Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 6th, 2013

[Duff Conacher]

If allegations are made, then she should be issuing findings in every case. That's essentially what she's saying. If she can comment on misinformation, she's saying she should be able to comment on a case that's before her, and she should. She should be issuing rulings in every case to clear up that allegations were false in her mind or whatever, if it's a public case. If someone just files a complaint, and doesn't do a news release or anything, we should still see a summary of what she decided. Otherwise you can't tell whether she's doing her job.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

You mentioned the Oliphant commission and the recommendations. What is still pending, in your mind, from the Oliphant commission that we should look at, like the recommendations?

[Duff Conacher]

The Oliphant commission recommended an apparent conflict of interest rule be put into the act so there's the appearance standard. If you violated that standard, you would be in violation. That's the most important change.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

The commissioner says that's not a make or break for her.

[Duff Conacher]

No, she says it's in there already.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

It's in there already so it's—

[Duff Conacher]

Implied. But because of the general application loophole where you can be involved in a matter as long as it's a matter of general application and never be in a conflict—again, you could be the finance minister, own a million dollars' worth of shares in a bank, and still be making changes to the Bank Act—then the appearance of apparent conflict of interest standard does not apply. That would be an appearance of a conflict of interest, right? Most people would say if the finance minister owns a million dollars' worth of shares in a bank and is changing the Bank Act, that appears to them to be a conflict of interest, but because of the general application loophole, that standard is not enforced.

That's the most important loophole to remove. If you're in the appearance of a conflict of interest, whether it's a specific matter you're dealing with or a general matter, you have to recuse yourself.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

[Duff Conacher]

Or you have to divest from the assets you own that puts you into conflict.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you for your answers.

I now give the floor to Mr. Carmichael, for seven minutes.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses today.

Mr. Conacher, you made a comment that you accept the commissioner's recommendations in full.

[Duff Conacher]

Except for the ones we note in our brief that—

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

We haven't seen your brief yet.

[Duff Conacher]

Yes, I didn't address—

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Hopefully, that will arrive soon.

[Duff Conacher]

In our brief we don't address all 75, so if the brief is silent on one of her recommendations, then it's an endorsement.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Basically you find everything that's within the commissioner's—

[Duff Conacher]

Except for the few that I've mentioned today, and they're set out very clearly in the brief.... You'll see the ones on which we say not to do it, even though the commissioner is recommending it.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

[Duff Conacher]

Also, where the brief aligns with her recommendations, her recommendations are mentioned in the brief specifically, indicating that aligning with what she says, we agree with that.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

That's terrific, thanks.

Back to the discussion briefly on the cooling-off period, I wonder if you could speak to the sliding scale in more depth. I'd like to understand where you think we should be considering some adjustments or what you would recommend.

[Duff Conacher]

This regulation was put in place and essentially said that under the Lobbying Act everyone is a public office holder now. That meant that everyone has the five-year ban applying to them.

It was the only way the government could really act without having to introduce a bill and go through a delayed process to try to correct a situation and get more communication disclosure of lobbyists lobbying anybody. That was really the aim of that change, but what it did indirectly was extend the cooling-off period of five years to everyone.

It doesn't make sense. If you're a backbench MP who is not on any committee, then you and your staff should have the shortest length of time. If you're on a committee, then you'd have a slightly longer period of time from the issues you deal with on that committee. If you're a liaison to a minister or a parliamentary secretary, it would be slightly more, for a minister of state, slightly more than that, for a minister, more, and the same with staff within each of those offices. A range of one to five years is what we're recommending.

It would be set out in the act. Essentially you would go to the commissioner when you're leaving and the commissioner would say, “Okay, you were on this committee three years ago, so you're already three years into your cooling-off period on those issues.” You would essentially get some instructions from her about how long you have to sit out on various issues, depending on what you had done in your time in office and when you had done it.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

Quite frankly, I think that's a fair approach.

[Duff Conacher]

Yes.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

That's an interesting shift from where we are right now, but clearly, what we have right now is well defined, and while it may be a bit harsh in certain cases, it works.