Evidence of meeting #27 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was screens.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a very brief question. Earlier, Ms. Bennett indicated that in the previous administration it was easy for former Prime Minister Martin and Belinda Stronach to recuse themselves or to have this screen administered because it was obvious they had left the cabinet room. My question is, does that screen only apply while we're in cabinet, or did it apply to all meetings of those personnel, in addition to cabinet meetings?
5:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I wasn't involved, but I would assume it would apply to all meetings, normally. It's the principle of avoiding a conflict. It's not where you avoid the conflict.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I think that's important to get into the record, that this recusal, or better yet this conflict of interest screen, applies to all the meetings related to government operation, government business.
5:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Of course.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Albrecht.
I think that concludes rounds two and three. We do have a motion or a couple of things to deal with before we adjourn. So I'm going to ask you, Ms. Dawson, if you have any concluding remarks you want to address the committee on, and then we will go to the next item on our agenda.
I give the floor to you if you've got any closing comments.
5:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No. I thank you for your attention and for your questions. I was happy to have the opportunity.
If I had known you were going to ask me that last question about what I might have objected to in that long litany of complaints about me, I might have prepared some, because I probably could. And I hope that if there are any questions in your mind about any of it, I'd be pleased to respond to them.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much. I want to thank you for your appearance here this afternoon.
5:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Thank you very much.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Colleagues, the next item of business is, first of all, the minutes of the steering committee. Then of course we have the motion from Mr. Easter that we were discussing when the last meeting ended. And we do have a motion from Mr. Poilievre here. I think they are all related--Mr. Easter's motion, Mr. Poilievre's motion, and actually one of the paragraphs of the steering committee; they're all somewhat related.
First of all, I'd like to deal with the minutes of the steering committee, and perhaps some of them do require a little explanation. One requires perhaps some clarification. I will just go over it.
This arose from the meeting of the steering committee held earlier today. We agreed to take three action items. The first one is that as part of our future agenda we would invite two departments that received an F as a result of the information commissioner report cards. The thinking behind that, colleagues, was basically that these departments or agencies are not following the legislation, and we just want some explanation as to why that is. Is it lack of resources or is it lack of will? Is it confusion within the legislative framework? Is it political direction? What is the problem that these departments or agencies cannot deal with this particular legislation? Maybe it's people abusing legislation. I think it's important that we do hear from them because it appears to be a systemic issue with certain departments and agencies.
The last one there--I want to come back to the first one--is that we're going to request the analyst to prepare a memo on perhaps a trip to Washington to deal with the whole issue of proactive disclosure, which is going to be part of our study.
On the first one, which is related to Mr. Easter's motion and Mr. Poilievre's motion, I do think it requires a little more precision, and I'll just make a suggestion that I think will make it a little more precise. I'll read it: “Thursday, November 4: Invite Nigel Wright to appear before the Committee for 1 hour”-- I don't think the issue deserves any more time than that. The meeting could be extended if the committee so chooses at the time--“and ask him to provide in advance of the Committee meeting extracts of pertinent documents.”
The term “pertinent documents”.... What we could do is.... Mr. Wright delivered a letter to the chair earlier today, and I will read the last paragraph into the record. Instead of “pertinent documents”, we could say “documents referred to in paragraph four of your letter to the chair dated October 25”. I'll read that paragraph:
If I appear before the Committee, I would also provide documents describing the safeguards that I and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner intend to put in place in advance of my employment to ensure my recusal on matters where a conflict of interest may exist in the letter between me and Onex Corporation setting out the arrangements made regarding a potential return to Onex Corporation.
I think that would give the issue more precision, and with that amendment, if that amendment is agreeable, I would....
Well, first of all, let me do this right. I will invite a mover of the minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Poilievre has moved the minutes.
Now it's up to discussion. We do have a list. It's Ms. Davidson.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
The only thing I was going to add was that in the letter that you read out—and I could be incorrect because I don't have a copy of it—at the steering committee, I believe it said November 2 was the date. I thought we had discussed that either November 2 or November 4 we would invite him, whatever date would work for him to come.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I think we did at the steering committee suggest November 4, but I think the committee would be flexible. We can probably rejig it.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
When I look here at our schedule, I think we could accommodate either date.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The 2nd or the 4th. Okay.
We have the motion before us. I've suggested a friendly amendment. That should really be moved by somebody.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I don't have the copy of the letter that Mr. Wright sent to the steering committee. But the way it seems to be coming across to me, in terms of Mr. Wright's letter to this committee, is he is, as chief of staff to the Prime Minister, already directing this committee in terms of how this committee will operate, and he will tell us what documents he will forward to this committee. I just disagree with that approach. I think we should manage our own affairs.
The motion we were discussing at the last meeting basically said specifically what I felt we required; that is, we would have copies of any agreements with Onex Corporation for him to return from his temporary leave to the corporation, and we would also be provided copies of any recusal conditions that he has agreed to abide by as chief of staff to the Prime Minister to ensure he's not in conflict of interest, and further, that would be provided to the committee within five days of the passage of this motion.
I'm moving that as an amendment so that it is our wording and not Mr. Wright's, which he forwarded in the letter, because we need all those things. I think they are quite similar. We want to hear from Mr. Wright, as I said earlier. We do not agree with the statement of the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister in the last week that a precedent has been established in this place and who we can have as witnesses and what documents can be provided. And we definitely need all documents prior to Mr. Wright's appearance.
So I'm moving not your suggestion but basically the essence of the motion that was on the table at the last meeting as an amendment.
