Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Wild, I'd like to continue where we left off in the first round. You've stated that the Prime Minister must answer to Parliament and ultimately to Canadians for the conduct of his office and his ministries.

Then you appeared to say that ultimately, if there's a disconnect between the ethical standards of the Prime Minister and his ministries and the expectations of Canadians and Parliament, it's up to Parliament, I guess, through our institutions, through the mechanisms that we have at our disposal, to hold the Prime Minister and his ministries to account on this ethical disconnect. Is that correct?

[Joe Wild]

Yes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Would one of those institutions of Parliament that we have at our disposal to conduct such an inquiry or investigation...would a standing committee of Parliament, such as this one on ethics, be one of those venues?

[Joe Wild]

I certainly don't see any reason why Parliament can't establish whatever standing committees it wishes, to conduct whatever business it wishes, so long as it doesn't offend the constitutional division.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So it appears we're in a situation here where the commissioner has stated that she's not quite sure that within the act she has the power, and you've made it quite clear that the ball is back in our court, as Parliament, to finally do the job here when there's an ethical disconnect between the Prime Minister and the expectations of Canadians.

I have a quick question. The act states that you cannot use public office for private interest. The symbolic cheques advertising government infrastructure spending: that is the taxpayers' money, is it not?

[Joe Wild]

I'm sorry, the...?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

The spending on infrastructure projects. It's the taxpayer who is funding those projects.

[Joe Wild]

Yes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

As for the Conservative Party logo being placed on cheques that are advertising that spending, in whose interest would it be to put this private entity's logo on advertising that is being paid for by the Canadian taxpayer?

[Joe Wild]

When it comes to the specifics of the cheques, I'm not particularly in a position to comment on those areas. I'm not an expert on the government's communications policy or the federal identity program, and as I mentioned before, I think these questions were fairly fully canvassed with the clerk and the secretary of the Treasury Board before the government operations committee.

So I'm not really in a position to talk about the specifics around what occurred in terms of any given cheque. It's not something that I was involved in.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'm not asking about--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you only have a minute and a half left, if you want to share. You decide.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You go ahead.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Hypothetically, though, in your opinion, is it ethical to place a logo of a private interest on advertising that's being funded, and solely funded, by the Canadian taxpayer?

[Joe Wild]

Again, I'm not the expert on the policies around communications and advertising. I think those are questions that are better put to the secretary of the Treasury Board.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

In your recollection, has this ever occurred in the past?

[Joe Wild]

I don't know.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Dechert, please, for five minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we were speaking a few minutes ago, Mr. Wild, we were discussing how the Federal Accountability Act had enshrined the conflict of interest rules for ministers and placed that administration in the hands of an independent officer of Parliament.

Would you say the rule governing ministers' conduct is stricter now than it was prior to 2006?

[Joe Wild]

It's stricter certainly in the sense that you've gone from a code to a set of laws, and I guess in the writing down of those laws, one has to be more specific in the terminology that is used than you would be in a code.

In other words, a code can have some inherent flexibility of interpretation in it. When you reduce things to statute, you tend to have to minimize the amount of scope of interpretation as much as you can so that there is a common understanding to enhance capacity to actually adhere and comply with the law.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay. Does the fact that an independent officer of Parliament now oversees and administers that code have an effect on making enforcement of these rules different from what it was previously?

[Joe Wild]

It's certainly different, particularly in the sense that in establishing the office, the statute defines investigatory powers that are more encompassing than for any of the predecessors.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Could you take us through a few examples of how the 2008 edition of the guide is different from the previous editions?

[Joe Wild]

The 2008 edition is new from the 2007 edition, but the differences between those two editions are fairly minor.