Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[Nigel Wright]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the crux, I think there were two questions. One is, will I receive information I should not receive. The answer is that the ethical wall is designed to prevent that.

Second is whether the areas of recusal identified by both the Ethics Commissioner and me are so broad as to render me ineffective in my service to the Prime Minister. The answer is no. My answer on that is that there will be limited, in my view--I won't know for sure, but limited--interactions going forward. I will not be party to any of those.

Mr. Easter has identified six potential conflicts in his chart. I think that's a limited number.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci, Madame Freeman.

Mr. Martin, for seven minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought the Conservatives were next, but I'm happy to go.

Mr. Wright, I didn't come with any audiovisual aids or anything like that, but I do find this graphic illustration enlightening. It gives us the scope of the problem as we see it.

I have a technical question first, just for accuracy. Did you say the Prime Minister first approached you in March?

[Nigel Wright]

Yes, I was first approached in March.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

And you were still a member of the board of directors of Hawker Beechcraft at the time? Or the CEO? Or what was your position?

[Nigel Wright]

I was a member of the board of directors of Hawker Beechcraft.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

And the F-35 decision was announced in July 2010?

[Nigel Wright]

I can't answer you as to when that was announced.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It seems to me that the first news reports that you had been invited to be the chief of staff were about September, and at that time the newspapers had it that Mr. Harper had only approached you mere weeks prior to that. But you're saying he approached you back in March, while you were still actively promoting aerospace industry associated with the F-35.

Did you have a role to play partnering with Lockheed Martin trying to sell those precision attack planes between March and October, say?

[Nigel Wright]

Mr. Chair, I can say I have not had any conversations regarding the F-35 or Lockheed Martin with any public official, and I have not promoted—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, not with a government official, but marketing it internationally.

[Nigel Wright]

I'm sorry, I was going to answer the second part of what I heard the question to be. I have not promoted in any way to anybody the sale of that airplane, or the purchase of that airplane, for that matter.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You've mentioned the term “ethical wall” about 30 times since you sat down here. It's as if you're trying to introduce some new idea to us, some new concept. I think this idea of an ethical wall is kind of a fatuous notion, personally. Walls in and of themselves don't have ethics. The ethics have to reside with the individuals, and it seems like this is a construct of convenience to defend the indefensible, which is your untenable position as chief of staff.

Mr. Wild has gone to great lengths to manufacture this notion that you're here to sell this ethical wall, but most of us don't have any confidence in blind trusts. People joke about them being venetian blind trusts, and I don't see why we should have any confidence in this new fabrication of an ethical wall. What's it made out of?

[Nigel Wright]

Mr. Chair, I agree with at least one thing that was in this statement and question that the member had. That is, that the ethics of the individual and all the individuals responsible for administering the wall are critical to it. So I agree with that. The purpose of the statute.... Common sense protection of my reputation and the reputation of the Prime Minister are absolutely critical. So this matters to me and it matters to the government. We will get it right.

Ethical walls—they go by different names, but “ethical wall” is certainly a name I've heard many times in the private sector—are very important, because that is actually how you communicate to a broad and complex organization what can and can't happen. Ethics on their own are not good enough, Mr. Chair. What they need is a system of administration to ensure that information flows properly and that where someone is unable to participate in a discussion, that someone being me, someone else knows about that and will participate in that discussion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Our experience is that the only way to elevate ethical conduct and ethical standards is by transparency and shining the light of day on the activities. There's no real assurance that your activities will be transparent. It will be self-policing by somebody who answers to you. Your underling will in fact be the ethical watchdog to make sure you don't cross any barriers, but you're his boss.

Would you also agree that your first loyalty, as the country's most senior public office holder, in a sense has to be the best interests of Canadians, and not the best interests of the company you came from?

[Nigel Wright]

I absolutely endorse that principle. By the way, not only my first loyalty but also the first loyalty of the deputy chief of staff, of every staff member in the PMO, and the Prime Minister himself is to the law of the land.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

But sir, how can you advise on any of the subjects such as Madame Freeman outlined? You can't even order pizza for the PMO, from what I can see here. Onex owned CiCi's Pizza Parlor. Every move you make, every breath you take puts you in a conflict of interest.

[Nigel Wright]

Mr. Chair, there are certain states in the United States where if I order pizza I probably shouldn't do it from CiCi's Pizza.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Take income trusts, for instance. Let's look at some of the key items of the day. When somebody mentioned Indigo Books, that's also publishing, printing and copyright. One of the key issues being debated in the national discourse today is the new copyright legislation; it's broad, it's sweeping and expansive. You can't be involved in advising the Prime Minister on anything to do with copyright if your Indigo Books & Music is integrally involved in that debate. In fact, Heather Reisman herself is outspoken on that issue.

You can't be involved in anything to do with income trusts, which is another big debated issue. And there is credit, finances, mortgaging, the automotive industry, the aerospace industry, the health care industry, virtually everything that's important. We used to have a joke, myself and my friend I worked with, who always said that in his house he makes all the big decisions, but since he's been married there haven't been any big decisions for him to make. You're not going to be able to make any of the big decisions; you are only going to be able to deal with the little wee stuff.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Your time is up, but we're going to ask Mr. Wright to answer the question.

[Nigel Wright]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I didn't hear a question, but I do want to answer one. What I'd like to answer is who in fact determines what I can and cannot be involved in. The scope of the ethical wall was determined by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It will be policed by her and her office. Determinations will ultimately be made by the Ethics Commissioner as to what I can or cannot participate in. I will abide absolutely by those.

There have also been questions raised about transparency. The wall itself is being made public and its scope is being made public. Any recusals that are required in respect of it will be made public. So I think people can have real confidence about both the transparency and the public nature of what's been put in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Wright.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Wright, for being here.

I'd like to begin by agreeing with Mr. Easter that your record of success in the business world has been admirable. It is good to see people who have succeeded in private sector making the sacrifice to come to serve the country in the public realm. We're very much pleased that you're joining the government to serve in that capacity.

Just moments ago you were discussing the process you've undertaken with the Ethics Commissioner. Can you describe it in some greater detail?

[Nigel Wright]

Thank you.

As I mentioned, I first met with the Office of the Ethics Commissioner in April of this year. My first question had to do with leaves of absence that had been taken by other public officer holders and whether there's a system. I followed that up with two steps. One was to familiarize myself with the act to understand exactly how it might apply in my circumstances. The second was to make full disclosure of my own circumstances to the Office of the Ethics Commissioner.

During the summer I was advised by the Ethics Commissioner that an ethical wall or conflict screen should be established, after which I asked Mr. Roy and Mr. Wild to prepare that for me. That was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Commissioner on Friday of last week.

The next steps for me are to undertake the remaining statutory steps, which are to make full disclosure of my holdings in the confidential report required by the statute and to get the actual declarations from the Ethics Commissioner put on the public record as they relate to me.

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

The opposition has questioned and even attacked your motives in pursuing your work. I'd like to ask you, what is it that compelled you to come into this new role? What motivates you to do the job that you've accepted to do?