Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, no, I understand that. But in the Conflict of Interest Act, we do have similar situations where it indicates.... And I would like to point them out. You actually included them in both of your annual reports' commentary on this, where you showed that in subsection 14(1) and paragraph (2)(e)—

[Nancy Bélanger]

That would be the code.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That is under the code.

Then you made reference to the Conflict of Interest Act and you showed the parallel. That is what triggered my interest, because if you look at the language there, what we have now in both the code and the act is unclear as to whether or not you are talking about “interfere” in the sense of “did interfere” or “tried to interfere”. You have no adverb or adjective in there.

So I'm asking you this question: would it appear that we should consider making a minor amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act so that the act will reflect the Federal Court of Appeal decision in that regard?

[Mary Dawson]

My broad sense is that we cover the same sort of breadth. I can take another look at a particular provision, but our act covers the potential as well as the actual, in one way or another, generally speaking, throughout the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

One or both. So you only need to demonstrate that here was an attempt to influence, for instance?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, I'd like to parse this particular section very carefully, but my comfort level is that we're—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I will assume that is the proper interpretation, unless you come back to us and tell us differently.

[Mary Dawson]

Okay, which section is it exactly?

[Nancy Bélanger]

I understand that you are referring to the gift rule, “might reasonably be seen to have been given”. So we're not talking about a conflict of interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

In the gift area, that was the example I was given.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Now we're talking about a very particular rule with respect to gifts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

But it's influence, trying to influence or influence—

[Nancy Bélanger]

The words are “that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence”. That's the test we go by.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, “to influence”. Is that “to have influence”, or is it—

[Nancy Bélanger]

It's if it “might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence”.

[Mary Dawson]

That means “appears”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It appears, and you don't have to prove that they actually were influenced.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right, that's fair enough.

My last question to you is that if we ever wanted to make or propose an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act—which was set up under the Federal Accountability Act and tabled by the President of the Treasury Board, I believe—who then is the responsible minister for the Conflict of Interest Act? And if there is in fact a concern about an alleged contravention of the guidelines under PCO, to which minister would this complaint or allegation be lodged?

[Mary Dawson]

I think you should ask PCO that question. I think it's up to the government to figure out which minister is responsible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Unfortunately, it appears to me that it's the Prime Minister.

[Mary Dawson]

That's for PCO.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand that.

Therefore, if a member of Parliament had an allegation against a public officer pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Act, they would have to refer it to the Prime Minister for determining whether or not they were in a conflict of interest.

[Mary Dawson]

Well, why wouldn't they be referring it to my office?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It depends on whether or not the conflict of interest or the contravention is pursuant to the requirements of the guidelines or the act.