Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[Joe Wild]

I think what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that ultimately the scheme of this act is to have an independent officer of Parliament in the form of the commissioner be the arbiter of those very questions. That is her role. I would hope that having constructed the legislation, Parliament has expressed its views as to what it wishes this regime to be; it has expressed its views as to what the purpose of this act is, including to facilitate interchange between the private and public sector. With all of those things in mind, there is trust in the role that the commissioner is playing.

From at least my side in terms of the public service, we fully respect that is the role that Mary Dawson is playing as the commissioner, and we try not to get into making definitive interpretations around the act as a result of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you for your comments.

Madame Freeman, vous disposez de cinq minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wright, I would like to come back to a question I asked earlier and to which I did not receive a clear response. It is regarding the budget, which is perhaps the most significant piece of government legislation. I am talking about the annual budget that the government will table in the House.

Clearly, the budget contains so many areas in which Onex has a stake that you, in all likelihood, will not be able to participate in developing the government's centrepiece legislation. I would like to know how you can justify the work that you will carry out as the Prime Minister's adviser if you cannot participate in the development of the government's centrepiece legislation, i.e., the budget.

[Nigel Wright]

Thank you.

It will be, as I think Mr. Wild has stated, for the Ethics Commissioner to determine whether there are aspects of any budget that cover matters within the scope of the ethical wall. If that determination is made, then I would recuse myself, remove myself from any of those deliberations.

I think it goes, Mr. Chair, to comments that you've made. I would expect in making those determinations the Ethics Commissioner would apply herself to the definition of “private interest” and consider whether the matters are of general application, whether they affect a public office holder--i.e., me--as one of a broad class of persons or not.

So that's a standard we apply as she makes that determination.

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

Mr. Wright, I have listened to your presentation and the answers you have given to all the questions that were put to you here, this afternoon, and I am trying to understand how you will carry out your work.

Nothing that I have heard today has convinced me that you will be able to properly fulfil the duties of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, given all those restrictions. Moreover, the ethical wall you say has been implemented has become so complex. At any given time, you have to refer to either the staff or your assistant. If there is a disclosure, that must be brought to the attention of Ms. Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

The ethical wall that was implemented as a way to allow you to do your work as chief of staff has considerably limited the scope of your work, given all of your interests in Onex. In my opinion, you have not really demonstrated that you will be able to fulfil all the duties that a prime minister should expect from a chief of staff.

[Nigel Wright]

Mr. Chair, I would make a couple of observations in answering that question.

First of all, my own view is that the matters covered by the law will be limited in number. As I said, it was 10 one year for Mr. Martin as prime minister, 15 another year, 11 times in one year for Ms. Stronach when she was a minister. In both cases, they were more extensive business dealings in Canada than these. So my own view is that it will not be burdensome. Ultimately, that's the prerogative of the Prime Minister to determine whether his office is functioning properly.

Secondly, I would say that the documents we put before you, in a few short pages, are extremely straightforward. Notifications occur within existing lines of reporting and where there's doubt they go to an already existing independent officer of Parliament for determination. I think it's very straightforward and will be very easy to understand.

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

That is easy to understand, but complex. That ethical wall is complex. Do you understand what I am saying? You almost need an entire team to manage the implementation of that mechanism.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Madame Freeman.

We're now going to go to Mr. Poilievre, for five minutes. That will probably conclude it, I believe, colleagues.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I'll just return to the point on which I closed at the end of my earlier intervention, because Ms. Bennett touched upon it in her remarks.

She commented on whether or not the chief of staff would have opinions, and express opinions, on the reduction of corporate tax rates, business tax rates on job creators, for example--suggesting that because of your background in business you would then be unable to comment on taxation for all businesses. By this logic, the fact that I am a consumer would mean I was in a conflict when I voted to reduce the GST. The fact that some members of the House of Commons coach little league means that they were in conflict when they supported the children's fitness tax credit. The fact that some members of the House of Commons are farmers would mean that they were in conflict when they voted to support agriculture.

If that principle were broadly applied, it would mean one of two things: either members of Parliament couldn't do anything, or we could only elect members of Parliament who have no recreational, family, community, commercial, or any other form of interest, because at some point they would be prevented from voting on something that would ultimately affect the broad class of people of which they are a part.

That brings me to the section in the act to which the chairman referred, which is section 2 under the definition of “private interest”, because it foresaw that exact extreme, ridiculous, and Orwellian interpretation. It prevented that interpretation from going ahead when it said that “private interest” does not include an interest in a decision or matter that is of general application; that affects a public office holder as one of a broad class of persons; or that concerns the remuneration of benefits received by virtue of being a public office holder.

So the first two being the most pertinent, if it is of general application, or if it is broadly applicable to a class of persons, then it is not something that could be defined as a private interest.

To conclude this, where is the line drawn, as the chairman asked earlier on? The line is drawn by the Ethics Commissioner, who's chosen by Parliament to interpret the act. And you have made the right decision by making all of your interests known to her--your background and your responsibilities--so that she can determine whether something falls under your private interests or whether it is simply of general application to a broad class of persons.

I just leave that as an open comment and welcome any response you might have.

[Nigel Wright]

Thank you. I think that was very well stated. It's how the act does work and should work.

I note that although the Right Honourable Paul Martin did not have the benefit of an independent officer of Parliament to help administer his system, he certainly seemed to be able to draw the same distinctions and make the same judgments the member was speaking about as Minister of Finance and Prime Minister, with very extensive business dealings--much more extensive than mine--in this country.

So I think that people can make it work. It was not notably a hindrance. It didn't create a notable bureaucracy at that time. Today we actually have an office created by statute to administer it. My view is that this will actually be very straightforward, not complex, and will work.

And it will protect fundamentally what we care about, which is that you can bring people into government to bring their outside experiences, their knowledge, their background to bear, and do so in a way that ensures with full transparency and full accountability that the interests of the people of Canada are served first and foremost.

That's my own personal commitment. It matters to me. It matters to this government. And that's the reason this legislation was the first piece of legislation introduced by this government into the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.

You have two quick questions, Ms. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I just want to go back to the fact that the wall would be administered by a person junior to you. If that isn't working, is there not a possibility that the Ethics Commissioner could second somebody to PMO or to PCO?

It's just....This has never been tried before. In a conversation about a budget, let's say, which is about choices, there are going to be things that fall in your area. Is this junior person to you going to decide which parts of a budget conversation you can be party to?

[Nigel Wright]

I think it's a very well-intentioned question, so I appreciate it.

Part of my comfort, Mr. Chair, is because I know the deputy chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office who is going to be the supervisor of the ethical wall. I think you actually need an individual like that within the PMO to be a go-to place if I'm not the go-to place. So I think it will work. I also know that he understands the statute, and his responsibility first and foremost as a public office holder to uphold the statute.

I'm open-minded. If the fear that the member has is that somehow this just cannot work, if that fear is well-founded, then I will be the first person to seek the advice of the Ethics Commissioner to see whether another system could work, or another solution be applied. But I take a lot of comfort, Mr. Chair, in the fact that very similar walls have worked in earlier circumstances, including with the Prime Minister of Canada. So I take a lot of comfort that it will work. I want it to work, and if for some reason it is not working, I will seek advice on how to make it work.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

And after you're no longer in your job and are back at Onex, how do you deal with things that you have found out through your role in the PMO about upcoming policy that would affect a decision taken by the company?

[Nigel Wright]

I will obviously have a full exit briefing with the Ethics Commissioner and her staff, as is provided for under the act. I've read the act several times very thoroughly. I've thought very carefully about how it might apply to me in my circumstances. Again, I think it's a very well-intentioned question. The member knows that this is a hypothetical: would I possibly learn something that has no application to any of my prior life, but might have application to a future life that hasn't happened yet? This is something that may or may not happen.

I don't think it will be the first time it's ever happened to me. It would happen to any—any—reporting public office holder, whether going to a job they had never thought about, or going back to a job they had previously held. It would happen to anybody, and I think that I would do what everybody else would do, which is to get some counselling and advice on the way out. And by the way, that advice remains open to me even after having left public office. I still have the resources of that office to go to and seek advice.

I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that I have invested at least 20 years in business and my own reputation. I'm excited to come to Ottawa. I'm excited to come into public service, because I think I have something to offer and to contribute. In no way will I put myself in a position of undoing what's taken 20 years to build.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Bennett.

That exhausts the questioning.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you, Mr. Wright, for your appearance here today, and you, Mr. Wild.

I'm going to invite you, Mr. Wright, to make any closing comments or remarks you want to make to the committee at this point in time.

[Nigel Wright]

Mr. Chair, I have just a very few.

First of all, I want to thank the members. These are important matters. I think they've been treated as important matters, so I actually appreciate the invitation to come here to speak about them. I feel it's been a good conversation. I just hope that I've helped the members of the committee understand how the purpose and objects of the Conflict of Interest Act will be fulfilled and sustained by me and by people in the PMO during my time there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wild, do you have any closing comments or remarks you want to make?

[Joe Wild]

No, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

I should point out that the committee will deal with the minutes of the steering committee, but what I'll do right now to allow members to leave is I'll suspend for one minute and we'll resume the meeting in one minute's time.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I call the meeting back to order.

Since we only have a few minutes left, the only remaining item of business this afternoon will of course be the approval of the steering committee meeting that was held earlier today. I'll just go over it briefly. What you have in front of you appended to the minutes is the agenda going forward.

Unfortunately Mr. Siksay is not here, but on Thursday, November 4, we only have the individual from Google until 4:30. This morning we talked about having him longer. We could have Madame Legault. This morning we decided to have Madame Legault talk to us about the whole concept of open government. The steering committee is making a recommendation that we proceed with a number of hearings on this issue, and Madame Legault would be able to provide us with the framework.

On November 18 we have tentatively scheduled to conclude our report on the Google issue. We will have heard all the witnesses by that time. Also, I should point out that the committee at some point is going to be inviting submissions from members of the committee whether we want to write reports on the individual annual performance reports of the various commissioners we heard from. We're not going to get into that now, but I want you to think about that in the future.

Then going over to November 23, the committee is recommending that we invite the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of the Environment to come before us with their very negative ratings by the Information Commissioner. We just want to know why they are having difficulty following the Access to Information Act.

Going on to November 25, it becomes a little more tentative. At this point we're tentatively talking about Bill C-23, which we expect to be referred to this committee, and which we expect to clear the House prior to then. We've allocated two meetings for that. Again, this is a little tentative moving out, but that's November 30.

December 2 we have allocated to finalizing draft reports. Then, depending on Madame Legault's advice to us, we have allocated the meetings of December 6 and 9 to continue the study on open government.

Then we've tentatively slotted December 14 to hear from the lobbying commissioner regarding new regulations.

You can see it's probably a little firmer closer in; once we get out, it's a little more tentative. There's nothing in the minutes that varies from what I just indicated.

We have Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Chair, just for the record, I may have misunderstood you, but I think you said November 25 we're looking at Bill C-23, and it should be Bill C-29.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I said Bill C-23?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I think you did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If I did, the schedule says Bill C-29. It's late in the day. Bill C-29 is the right one.

Ms. Bennett.