Evidence of meeting #64 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 something.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I think it's a fair distinction. I think there will be cases when a member will have a conflict in writing some kind of a letter.
4:35 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It's a case-by-case issue for members, I believe.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Okay. I'm looking at the “Stand up for Canada” 2006 election platform of the Conservative Party because they had really clear recommendations on the Ethics Commissioner. One was to give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators. That was in the 2006 code, and I've heard my colleagues say it's about making the judge and jury all in one person. I heard them say you have the right to face your accuser. But that was their 2006 election commitment, that they were going to give you the power to fine violators.
Do you think we should finally enact that Conservative promise from 2006?
4:35 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We do have administrative monetary penalties. It's only for failure to meet deadlines, and I'm suggesting it be broader than that.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
4:35 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'm not suggesting huge penalties.
4:35 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Sometimes I've agreed with the Conservative Party.
In 2006 the Conservative Party said they wanted to be able to enable members of the public, not just politicians, to make complaints. You say you are sort of doing that anyway, but should we enshrine that in the code? If we do enshrine that in the code, should we make sure that any of these complaints you decide are not frivolous and actually deserve to be looked at—will you issue reports on them?
4:35 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, the ones that I self-initiate now I issue reports on.
I must say that I wouldn't say all the ones that we don't proceed with are frivolous. It's just that they don't happen to fall in my jurisdiction, or there are not enough reasonable grounds to support it.
As a matter of fact, in the time I've been here I have yet to find that a request I've had was actually frivolous. I may think it's off base or silly, but I don't think it's met the limit of what you'd have to find for “frivolous”. That's a serious charge.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
That's very interesting. Certainly, the concerned public has a desire to find out if rules were broken, and we are all accountable to the public at the end of the day. Would you be in a position then to report that you had x number of cases initiated by the public, that some were not in your jurisdiction—just so that people know—or for some you didn't have enough evidence?
Under Scottish law there is guilty, innocent, and there is not proven. Sometimes not having any evidence provided might warrant a statement. Do you feel that you should put that out?
4:35 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I now report on the self-initiated investigations, and many of those come from the public. I don't know whether I've actually itemized which ones came from the public and which ones I just happened to notice in the newspaper, but everything that is examined is reported on—everything that gets into an examination stage.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
I now give the floor to Mr. Warkentin for five minutes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Charlie has done my work for me already. He outlined that we, as Conservatives, have made a number of commitments, and we've fulfilled them through your office, and we certainly want to thank you for your continued efforts in order to protect the integrity of the office. Thank you.
With regard to Charlie's line of questioning, he ventured into the hypothetical with regard to that, so I'm going to continue in that vein. If Charlie wrote a letter supporting a radio station and then subsequently received a donation to his association from somebody who had a financial interest in that, would you see a conflict in that situation?
4:40 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, I might well. It depends on the timing.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Okay. And if Charlie didn't write a letter but sat on a committee that had a responsibility to review the legislation or the particular rules surrounding that radio station and then received a donation to his association, would you see a conflict there?
4:40 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Whenever you have a responsibility that will impinge upon some particular person, it's the sort of thing you look at for a conflict of interest.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
It makes it difficult, I think, for members of Parliament to sometimes be sure what's permitted. I can see under the act that this is the case for ministers as well.
4:40 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Absolutely.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
You'll view it with the evidence that you have on a case-by-case scenario. We as members of Parliament may see things differently, or the public may see things differently from either your office or ours. I'm wondering how we can protect, without outlining every scenario, and whether in fact we shouldn't have guidelines that are more hard and fast. The review of conflict of interest is somewhat subjective, I guess, varying from one person to another, and it presents a complex position. I'm wondering how we might be able to better serve all offices by having more clarity and more assurance.
4:40 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Certainly I'm in favour of clarity. The problem is that sometimes, if you try to identify what you're trying to cover, you'll miss a bunch. There's room for the general as well as the particular in certain cases.
What was I going to say? I'm sorry; I had another thought, but it will come back to me.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I'm going to go to one other issue. We as members of Parliament obviously have a number of different portfolios. There are certain circumstances in which a member of Parliament is engaged with either an ethnic group or an international group for which the giving of gifts is a gesture of goodwill, and the decision to refuse that gift would be seen as a snub to their country. In some cases, for some folks who are in international affairs, or in my case sitting as the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee, sometimes sharing a meal would be expected, or receiving a small gift might be. In these cases, the people receiving the gift obviously have some purview over legislation relating to those folks. I'm wondering how you review those culturally sensitive engagements and whether there is a different reflection concerning them.
4:40 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It depends on the circumstances. There's an exception in both the code and the act whereby gifts that are received as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol are acceptable or within the customary standards that normally accompany the public office holder's position. Now, one has to interpret whether it's normal, and—