Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 11th, 2013

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Chairperson.

Thank you to Ms. Dawson and her staff for coming today.

I have a couple of questions. First of all, obviously to do this review is very important.

As a bit of a comment, I think one of the most important criteria is to have rules that are strong and clear and well understood, and the less ambiguity the better. You've talked a bit about the discretion you have. I don't know how many cases you've dealt with overall, but you must have a general sense of how MPs, public officer holders, and even how the public view this process.

Would you say there is a good understanding of what the process is about, say, by public office holders and MPs? Do we understand it properly?

[Mary Dawson]

I hope so. I mean, I'm doing everything I can to explain it. My annual reports are very fulsome. I try to be very transparent as to what has gone on in the previous year.

Now, not every MP or minister or whoever.... I'm talking about the act, of course, which is only ministers and parliamentary secretaries—I don't know if there are actually any of them in this room—but the same goes for the code.

I try to be very transparent in my reports. I try to be fulsome in my investigation reports. We do put up advisories and guidelines in certain areas for the act.

We have a bit of a problem in the code, because we can't put guidelines up unless they're approved by the procedures committee. That has slowed that process down significantly. That's one of my recommendations to the procedures committee, that we don't have to get their approval to put some guidelines up.

We also do our educational work. Every year we offer a briefing to every caucus so that people feel free to talk amongst their own caucus.

I don't know what else we could do really.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

The reason I ask is that I recall, in one instance, just how much questioning and even confusion there was over this issue of the gifts and the $30. I think it was at the procedure and House affairs committee. It didn't matter which side of the House it was on; there was confusion.

So it does seem to me that with regard to the whole protocol of laying a complaint—what happens when a complaint has been laid, what our responsibility is in terms of the code—it's very important to make that strong and clear and well understood, over and over again.

That leads me to another question. I do know that in B.C. there has been a system in place for the conflict of interest legislation. When you speak about harmonization of the code and the act, I know that in B.C. the code.... It's actually within the legislated code, and it seems to me they're having some success there in terms of penalties and maybe giving some better clarity.

I'm wondering if you could comment on the following. If, when you talk about harmonization, you're not suggesting that the code be put in the act, why not? And have you looked at what's happening in B.C.? Do you see that as potentially a model that should be followed federally?

[Mary Dawson]

A number of provinces have combined the MP rules and the public office holder rules. Generally the provinces don't have as broad a range of public office holders as I have under my authority.

I certainly would be quite happy to see them in the same instrument. Even if they were in the same act, the rules wouldn't have to be identical. There are some logical places where they should be somewhat different.

I think there will be resistance to that, though, so what I'm saying is that it's fine if people would like to put it all into one act; I think that would be great. But I suspect they won't want to, so could they at least harmonize some of the stuff so that the same language is used and so that, where possible, the rules can be the same?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Do I have a little more time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

You have a little bit of time left.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Just to follow up on what my colleague said, in terms of the ability of the public to file a complaint, you're saying you use your own discretion and you self-initiate. Well, that is very discretionary, and you suggested that it would encourage spurious complaints if there were public complaints.

I'm thinking about Elections Canada. I do find it ironic that on the one hand, in the process of getting elected, there is a role for the public to play in terms of Elections Canada, but once you are elected, apparently there is not.

So yes, there will always be spurious complaints and so on, but I just wonder if you have any more experience or evidence of other jurisdictions that do allow public complaints. I mean, it is something that is probably worthy to consider given that this is a procedure that takes place at Elections Canada.

[Mary Dawson]

I have not done a study on that, but I can assure you that whether public complaints were or were not in the act, I would look into them as carefully, in the same way, as I do now.

I don't think practically there would be a difference; I just think we'd get more. We'd get more because there would be an encouragement to put more complaints in.

But you know, I wouldn't be devastated at all if the public complaints went in there. That's not a problem for me. I think that effectively we're doing that now because of the self-initiation power, but again, if Parliament felt they wanted to put that in, that's fine.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you very much.

I now give the floor to Mr. Dreeshen for five minutes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, too, Commissioner, for being here, and your associates.

On one of the things you mentioned a little bit earlier, for those of us who go back every weekend and are meeting with constituents and are constantly writing on their behalf and so on, you made the point that writing to any of these groups perhaps doesn't make much difference. I know you mentioned tribunals, and I'm sure that is the case. We think it does some good, but if not, it maybe isn't doing any harm either. Maybe that's a way of looking at some—

[Mary Dawson]

I'm perhaps a little cynical. I'm sorry.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I just wanted to make sure that I still felt that I was doing the right thing.

You were saying you have about 3,000 people who would fall under your jurisdiction. Of course, MPs report and go through all of this.

I remember when we were first elected in 2008, going to the orientation. Of course, at that time it was like drinking water from a fire hose, there were so many things coming at us.

One of the things you talk about is the educational aspect of this. I'm just wondering whether you have produced any products online that people could take a look at and say, all right, here's where my situation is now, but there are changes of this type, and this is something you would anticipate being contacted over in your office, but this doesn't really make any difference because it's still part of the ordinary process of some operation you might have been involved with.

Do you have that? Are there some examples? I think really the key issue is that a lot of people have really no idea whether they're going offside on some of the smaller things that take place, and before they get into big trouble, it would be nice to know whether you have some tools there that can help.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes. Of course, the best tool is to call your adviser, but there's a lot of information on the website. When people first join the government, they are sent several pages summarizing their obligations, and every year we do an annual review and every year we send the same information.

The other comment I could make is that it's as a result of the questions we get from members that we know what we maybe should put a guideline up on. If we can think of something useful to put a guideline up on, we will.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Okay.

On the comment on the 3,000 people that you have, what categories are they reflective of, if you wouldn't mind reviewing that?

[Mary Dawson]

Okay. There are basically five groups. There are ministers, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff, Governor in Council appointees, and...who's the fifth one? Ministers of state. I always forget that because I figure a minister of state is a minister. So there are the five, and it's interesting that by far the largest group of those—and they're about equal—are Governor in Council appointees and ministerial staff. There are about 500 or 600, I think, of each, and smaller numbers of the other groups.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

In your presentation you were talking about controlled assets. The last paragraph, just reading here, says, “The prohibition, and its related requirement to divest, would only apply to other reporting public office holders if holding the controlled assets would constitute a risk of conflict of interest.”

How do you gauge that risk of conflict of interest? Again, I know you mentioned before to come and ask and you'll tell us whether that's the case, but can you give us more indication of what's happening there?

[Mary Dawson]

What I'm saying there is that there's an absolute rule now that if you're holding controlled assets, which are basically shares and things like that, you must, if you're a reporting public office holder, divest either by putting it in a trust or by selling. I think that's unnecessarily broad for some reporting public office holders. Members of a particular board who don't have access to the kind of information that ministers have, for example, it seems to me maybe don't need to be under the same rule.

Basically what I'm proposing is that for these people who are not in the designated groups, and I'm a little bit flexible on what the designated group would be too—I've suggested deputies, parliamentary secretaries, deputy ministers, chiefs of staff, but that's to consider. Aside from those people who have lots of access to information and decision-making powers, it's really quite onerous for some people, to no avail, to have them have to put all their holdings into trust or to sell them. I'm just suggesting that it doesn't need to be that wide a rule. So you'd decide whether there was a conflict of interest in the same way that we decide.... We've had lots of practice now in developing screens if there are conflicts that could be out there, so I think that's not a problem to me.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.

I now give the floor to Mr. Angus for five minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Just so that we really understand where we are with regard to writing letters, last week I was pilloried in the House for writing a letter on behalf of Aboriginal Voices Radio. I personally think it is really important that we have aboriginal communities and aboriginal voices in radio.

Did I do anything wrong by writing that letter saying that I support the idea of an aboriginal radio station?

[Mary Dawson]

I don't think so, unless you have some kind of personal interest or there's some conflict that it would create.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Right, so I want to give my colleagues a heads-up. I was asked to write a letter on behalf of a little radio station in Cobalt, Ontario. I have no financial interests, but I love the little town. I think it's going to be a great radio station to involve community interest. I'm not doing anything wrong by saying that.

[Mary Dawson]

Not by the information I have.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

If I have anything else, I'll give it to you.

Okay. Now the minister wrote a letter on behalf of a business interest that wasn't even in his riding, but since he's a member of cabinet and he's also the minister for greater Toronto and the finance minister, he's under separate rules from me, correct?

[Mary Dawson]

That's right.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We would be able to fix this in one of two ways: either the minister would stay with his rules or they would make all MPs come under the same rules as the Minister of Finance. Do you think we should tighten up the rules so that none of us are allowed to write letters, or do you think what we have now is a good distinction?