Evidence of meeting #31 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mandate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand the nature of the investigation. The member is posing some comments and questions. His facts speak for themselves. He may or may not be correct, but that's not for us to decide. Members can make statements if they wish.
I don't think it's a point of order, in all fairness. He may not be accurate in his facts, but it's not my role to correct members in what they say.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
You have already corrected members by saying that the committee can only discuss public office-holders.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, right now, the item before us is the annual report of this commissioner with regard to the Conflict of Interest Act and its relevance to public office-holders. That is the order of the day. Members should try to keep to the matter before the committee.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Thank you for clarifying that. I trust the member will take the matter under advisement.
October 20th, 2009 / 9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I would like to address the point of order before the clock starts.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
A very important point has been raised here. The responsibility on ministers of the crown, on public office-holders, is great, as are the expectations that the public places on them. Unfortunately, in this situation, ministers of the crown or public office-holders are in fact implicated. We at this committee might have the onerous task of having to hear from those ministers, and to hear how we've come to this situation.
Madam Dawson, if members of a committee have in fact been implicated—if their signatures are on these phony cheques—do you think it's ethical for those committee members to take part in debates and investigations? The committee would be investigating malfeasance on their own part.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I have to restrict myself to the act and the code. When I'm looking at these complaints, I have to see whether there's any grounding in either the code or the act. I'm free to make whatever remarks I feel like in my reports, but I haven't the faintest idea at this stage what remarks I'm going to feel like making, because I haven't even received all the complaints. So I think that's about all I can say with regard to the situation we're facing now.
With respect to the broader question of my ethics mandate, as I said, I'm free to make whatever comments I want to make in whatever forum I choose. But it is a bit unclear just what my role is with respect to the broader mandate of ethics. I'm not prepared to make a particular recommendation at this stage about what ought to happen.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, your time has expired.
I want to remind all honourable members and let new members know that under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the mandates of committees are laid out in section 108. Our committee deals with public office-holders. If it has to do with members of Parliament, it goes to the procedure and House affairs committee. These persons do not have to appear before our committee, and they can't be subpoenaed.
The commissioner has indicated that this issue may have many iterations, but it's still the same issue. The commissioner has said clearly that there are considerations going on, that no decision has yet been made. I think both the procedure and House affairs committee and this committee would have to determine whether, if there's a formal investigation going on, our dealing with this adds anything to the public interest and whether we would have sufficient resources to have people come before us who would be prepared to testify.
So let's be careful about proposing too many things here. I think we should be careful. Let's try to stick as close as possible to the annual report of the commission. That's the reason she is here today.
I will move on now. Madame Freeman, s'il vous plaît.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Dawson, for appearing before us today to present your annual report.
I would like to obtain some additional information in the light of what my colleague said earlier. These days, unethical behaviour is an issue that is often raised, whether here or elsewhere. It is becoming an issue on a number of fronts. We should be concerned by people's behaviours, the image that we project and the actions that might lead to confusion.
Your title indicates that you are responsible for ethics, among other things. You refer to your role, which is set out in the act or the code.
First, I would like to know what exactly your role is. Second, what role do you wish to assume in terms of ethics? We are talking about issues, including those that were raised by my colleague. Ethics are becoming a major issue that we can no longer avoid. We will no longer be able to pretend not knowing who is in charge of what. We will have to be accountable to and forthright with our fellow citizens regarding our actions and the responsibilities of elected officials and public office holders. We will have to be accountable. Canadians are truly concerned about ethics.
I will continue by asking you what role you would like to play. What are the limits of your current mandate? We get the impression that you are the ethics commissioner in title only, but that you have no power. That is what I would like you to clarify for us today, if you will. Am I making myself clear?
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes.
If you don't mind, I think I will answer it in English.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It is an area of unclarity, to begin with. My title has the term “ethics” in it. Nothing in the act or in the code refers to the word “ethics”. However, I'm in a context of ethical issues and I'm cognizant of ethical aspects of the matters that are provided for in the code and in the act.
In any specific case, I'm not sure how far I would go to comment on an ethical aspect of a matter, but nothing stops me from commenting on an ethical matter. But my mandate is to administer the act, and I'll just talk about the act since this is the forum that I'm in.
My mandate is to administer the act, to assist public office-holders to comply with the act, to advise and to report and to carry out investigations. But I have to ground myself in the provisions of the act, which is not to say that I cannot comment around a situation, but I cannot recommend actions that go beyond the provisions of the act.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
I apologize, Ms. Dawson. Allow me to interrupt. I am simply looking for some clarification.
Your mandate is set out in the act, which is entitled the Conflict of Interest Act, as well as in the related regulations. The Conflict of Interest Act is something you are very knowledgeable about because it circumscribes your mandate. It does not contain any reference to ethics. The legislation basically sets out the requirement for members of Parliament, ministers and public office holders to submit reports on their assets and holdings and to update their declarations. Beyond the gifts that they receive and those kinds of things, you can only impose penalties to sanction a failure to disclose controlled assets. Your powers therefore are quite limited.
To Canadians, you are the ethics commissioner, but the Conflict of Interest Act, which is the enabling legislation that sets out your mandate, limits your ability to deal with the current situation. I would not call this a crisis, but all Canadians share the concerns that have been raised.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, my mandate is limited, but it's not as limited as it might first appear. The fundamental principle in the act is that you can't use your public office for private interests. The question of how that applies to a specific case is a difficult one. Very often my investigations involve that very question as applied to a specific case.
In large measure, whether a private interest is being furthered by some action of a member or a cabinet minister is a question of interpretation. It's a question of fact, but it's largely a measure of interpretation. No case I've dealt with has been black and white. As I look at these issues, I gradually develop what I think the act covers. So there's no black and white answer.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
In fact, Ms. Dawson, in order to be very clear about your mandate, when you talk about public office holders—the only people over whom this committee has jurisdiction—the only problems that you have had to deal with have been conflicts of interest concerning individuals' assets and not MPs' recent actions. Is that right?
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Right, or other people's personal interests.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
And only that. Therefore, you are not actually mandated to deal with the type of situation that my colleague described earlier. Is that so?