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.
4:40 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Right. But certainly, if every time an aboriginal group has some kind of event they give the person they have invited something or other, then it's probably a normal expression of courtesy.
I had occasion to look at some golf memberships, as I recall, when I first came in, and some of them were over the top, I thought. But it depends on the circumstances. Anyway, there's lots of room for exception in that kind of case.
4:40 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
May I just add, on the other matter—?
4:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
What I wanted to say about the difficulty of having general rules is that I accept that sometimes a member—or a minister or whoever—may do something and not realize that subsequently there's going to be a situation in which a gift is provided, or something or other. They can refuse the gift. Or, if they have a situation in which they're voting on something or making a decision, they can recuse from the decision. There are ways of handling an after-the-fact realization that something is tainted.
I just wanted to complete that answer. I knew there was another half to it.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Getting back to these hypothetical situations that have been bantered about, if you put the words “apparent conflict of interest” or “potential conflict of interest” in this act, would it make it a stronger piece of legislation? I know that you've recommended there is no need for it, but if there is an apparent conflict in certain circumstances, would it help if these were put in the act because we have had that request?
4:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The quasi-definition of “conflict of interest”—because I have comments about where that's located too, and I suggest that it belongs in the definitions section—reads, “provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests”. That's more than just a real furthering of the private interest. There is a step behind.
I would argue that that's both a potential and—
4:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
—an apparent. How are you going to know whether...? You are going to decide whether there is an opportunity provided—there is a “reasonable man” test there—and that's similar to any apparent test that's—
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
If people are more comfortable with putting “apparent” in there, that's fine with me, as long as they go through the act and make sure it doesn't gum up some later provisions.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Okay.
Regarding your suggestions in recommendation 2-5 as to who is covered by this, you recommend in 2-5 that the definition of “ministerial adviser” be amended. Have you come to a circumstance where you really need to make that recommendation?
4:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Nobody is caught by “ministerial adviser”. I never hear about any. There aren't any. So I'm saying there is something wrong with that being in the act.
What I'm suggesting there is.... I'm sure there are a number of advisers who don't occupy a position in an office. That thing is what makes it so that we're not getting any information on advisers. That's the thrust of that recommendation. Something tells me there is something wrong if we don't have any ministerial advisers under the current definition.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
With regard to recommendation 2-8, you're asking that there be an exemption for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. You specifically referenced the two petroleum boards to be exempted from the definition.
These are two pretty big boards on the east coast. They're politically appointed boards. Why would we want to exempt them from this? I'll start with that question.
4:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Well, they're already covered under the provincial legislation, apparently, with the conflict rules.
What I've said there is that it looks like that was an anomaly in the amendment. There was a change. The code or guidelines or something was accepted under the original legislation. When the act came in, I think, it just didn't happen to technically fit the description of what was exempted. I don't care if they're exempted or not, but I think it was inadvertent that they weren't. We don't apply it to them now.
4:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, and because it's patently obvious to me that it was an oversight of a consequential amendment. But I don't care. This is an example of a technical amendment that I think needs to be made.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Are there any other boards as such that we should be looking at, that you do not cover?
4:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'm not aware of any.
4:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No. I think it was part of the original deal as to which jurisdiction was going to look after them from a conflict of interest point of view.
I'm being told that it's the provincial legislation that says they're not subject to a federal regime. It's a very funny anomalous little case. I'm trying to clean up the things that are somewhat inaccurate in that list of definitions.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Recommendations 2-9 and 2-10 seem very similar. Could you tell me the difference between them: “...expressly exclude individuals appointed by Governor in Council...”?
4:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
With recommendation 2-10.... There is a group of appointees whose appointment is only approved by the Governor General. They are not part of the appointment. In other words, it's usually in a museum board or something, where the board votes who's going to be the chairman. I'm saying that I think the intention was to cover them as well.
Most of them are now voluntarily putting themselves under the act. It was an omission that we discovered a year or two into the time I was acting as commissioner.
Again, this little list of amendments is of highly technical little aberrations we've come upon, and I'm suggesting that whether the appointment is made by or approved by the Governor in Council, it's the same sort of person and they should be covered.
