Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[Karen Shepherd]

Actually, it's a timely question in some respects. As I indicated in my annual report, I met with a number of lobbyists and found there was a desire by the lobbyists, especially those who were registered, to want to comply with the legislation. This year, to be honest, I opened up 16 administrative reviews, and 44% of them were actually voluntary disclosures of lobbyists coming forward and wanting to put something.... Well, they're recognizing, I guess, the act.

When I say it's timely, I've just come back from doing a number of outreach activities with Mr. Bergen, and we had noticed in one of the sessions that the lobbyists had actually put “here's how you can be compliant with the legislation” and had walked through a number of the interpretation bulletins we had put up on the system and were educating other lobbyists. So there is that type of education going on. In the last month I've met with the Government Relations Institute of Canada, and I just came from meeting on Wednesday with the parliamentary public affairs group and association.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I don't know if you've even asked, and I know it's not your mandate, whether the provinces or other jurisdictions have similar laws in place. And are there any changes that you could suggest? I know you've been at this now for a bit. Are there any changes you could suggest that would improve on what we have already?

I'm also wondering about your referrals. Once you start an investigation, and when you do refer, what is the level of participation, for instance, you are getting from the RCMP or the law enforcement agencies with respect to the speed at which they work with you?

[Karen Shepherd]

On that last question on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I've been finding the cooperation to be very positive, and there's been interest in terms of coming back to the office to ask questions on the cases and files. They've also been very complimentary about the work that the investigators are doing in terms of sending over very detailed and comprehensive files, so I would say it's positive in that aspect.

Your first question, again, was in terms of the...?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

It was on the other jurisdictions, and if there are specific--

[Karen Shepherd]

There are seven provinces that have lobbying legislation, and they vary. Some have lobbyists' codes of conduct, for example. When we talk about the significant amount of time, it's been interpreted in some jurisdictions through interpretation bulletins. Some legislations actually have it in their legislation. Some of my colleagues at the provincial level have the ability to administer monetary penalties, which is something that I don't have. If I see a breach of the act, I can refer it to Parliament. If I've done an investigation on a breach of the code, I table a report to Parliament.

That's one of the things for when the act is up for review. One of the things I've been working on over the last five years--because it will be a five-year review--is to bring up a number of issues that I think Parliament and the committee will want to explore.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

With respect to some of the new rules that we've brought in and the increased traffic to members of Parliament and senators, and even working with the office of the leader of the opposition, are you seeing easier cooperation and a fuller understanding from everybody, particularly the OLO and members of Parliament?

[Karen Shepherd]

In terms of the recent changes that I think you are talking about, it hasn't been quite a month yet of seeing how many communications entries have actually started coming in in terms of meetings with members of Parliament and senators. How that's changed in terms of cooperation is something I wouldn't mind addressing the next time I'm back in front of the committee, but I'm expecting members to be cooperative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Calandra.

That concludes the time.

On behalf of all members of the committee, I want to thank you very much, Mrs. Shepherd, for your appearance. I'm going to ask you if you have any closing comments or remarks you want to make, and then we will go to Mr. Easter's motion. You don't have to stay around if you do not want to.

Do you have any closing comments you want to make to the committee?

[Karen Shepherd]

I have no additional comments. It's always a pleasure to come before committee. As I said before, it's coming to speak to the boss, so to speak, so I welcome the comments and the feedback.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Again, we want to thank you for all your work and for your appearance here today.

We are now going to proceed with Mr. Easter's motion.

Go ahead, Madame Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

When will Ms. Shepherd be coming back and providing us with the information we requested?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, that would be entirely up to the committee. It would be brought up at the steering committee; they schedule a meeting, and that would be up to the committee.

Mr. Easter, you were the mover of this motion. I'll give you first opportunity to speak. I'd ask for Mr. Easter and any other interventions to be as brief as possible.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The motion is that the committee requests that Nigel Wright provide it with copies of any agreements with Onex Corporation for him to return from temporary leave to the corporation.

I'd like to talk a little on that section of the motion first, Mr. Chair. It has been in the public domain that Mr. Wright would be returning to Onex within 18 to 24 months, so it seems to be a temporary leave. I think it's interesting that today we talked with the lobbying commissioner, just in the last discussion, about real conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest. I think when you're looking at Mr. Wright, who is going to be chief of staff to the Prime Minister, one of the most powerful positions in the land, with access to all the information within the realms of government, that he's only really on a temporary leave.

When we look at ourselves and what Ms. Shepherd put in the Lobbying Act, just to quote from that: “As a result, you”--meaning us--“will not be able to work as a consultant lobbyist nor be employed to lobby on behalf of a not-for-profit organization when you leave office.” That's the restriction on us. Yet Mr. Wright is going to be in the most powerful position in the land. He's only on temporary leave, and there is certainly a perceived conflict of interest.

The other part of the motion is that the committee also requests that Nigel Wright provide copies of any recusal conditions that he has agreed to abide by as chief of staff to the Prime Minister to ensure that he is not in conflict of interest, and that the information be provided to the committee within five days.

Mr. Chair, I just want to put on the record why we see a perceived conflict of interest here and why we do need the documents to see how this individual is going to be able to do his job.

He is personally a director of Hawker Beechcraft. He is connected through Onex to a number of other corporations: the Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Emergency Medical Services, Husky Injection Molding Systems, ResCare, Skilled Healthcare Group, Spirit AeroSystems, Allison Transmission, Carestream Health, The Warranty Group, Tube City IMS, RSI Home Products, and Tropicana Las Vegas. Now that's a tremendously wide-ranging group of companies that has a lot of influence.

So in our estimation, if Mr. Wright is going to be able to prevent that potential conflict of interest, then he would have to recuse himself, on the surface, it looks like, from the following departments: Industry, Health, Finance, Treasury Board, Defence, International Trade, Canada Revenue Agency, DFAIT, Public Works, and Transport Canada.

On the surface it looks as if there are real problems here. So we're moving this motion because we do believe that we need the documentation to show the arrangement with Onex Corporation on his temporary leave and certainly copies of the recusal conditions he has agreed to abide by as chief of staff to the Prime Minister so he is not in a conflict of interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Obviously we read the motion, and we know that Mr. Wright, of course, is a very accomplished Canadian from Burlington, who has accomplished extraordinary things for Canada and is now prepared to come to serve his country in another format as chief of staff to the Prime Minister. I would hope that in the past some of the previous chiefs of staff to prime ministers also had some of the astounding credentials of Mr. Wright. I am unaware of our having brought their particular agreements before committee.

I note that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was seized with investigating, for a time, an elected member of Parliament who was potentially lobbying. I will reference the motion adopted:

That the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates undertake a study of the claim that the member for Scarborough—Rouge River was actively lobbying the Government of Canada, including "acting for foreign and offshore organizations in obtaining operating licences, securing regulatory and governmental approvals for mergers and acquisitions...advising government bodies on international issues regarding cross-border tax collection, anti-dumping issues, and lobbying government on policy issues as well as facilitating intergovernmental relationships” while sitting as a current member of Parliament; and that the committee invite to appear the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, representatives of Sun & Partners law firm and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; and that, pursuant to the House of Commons Standing Order 108(1)(a), the government be ordered to provide all forms of communications received, including correspondence, from the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, and that Sun & Partners be ordered to provide a copy of the contractual agreement and any related documents of employment between Sun & Partners and the member for Scarborough—Rouge River; and that all documents be provided to the committee within five business days.

I recall, if I'm not mistaken, that the member of Parliament for Scarborough—Guildwood and another member, who I can't remember, gave very long dissertations as to why the particular study was out of order.

The member of Parliament himself suggested that he had actually approached the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and had sought her advice with respect to the contractual obligations he had with this company and that, as a result, he did not feel he needed to turn over the particular contract because he'd actually received the approval of the Ethics Commissioner at the time.

Let me see if I can quote from that meeting. The latter appeared at committee on Thursday, May 27, where he quoted from a response by Sun & Partners, but he did not provide the documentation the committee had actually asked him to provide because he'd gone to the Ethics Commissioner and she had provided—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you want to just deal with the motion?

I want to point out that this committee is not going to get into the qualifications of Mr. Wright. That was determined by the Prime Minister and the selection process. The motion is specific. If you have something on the specific motion, perhaps we'll ask you to conclude.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I note that we had talked to the government operations and estimate committee, and part of their representation from the Liberal members at the time was that it actually should go in front of the procedure and House affairs committee.

I know that when Ms. Dawson was in front of the procedure and House affairs committee, she said:

I've said this before in some of my previous reports. The objectives of the act—and there are five objectives—encourage experienced and competent people to seek and accept public office. I've said on other occasions that this may brush up against some of the onerous rules of divestment with which people have to comply. So there's a balance; there's always a balance here. Certainly there have been on occasion instances when people have not accepted public office because of the stringency of the rules.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we know Mr. Wright has actually spoken with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and she has reviewed everything—similar to Mr. Lee—and has given her approval of the terms by which Mr. Wright will be working as the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. And they will work closely together, as we do.

I don't think we need to talk about this. We don't need to bring this forward. But if we do, I'd perhaps provide a friendly amendment that if in this instance we deem it to be important, we consider calling Derek Lee back before this committee and we investigate the terms of his contract with silent partners. It's clear to me that the Liberals have changed their mind with respect to that.

I wonder if Mr. Easter would accept that as a friendly amendment.

[An hon. member]

I'm sure he will.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

And I'm sure he will, given his support of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Calandra, I'm going to rule that amendment out of order. It really does not relate to the motion.

If you want to move a separate motion, you can do so at your own pleasure, but that would not relate to the motion that's before us.

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that I'm supporting Mr. Easter's motion. I think this is a very particular and important case, somebody who is working in a very sensitive and important office in the country, who we know, as Mr. Easter has outlined, has had extensive and continuing business interests. That is of concern to Canadians. I think this is an opportunity for transparency.

Given the list that Mr. Easter read out, Mr. Wright might not have to recuse himself from decisions about the menu in the parliamentary restaurant. It sure seems like it's a pretty extensive list, otherwise, of necessary recusals.

I think it's very important that we look into this. I will be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We'll hear from Mr. Poilievre, then we'll put the question, colleagues, and then we can call it a day.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opposition's role here in scrutinizing the government. I think they would appreciate as well that we're all best served when we attract highly qualified people to serve in personnel roles, leadership. We have here, by Mr. Easter's own description, someone who has a breadth and depth of experience that is possibly unmatched by any potential candidate for this job. We think that he's very well suited for it, not in spite of but because of this breadth and depth of experience. Certainly Mr. Wright has been hailed by anybody who knows him and by some extremely credible Canadian champions of business achievement as one of the great leaders in his field. Mr. Easter's listing of his professional background serves not to contradict but rather to confirm those endorsements.

That said, the opposition is seeking to scrutinize him, and that's fine. I would only ask that we do so in a fair and reasonable manner and that we give him a chance to explain his arrangements and how they will impact on his future and justify how he plans to conduct himself in the Prime Minister's Office, and that he answer questions by members of this committee, of which I know he is more than capable.

As such, I would seek that we reorder the sequence of demands that we're seeking of Mr. Wright in the following way. I would simply suggest that we call him, first, to appear before the committee and that we call him before November 8, at which time he becomes a staff member and therefore would not be eligible to appear before committee, given that the convention of Parliament provides that staff members do not speak in these settings but rather ministers speak on behalf of their entire ministries. But if we do call him before November 8, when he takes office, there will be no breach of that longstanding convention.

As such, I would propose what I genuinely believe is a friendly amendment, which is that we call Mr. Wright to appear before the committee before November 8 and that this committee make the time available for him to appear between now and then to answer any and all questions about his past, present, and future work. That amendment would replace the wording of the existing motion, though it does not change in any way the essential goal, I believe, that my colleague Mr. Easter seeks to achieve. The way I see it is that Mr. Easter and the opposition are seeking to have questions answered about his past, present, and future work. They can ask any of those questions of Mr. Wright when he's here. If they are not satiated by the answers they receive, more demands can be issued at that time. This motion could very easily be reintroduced in its present wording the very next day, and we could proceed on the basis of the existing wording at that time.

Surely, Mr. Chair, no harm could be caused from simply hearing from the man before we ask him to turn over what could essentially be documentation that could be either unnecessary or unfair to seek. Again, we could hear from him. The opposition members could very easily, at that point in time, conclude that they have not been satisfied and that they seek more. At that time, a motion could be put forward to secure more.

I believe that this committee seeks to operate with a fair-minded temperament. The way to do that would be to simply ask the gentleman to come here and speak for himself and defend himself in a public setting before he becomes a staffer. Let's see what he has to say.

The opposition might be pleasantly surprised by what they see. I think they will be. I think they'll find him to be highly qualified for the position and also to be a man of tremendous and unimpeachable integrity.

I will propose that amendment, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to having it voted upon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It's relevant.

I'm going to ask Mr. Easter for his comments on that. Before I do so, I just want to make it absolutely clear that this committee is the access to information, privacy and ethics committee. It's not to deal with Mr. Wright's qualifications or how he got the job or his ability to do the job. The only issue, if he does come before the committee, will be the issue of real or perceived conflict of interest. It's not like the congressional hearings they have in the States. That's not our job.

Mr. Easter, do you have any thoughts on this?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I would be strongly opposed to the amendment. At some point in time we might want to hear from Mr. Wright, but at the moment, what we need, which the motion is very specific about, is the agreement with Onex on whether it is really a temporary leave of absence and the copy of the recusal conditions that would, I think, spell out for us whether there is a perceived conflict of interest.

Nobody is arguing the fact that this man is not qualified. But what's in the public domain at the moment in fact,is the untendered contract for $16 billion worth of aircraft, which one of the companies Mr. Wright is connected with is connected to. The contract's not signed yet. He's going to be here for the signing of that contract. How is he going to deal with those things?

The other point I want to make very clear, Mr. Chairman, is that we do not concede the right to hear from Mr. Wright after he is staff in the Prime Minister's Office. Mr. Poilievre tried to make the argument that there has been a precedent set here. No, there has not been. There is another committee looking at that issue now. In fact, we had the chief of staff to the current Prime Minister before this committee at one point in time, until the government changed its approach, which we believe is against the rights of Parliament. We've turned it over to another committee to investigate that matter.

I would oppose the amendment on the basis that it changes the intent. What we're looking at here is documentation in the first instance so that we can make a determination from there on whether we ought to call Mr. Wright at a later time, either before or after he is staff in the Prime Minister's Office.