Evidence of meeting #29 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 onex.
A recording is available from Parliament.
As an Individual
Mr. Chair, the Ethics Commissioner has not indicated to me, based on the disclosure I've made to her, that general corporate income tax rates in Canada are subject matter for the wall.
As an Individual
There's no requirement for me to avoid dealing with corporate tax rates as a matter of general application, as you see in the statute, and it does not affect the public office holder other than as a broader class of persons. If the Ethics Commissioner makes a different determination going forward, I guess that will be for her to determine.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I think, Mr. Wright, you make my point. These issues are so complex in government and the connections that you previously had, which you're going back to, are so complex, how can you do your job in the whole of government?
As an Individual
That's the second question, Mr. Chair.
I think the matter is very straightforward. I think the wall itself is clear. I think people will know what their functions are.
The ultimate decision-maker is very clear; it's established by statute. I expect this to be of minimum hindrance.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Can anyone tell us how much this is going...? I see a whole new bureaucracy here. As I go through the letters here, I see the need for a whole new bureaucracy designed to keep information away from you as chief of staff. It's unusual to have to set up a system within government to keep information away from the Prime Minister's chief of staff. That's unreal.
Anyway, going back to Onex, and this was asked earlier.... It relates to the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders. Section 28 says that “former public office holders, except for ministers...shall not, within a period of one year after leaving office”, go to the job related to their former employment.
You indicated you are doing nothing different from what's in the conflict of interest code. But I submit to you that a secretary to a minister would have to stay away from a job related to their portfolio for a year, but you, on the day you walk out of the PMO, will be entitled to go back to Onex. There seems to be a double standard here. You are given special privileges that others do not have under the conflict of interest code.
As an Individual
Mr. Chair, the act governing me is the Conflict of Interest Act. The act does provide that
No former reporting public office holder shall enter into a contract of service with...or accept an offer of employment with, an entity with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately before his or her last day in office.
By definition or the very design of the ethical wall I put forward to this committee, I will not have any direct or significant, or indirect or insignificant, dealings.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
That is going to be pretty nearly impossible, given the connections.
Let me ask you one more question on Onex. While you're in your job at the PMO, will you continue to benefit from any benefits or bonuses from Onex?
As an Individual
Mr. Chair, with the greatest respect to the member, the person who will advise and make determinations about whether something is or is not possible under the act is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
To the second question, I have already stopped earning. I will not earn any compensation of any sort from Onex during the leave of absence.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.
We'll now go to Ms. Block for five minutes.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I too would like to join my colleagues in congratulating you on the work you've done in the business community, and we look forward to working with you going forward.
I've read through the documents you've submitted and I appreciate the process you have outlined to date and your positive experience thus far.
My first question is actually for Mr. Wild. I heard you describe your role with the ethical wall as the day-to-day administrator. Is that correct? Could you also explain the role of PCO in regard to the ethical wall?
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Certainly.
My role with respect to the wall involves really a couple of different aspects. First and foremost, my role is to assist the deputy secretaries and the clerk within the Privy Council Office to understand the scope of the wall, and to ensure that they are identifying matters coming to cabinet or going into the Prime Minister's Office for discussion or decision. If they fall within the scope of the wall, they will be properly flagged so they do not go to Mr. Wright.
I will also be responsible for assisting my boss, the deputy secretary to the cabinet, legislation and House planning, machinery of government, and counsel to the clerk. It's all one position. I realize it's a long title and people think it's two positions, but it's all one position.
I will be assisting him with his responsibilities by ensuring that on the Privy Council Office side of things, if there are any questions with respect to whether or not a particular item falls within the scope of the wall, there is consistency in the approach taken to those questions, and ultimately that they are resolved with the advice of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
So that's the primary responsibility that we would have on the Privy Council Office side.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Thank you.
I want to go back and underscore the need for talented people from all walks of life, including from the private sector, to enter public service, and also the need to ensure proper protections are in place so that the transition from the private sector into public service and vice versa is integral.
It would appear that my colleagues across the way have suggested, Mr. Wright, that you are obligated to return to Onex once you leave. Can you explain your current relationship with Onex for us?
As an Individual
Thank you.
I have started a leave of absence from Onex. What that means, as I've already said, is I am earning no compensation there, have no contact with them, no longer have access to the premises, files, information, have told the Office of the Ethics Commissioner I will not have any business conversations with Onex. So it's a full separation in that regard.
The letter agreement that I have that I was asked to produce indicates that if I choose to return to Onex in 2013, then I may do so, unless they terminate my position before that. If I choose not to, then my leave of absence will turn into a voluntary resignation, and I think what Onex is saying there is basically make a choice. They'll want to move on at some point. So there's no obligation on their side to keep an offer open, and there's no obligation on my side to return.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
One minute. Can I share my time with Mr. Calandra?
November 2nd, 2010 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
How much time is there? I'm sorry, not much time.
I actually quite enjoy the chart, I have to be honest with you. I wonder if we took out “chief of staff” there and put in Paul Martin's name, if we could even fit all of the little circles that the people opposite have created and put in place. I mentioned the other day all of the things that he would have to recuse himself from if we followed those standards with respect to.... I suppose he would never have been the finance minister of Canada if we had done that.
It appears to me that we have a process that was put in place, a process that was followed. We have a commissioner to assist. We have examples in the private and the public sector to follow. It strikes me that as others have said, you've been very successful. You have helped create jobs and preserve a lot of jobs in this country. It's clear that your business will help, your past experiences will certainly help us, help you in your current role.
I suppose the members opposite might have some trouble with the fact that Mr. Easter is quite right. This is unusual, because I would suspect that for Liberals, ethics are quite unusual, when they're so obsessed with their entitlements in the past. And this new process, where we brought in the highest ethical standards with the Accountability Act, it's somewhat unusual to them and it has taken them a while to get back to an understanding that we do things differently around here.
I know I haven't given you a lot of time, but I'm more interested in the blind trust and how that works, because you know, a lawyer goes back to being a lawyer in this place, members of Parliament. An insurance broker is an insurance broker.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Calandra, your time is up. Could you just ask a very brief question in ten seconds?
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I'm sorry. I'll stop it at that. It's the blind trust I'm interested in.
As an Individual
The blind trust was set up under agreements that are standard form documents created within the Office of the Ethics Commissioner. It was set up with an arm's-length trustee owned by one of the Canadian chartered banks, and all of the controlled assets, as that term is defined in the act, were moved into that blind trust in October.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Before we go to Ms. Freeman, I have an issue. Perhaps I'll direct it to you, Mr. Wild, because it's a technical issue and I'd like your clarification, if that is possible.
Under section 4 of the act, which I'll quote here, “a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests”. I'll underline private interest.
The act goes on, and as Mr. Poilievre pointed out, it provides that private interest does not include an interest in a decision that is of a general application. So my problem, or where I'm becoming somewhat confused, is how is that line drawn? What steps would one take to distinguish between a so-called “private interest” on the one hand and an interest of a general application, on the other hand? In this case, what would be distinguishing between Mr. Wright's private interest and the interest of Onex?
Could you elaborate further on any interpretations that you have to assist this committee?
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
I'm always loath to enter into an exercise of interpreting the Conflict of Interest Act, given that that's the role of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Ultimately, she is the one who determines where that line is between a private interest and what falls within a general application exception to a private interest. That is exactly what the commissioner has done in developing the scope of how this wall was constructed. It wasn't me or anyone in the Privy Council Office who developed the interpretation about what were going to be matters that were of general application or not. It ultimately came down to what the commissioner determined.
To speak to it in the most generic of senses, the idea of general application would be, for example, making an amendment to the Income Tax Act or the Criminal Code that simply applies to taxpayers or citizens across the board that isn't designed to try to promote or drive a specific policy outcome in a very specific arena.
I realize I'm giving you something very generic, but for me to go any further than that, I'd have to step into the shoes of the commissioner, and that's just not something I feel would be appropriate for me to do, given her role with respect to actually providing the interpretation of this legislation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Do you agree with me that this is really the gist of this debate? Because if you interpret it very narrowly, which some members obviously have, it would restrict Mr. Wright's activities greatly. If you restricted it in another manner, it's all one of interpretation and it really comes right down to that term “private interest”, does it not?