Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 11th, 2013

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

You have to rely on your people to be able to spread the message.

Certainly, when we look at the volume of information we're required to know as public office holders, in whatever position we enjoy here, it's a critical element that there be.... And I think mandatory is the right way to go. You have to ensure that somehow people have received the message at some point.

The concern I have is that if you're too early in the process.... There's so much information coming at people. You want to know that it's going to stick.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes. When there are new MPs—of course, these are MPs, not public office holders—there are sessions for them, but they don't all turn up.

Sorry, I'm in the act.

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

Good. Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Carmichael, your time is up.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

We will now move on to the five-minute question and answer period.

Ms. Borg, you have the floor.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the commissioner for being here with us today.

I believe that everyone around this table absolutely wants to have an act that will allow us to avoid any further scandals. The general public has had enough. There is currently a lot of cynicism surrounding politics, especially in Quebec.

Some witnesses told us that there was really a shortcoming in the actual act because no distinction is drawn between real, apparent and potential conflicts of interest.

Do you agree with that? What is your opinion on that?

[Mary Dawson]

I would say that's an overstatement.

I have several pages in my report where I point out that in fact the apparent conflicts and the potential conflicts are covered, to some extent, in the definition of “conflict of interest” and in certain other provisions. I go into the details of the provisions I give as examples.

I note that there are a number of provincial jurisdictions, at least a few, that have special provisions for apparent conflicts of interest—I think of British Columbia, for example—but their primary section on conflict of interest isn't identical to ours. The caution I put out is that you can't just stick words into an act because somebody else has them in there. You have to look at the provision you're sticking them into and whether it's really necessary.

I don't really care if you put an extra provision in there on apparent conflict of interest, because I think it's covered. But it will create some confusion in those sections where the “apparent” is very obviously covered, and it's building on that concept of conflict of interest.

All I'm saying is that if you put in an amendment to add “apparent”, you'd better take a look at all the sections it's going to affect and make sure it makes sense.

I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not militant against it.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much.

Of course, there is an increased risk of a conflict of interest when a minister or a parliamentary secretary solicits funds. You stated that in your report. In recommendation 3-10, you also specified that more stringent rules than the current ones in section 16 should be established with regard to fundraising.

Do you have any specific recommendations regarding measures you would like to see to strengthen section 16?

[Mary Dawson]

No, I didn't put a specific recommendation in, but I think one could, for example, prohibit a minister from fundraising. I think there could be rules that focused on not accepting fundraising from lobbyists or certain kinds of lobbyists, which would be broader than if just you yourself had a conflict of interest.

I'd just like you to consider that. I think there is room. It's an awkward area. I know the Prime Minister's guidelines in the accountability guide go further than this act does, so that's the place to start.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I see. Thank you.

The question I am going to ask you has already been brought up.

I would like to know whether you believe citizens should be able to file complaints.

[Mary Dawson]

You know, if any citizen sends in a concern, I look into it. I have the power to initiate an investigation myself. I end up initiating more investigations myself than I do as a result of complaints, I think, at this point, whether that's from media I'm reading or as a private citizen.

I don't think it's necessary. I think if that provision were in the act, probably it would encourage a lot more spurious complaints, just because there are certain people who are sending in complaints to deal with. I wouldn't recommend it, but again, I think I'm accomplishing it in the way we're administering the act.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

You have 10 seconds.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Okay. I will stop here.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Butt, you have five minutes.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Commissioner and associates, for being here today.

I wasn't a member of Parliament when this legislation was brought forward, but I'm certainly proud to be a member of a government that did decide, five years ago or longer, that we needed such accountability legislation and we needed this type of an office. I remember that during my orientation shortly after the May 2011 election, you and your staff were there. You provided, I think, a very comprehensive overview of the legislation so that we, as new members of Parliament, understood the rules, even though as backbench MPs we weren't necessarily affected directly by the act—and that's one of the questions.

The first question I have for you concerns the definition of designated public office holder as far as the act is concerned. Is that broad enough? Are we covering enough people? You mentioned you're responsible for 3,000 people. Are we covering enough people in that? Should we be covering people like me, and opposition MPs, and others who have influence around here on how public policy is developed? Is the definition in the act as we currently see it strong enough so that really we're getting at cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries and deputy ministers and others who are covered under the current definition?

[Mary Dawson]

First of all, just to avoid confusion, the expression “designated public office holder” comes from the Lobbying Act, not from my act.

I think the appropriate people are covered by the act. The members, of course, are covered by a separate piece, a separate code. Those rules are there, so I don't think there's a gap there.

I have suggested that maybe the two should be looked at together to see whether there's anything that could be harmonized, because it's easier for people to understand rules if they're not different all over the place.

I don't know if that answers your question, but I think it's not bad.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Did you want to add something else?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes. I've made a number of technical suggestions. I'm not sure there's any interest in going into them in detail. I'm suggesting that maybe ministerial staff have a separate system. There are lots of issues surrounding the general political behaviour of members, but I don't think that's my bailiwick. I think that would probably be a separate code that would maybe be administered from within the House or something.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Are there specific areas? I made the mistake of saying designated public office holder because I guess I was thinking of the Lobbying Act. I get confused, too, between the two acts, the two offices, who we're all interacting with on a day-to-day basis while doing our jobs as members of Parliament, what's covered, what isn't covered, what you declare and do not declare, and different things.

Have you had any discussions with your colleagues in the office of the lobbying registrar about that act versus this act, and about the confusion in some of the sections and with some of the language? We can look at it to make sure that....

I think it would be better for everybody if all the rules under the various pieces of legislation were consistent across the board. It would make it easier for all of us who have lots of things to worry about all day long other than the Conflict of Interest Act to be sure we are in compliance. The wording in the legislation and the rules is somewhat similar, given the fact that there's probably a fair bit of crossover between the two pieces of legislation.

[Mary Dawson]

I have not had discussions with the lobbying commissioner about this. I mean, we're aware there are different terms and rules, but the fact is the designated public officer holders in the Lobbying Act are a somewhat different group than my reporting public office holders. So it may not be as bad a thing as it looks that it has a different title.

I sympathize with the plethora of rules that are out there, but I'm not coming forward with any particular proposals there.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I'd like to follow up on some questions Mr. Angus asked.

We run for this office to represent our community. We get elected. We don't know if we're going to be in government or in opposition until all the votes are in and we find out who forms the government. Then some of us get phone calls from the Prime Minister of the day saying, congratulations, you're a member of cabinet. But you're still a member of Parliament representing your local community.

I know you've made some rulings. You've made some comments about someone who might be a cabinet minister or a parliamentary secretary, but they're also acting as a local member of Parliament in sending a letter of support for something. I write support letters all the time for my constituents who have an issue with a government department or something. I'm trying to be helpful and supportive, as their local member of Parliament. I would hate to think that just because the Prime Minister of the day said I'm now a parliamentary secretary or a cabinet minister that I wouldn't be able to operate with the same level of independence as a member of Parliament in standing up for my community.

Where do you find that balance, or is there any balance? Is it your view that the day you're in cabinet you can no longer do any of that to represent your own constituency? I can understand if you're the Minister of Industry writing a letter to the CRTC to support an application. I get that. I can see that's a clear conflict because you're the minister who oversees that. But if you're a minister who has nothing to do with that area or that branch of a government, I would find it difficult. I would find it difficult, as a member of Parliament, not to represent my constituents on an issue they were concerned about and say to them, sorry, I can't help you because I happen to be a cabinet minister.

Where do we draw that distinction? Where do we draw that line to have more clarity around this?

[Mary Dawson]

First of all, there are lots of things you can still do. You can pass on factual information or help direct your constituents as to where they ought to go for help and give them lots of information and advice. But I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. Once you've stepped into the executive, you have a different role that you're playing, and I think there have to be some distinctions.

Again, I feel your pain when one is a cabinet minister and your next door neighbour is out there putting in their recommendations and the voter is happy with him and is not happy with you.

I actually question how useful those letters to tribunals are, in any event. I think they're just kind of there. I don't think the tribunals take them terribly heavily. All they are is a letter that an MP has written to say this guy is in my constituency and I support him.

I guess the bottom line is that there are many, many things that the minister, as MP, can still do, and his office can certainly help with a number of questions.

I think there are some lines to be drawn, and this is an obvious one.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Davies for five minutes.