Evidence of meeting #63 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Well, I think it is far too harsh. An MP does not have the same decision-making power relations with the real decision-makers that a minister has, so he or she shouldn't have to sit out as long.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Right, and thank you for that.
Ms. Turnbull, I am interested in your travels to the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. I take it you've studied some of the different conflict of interest rules in these different countries.
I wonder if you have seen anything in your travels or in your study of these different jurisdictions that we would be able to look at beneficially to import into legislation here that would make sense.
I like your line about correct balance between rules and principles. I think that's a common sense approach. It makes sense. I wonder if you could comment on some of your travels and whether you have seen anything we should be taking into consideration.
4:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Dalhousie University
Unfortunately, I haven't actually travelled to Australia yet—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Dalhousie University
Yes.
The rules in the U.S., for instance, are similar in terms of the overall objectives of what they're trying to do. They have a different approach in the sense that they get virtually an entirely new public service when there is a new president, so the applicability of the rules is different.
One thing I can remember the U.S. does a little more clearly than we do has to do with the offer of outside employment. For instance, if you're currently working in the government in the United States and you get an offer of employment, you have to keep the ethics office informed of this until you close it down, until you actually give a definitive no.
I can see different instances where that might be a little bit of overkill and there would not necessarily be a need to know that a particular person might be considering a job somewhere else, but in some cases, it would be useful to know, especially in the context of a political appointment. You serve at the pleasure of the minister and you could go at any time, and you have an outside offer that's lingering and that could be attached to something going on in the minister's office. There is some reason the organization wants you to work for them. In our system we have to disclose offers of employment, but in the United States they actually have to keep the ethics officer informed until a firm no is given and the offer is no longer on the table.
It's something to consider. Whether you think it's better or worse, it's more information, more disclosure, but it does, perhaps, facilitate more communication between public office holders and the commissioner.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
— because obviously you aren't prepared for the question, but with some consideration, would you be able to submit some ideas with some of what you have seen that might help us—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
—in the work we're doing? Would that be all right, Chair?
I think we want to do as much as we can with best practices, where they exist.
4:25 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
II would just say very briefly that the Oliphant commission has a lot on offers of employment as well, because it was a post-employment situation he was examining mainly. He has a lot of recommendations in that area also.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
On post-employment, are you suggesting that this is for existing public office holders?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
As soon as there's any indication of an outside offer, you're suggesting that individual should declare that to the commissioner or to their staff and then follow it through to either success or until it's off the table.
4:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Dalhousie University
I'm not going to go as far right now as to say “should”, but it's a difference that in some cases we might want to consider.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you. Unfortunately, your time is up. Perhaps you could come back to that in another question.
I now give the floor to Mr. Angus, who will have five minutes.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
This is very interesting. I'm firmly convinced it's possible to develop common sense rules, but of course, you need someone who will apply common sense rules.
I'm looking at all the recommendations. Some I find are interesting, and some I'm less sold on. A $30 gift for me, personally, I don't know what I get out of it. I get a blanket. I get some snow globes. I don't know what the value of them is. I guess I could keep track. We actually keep them all in a box in my office because we're not sure what to do with them. We give them away to kids or whatever.
There's that, and then there's the issue of fundraising. Political fundraising to me is a real clear benefit.
When the commissioner ruled in the Lisa Raitt case on the cement lobbyist, she ruled it wasn't a problem because there was no personal benefit, but it was a lobbyist for a cement company who was lobbying on a contract and showed up at the fundraiser. To me that would be an apparent conflict. A lobbyist could show up at a fundraiser without you knowing that they were lobbying you. Would you then be held accountable? Someone could donate to you—people donate all the time—and you might not check who's coming in through your riding association, and then six months later, they're hitting up your ministry or you for a favour.
In terms of the fundraising rules, she says there needs to be clarity but she doesn't lay out what it is. How do we have clear rules so that we're ensuring that people are not using fundraising at the riding association level to try to influence an MP or a minister? How do we ensure that if someone is making a donation it isn't retroactively putting blame on an MP or on a minister? What's the clear dividing line here?
4:30 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
The Ethics Commissioner actually does address this area in her report. She says that essentially the gifts benefit rules should not be extended to cover what she views as a political interest as opposed to a personal interest. It's one of the major things the coalition disagrees with. To say that a gift to your riding association is not a gift to you is just a false dichotomy. It should be made explicit that gifts....
First of all, there should be an apparent conflict of interest standard that applies to political interests such as fundraising or campaigning. She essentially opened things up greatly and actually contradicted her gifts guideline, which is very strict.
Her gifts guideline says you can't even accept a pen as a gift, if it was from a lobbyist while you were making decisions about something that affected the lobbyist, but your riding association can. In fact, your riding association can accept all sorts of help from a lobbyist who's lobbying you.
So she contradicted her own guideline. If she reversed her ruling, that would be fine, but because she's not going to, you need to change the rules to say that a gift, including to your riding association or any other political entity associated with you, is a gift to you.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I want to follow up because we had the case with Mr. Calandra where there were two fundraisers.
4:30 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Yes.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
There were stations that wanted that 88.1 FM licence. This was hotly debated. People who were tied to the competing bids showed up at it. He ended up returning over $5,000. Why was he then returning money from the fundraisers? It would appear that there was an obvious political benefit there.
Again, I'm not seeing the clarity here in the decisions. Either it's right or it's wrong. Either it is a gift or it's not.
4:30 p.m.
Board Member, Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
In that case, it's coherent with the earlier position that the Ethics Commissioner took, which is why she didn't look into the Calandra situation. If an MP filed a complaint with the commissioner about that situation, she would be forced to issue a ruling, and we'd know what she's thinking. I can only guess that she ruled already that it's okay for lobbyists to be involved in raising money for your riding association and no conflict is created. That's not the right standard, of course. What's ironic is that the lobbying commissioner has found the lobbyists guilty in every case. I expect we'll find these lobbyists guilty in the Calandra case, as well as violating rule 8 of the lobbyists' code, which says you can't do anything to put a public office holder in a conflict of interest—