a problem. We think we are pretty responsive pretty quickly.
11:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I wouldn't have an objection to there being something in there.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I guess I would say that you indicate in here that you've spoken to a number of members in doing your review. Certainly one of the things I often hear is there is sometimes a lack of consistency in some of the rulings. A concrete timeline, especially when you're talking about someone being able to attend a reception or an event.... I'm a little bit unclear certainly, from listening today and reading this, on what my requirements would be in terms of what I can attend and what I can't. In many cases, to be safe, a member would want to request a ruling of some kind.
It would be important that you consider what that might look like. We should maybe consider a recommendation there. Have you any thoughts on what that might look like?
11:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It would look like what we have for the act. My guidelines for the act cover the gamut there.
I really would ask you, if you know of inconsistent readings you think you're getting, tell me. We're quite careful about consistency. I've heard it said on occasion that we're inconsistent but I never get any examples.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I will mention that I've heard that and I would assume you would have heard that in your review—
11:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, but I don't get examples.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Obviously the idea of a service standard, of some kind of a timeline being built in—if members are expected to meet a certain timeline, it would be helpful for them to have an indication, especially when we're talking about events and receptions. Sometimes we might get an invitation a week or two prior, and to be able to know they can get a ruling in time, I would ask that you consider that—
Noon
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I could make a guideline that's very similar to the act when I bring it to the committee, which is the present situation, but what I'm asking is that I don't have to. That's one of my recommendations.
Noon
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Okay. I don't even know how I'd start with 30 seconds.
In relation to the events, the receptions, I'm still a little unclear. Could you maybe try to clarify for us what the barrier is to determine whether someone is able to attend an event? Do they have to be the speaker at the event? What determines whether it's a gift or whether it's a party or your duties as a member?
Noon
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's one of the indices. If you're going to be a speaker or you have some formal function, then it's fine for you to attend the event. If you're invited to attend an event, which quite often will be a gala or something, and if that ticket is paid for—and it could be quite an expensive ticket—by a company that's looking for something from you, then you shouldn't accept it. You should be on your notice, whatever the value of the thing, as soon as somebody who is looking for something from you wants to give you something—I would stay away from it.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
We'll go to Monsieur Dusseault, for four minutes, please.
Noon
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Commissioner, thank you for being here.
Recommendation 16 relates to sanctions for failures to meet deadlines for certain forms.
Are sanctions currently imposed on members when they breach the code, or is a report simply released to let the public know?
Noon
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There are no sanctions at the present time. When I appeared before this committee previously, you were told that you did not have the power to establish sanctions to be imposed on another member. That issue must therefore be resolved here, in the House, by the members, not by me. I would at least like it to be made public when someone is unable to obtain documents within the required time.
Noon
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you.
I understand that an internal discussion will have to take place before you are given this power. However, you did say that this power was important for you.
You referred earlier to recommendations 17 and 18 of your report.
Could you confirm whether my impression is correct or could you comment on this? Should recommendation 17 be applied and you do not find reason for an inquiry into the subject of a complaint that was submitted to you, you would have the right to comment publicly. As I understand it, you do not currently have the power to do so.
If recommendation 17 is accepted, would recommendation 18 really be necessary?
In fact, you said earlier that members who file a complaint would not have the right to comment on it before the member who is the subject of the complaint is notified of the situation. However, if you have the power to comment when there is no inquiry, is it really necessary to prevent a member from doing so for a few days after a complaint was submitted to you? I think it might discourage members from making pointless complaints or complaints that are not based on a detailed file.
Noon
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It is a question of time. According to the code, discussion is absolutely prohibited. Absolute confidentiality is required, and there are very few exceptions. It is a matter of at least being able to comment when there is misunderstanding within the public.
Recommendation 18 is intended to simply prevent a member from making comments right away in public when others, including myself, know nothing about the situation. The motivation behind this action is often political.
