Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 29th, 2011

[Mary Dawson]

No, but let me add that the reason why there are so many cases involving ministers and parliamentary secretaries is because they're under more stringent rules under the act. A regular MP is not covered by the rules in the act. So it's quite logical that many of the cases would relate to the government of the day.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would like to go back to something that has not been addressed much today. Section 33 of the Conflict of Interest Act covers post-employment.

Could you give me some more information about that section? What do you think of section 33, which reads: "No former public office holder shall act in such a manner as to take improper advantage of his or her previous public office"?

Do you think this section could have been violated in the case of Mr. Stockwell Day?

[Mary Dawson]

I can't discuss an individual case, but it's evident that I did not find something to follow up on there.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

With post-employment, has there been a situation in the past where a former minister has violated section 33?

[Mary Dawson]

I have never in my time had an investigation under section 34. I have a number of them....

Have I had any investigations under post-employment?

There is one currently under way that touches upon section 33, but that's all. We don't get an awful lot of post-employment ones.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

There is something in the code that I found a bit surprising. If I'm not mistaken, when there is a violation of the code, you must inform the Prime Minister, who must then decide whether the minister in question should resign. Is that how it works?

[Mary Dawson]

That doesn't ring a bell with me. Are you looking at the act or the code, the MPs or the public office holders?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I'll check.

[Mary Dawson]

The only thing that happens with the Prime Minister is that I send my report to him, because that's just where it goes, but the important thing is it's made public immediately.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

We know that there is a $500 penalty in the Conflict of Interest Act, but is there a penalty in the code, aside from disclosure of the information to the public?

[Mary Dawson]

No.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Do you think an improvement could be made by imposing more penalties or something that might discourage people from doing certain things?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you, Monsieur Dusseault. We'll allow the commissioner a short answer, please.

[Mary Dawson]

These penalties, of course, are administrative in nature; they're not the substantive offences. Penalties might help, but I think the public release is more important.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

[Mary Dawson]

The penalties are quite low.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Dreeshen for five minutes, please.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. Dawson, it's nice to see you again as well. I was on this committee earlier, and it's nice to be back.

Just a couple of points. When we discuss the concept of disclosure, which of course all MPs have to go through, it's important that you are able to disclose your business interests, your ties, and any other involvement you have to satisfy the conflict of interest requirements. I understand that aspect of it, and of course then you tie that into the Elections Canada situation, where of course you're not allowed to get any donations from businesses because again there's a potential for influence. That was one of the things that was done many years ago when the change was done, so there would be no influence from business, but by the same token the same situation does occur with unions.

So I'm curious about whether or not it's the requirement to disclose any union ties one would have if one is an MP. I say that from the point of view that I was involved in a union for 34 years. If I was to have continued—I don't know how one could manage it—to do the teaching I was doing, and so on, would that have been a situation where my involvement in a union would have been something that I would disclose to you?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, your former activities would be disclosed.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

And then if I were to in some way maintain my association with that union, would I also have to disclose that as well?

[Mary Dawson]

Is this as a public office holder or as an MP?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

As an MP.

[Mary Dawson]

As an MP, yes, but there would be more rules if you were a public office holder.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Absolutely.

The other question comes back to the concept of gifts, and I suppose this is the splitting of hairs, as to whether it goes to a political party or whether it goes to an individual. When you're looking at something like that, does the gift have to be returned if you find out there has been an issue? What is the procedure you follow when you have indicated that someone has gone offside on that?

[Mary Dawson]

They have to return the gift, and if they can't return it because they've consumed it in some way, they have to pay for it.