Evidence of meeting #28 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was things.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mary Dawson  Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

That's your understanding.

Okay, thank you very much.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson

We will next move to Mr. Gourde, please, for seven minutes.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here today, Ms. Dawson.

As members of Parliament, we have had an opportunity to work with you and the people from your office over the past few years, and things have gone very well.

The members' budget includes hospitality expenses, which are used for welcoming people with whom the members meet and dine in their riding. Canadians sometimes wonder why there are such hospitality expenses and why MPs are fortunate enough to receive $30 or $40 to eat out with constituents or people they meet.

In terms of those meals, what would be the limit, ethically speaking? Sometimes, we have to meet with people who talk about their personal matters. They ask about programs. How must members protect themselves in terms of those hospitality expenses? What is the limit? Would it be better for us to pay for the meal or to let someone else pay for it?

11:15 a.m.

Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

Mary Dawson

I think I missed part of your question. You are asking what it would be best to do?

I am sorry, but could you repeat your question, please?

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Ethically speaking, would it be better for us to always pay for the meal of the person we are eating with or to let the person pay for our meal? People often offer to pick up the tab, but I think, ethically speaking, it would be better if we paid both bills or if each person paid their own bill. It is a grey area, so could you give all the members some advice on this issue?

11:15 a.m.

Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

Mary Dawson

It is always difficult to know the answer to this question. Having lunch is not strictly forbidden. You just have to be able to tell if it may appear that the person who paid for your meal tried to influence you. It is really a judgment call, on a case-by-case basis.

It also depends on your power as an MP. If you are simply receiving information over a meal, you can probably take the steps a member would normally take and that would be acceptable.

I recently wrote a long section about this in the December 2013 Paradis Report. I made a distinction between those who can do something to advance a cause and those who cannot. However, we must always examine each and every case. Most of the time, members of Parliament have far more latitude than parliamentary secretaries or ministers.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

In 2007, I am sure that you were able to see conflict of interest or ethical problems shared by all members. What are the most frequent problems that we need to pay attention to in the future?

We know that when we, as parliamentary secretaries, accept these responsibilities, if we have businesses, we must place them in trust, or another person has to look after them, and we can no longer buy shares on the stock market. There are things we must pay attention to.

What cases do you most often see and which ones do we need to pay attention to?

11:15 a.m.

Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

Mary Dawson

Are you talking about members of Parliament?

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Yes.

11:15 a.m.

Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

Mary Dawson

Most of the problems I have handled had to do with ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The MPs have no problem whatsoever if they work on behalf of constituents. However, if they vote on a bill and they receive something from someone, that might be a problem. The members need to say no if there is a conflict of interest.

Things are much easier for MPs than for ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

Let's talk about the management of assets. All members who become parliamentary secretaries or ministers have a past. Some of them had businesses. Those businesses don't necessarily stop operating because someone becomes an MP in a riding. The procedures for those people to dissociate themselves from their businesses are rather complicated, but a sacrifice must be made.

Could that scare some Canadians and deter them from entering politics, given the requirement to pull away from their companies?

11:20 a.m.

Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

Mary Dawson

Are you still talking about MPs or are you talking about parliamentary secretaries?

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC

It could be either. If there is a distinction, please make it.

11:20 a.m.

Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

Mary Dawson

The MPs are not prohibited from owning a business or conducting business. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries are strictly forbidden to do so, unless I allow for an exception. I can do so for a non-profit or charitable organization. However, those are the only types of businesses they can be connected to.

In fact, I have made a recommendation for the requirement to be changed and to have a test to determine whether there is a conflict of interest. It seems that this committee has agreed with the recommendation or has made the same one. It also seems that the government has agreed with that. This is one of several recommendations I have made that the committee has accepted. I have suggested that we change this rule that imposes an absolute prohibition on participation in those types of businesses.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson

Thank you very much, Mr. Gourde.

We'll now go to Mr. Andrews, please, for seven minutes.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Dawson, first let me congratulate you on your seven years. Time does certainly fly. Thank you for your service, and now your continued service on your reappointment as commissioner.

I'd like you to reflect upon the statutory review that we did of the act and your impressions of what we actually came out with. From my point of view, the report hardly reflected some of the testimony that we did hear from you and others. Can you give me some sort of idea of your disappointment or pleasure with the report that was tabled by this committee on the review of the act?

11:20 a.m.

Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

Mary Dawson

Yes. I was rather disappointed with the report.

There were a few things that were accepted, but there were a few things that seemed to be quite problematic, the first one being the public office holder definition, which I've discussed already. What would be envisaged there would be an entirely different system, it seems to me, if that's the route the government decides to take. Of course, if Parliament approves it, anything can be done, but it certainly isn't anything like the office I run.

There were a number of things I had proposed that I thought were fairly important and that didn't get picked up at all, such as the public office holders having some measure of reporting responsibilities. That's as opposed to reporting public office holders. I thought it would be very helpful for people with post-employment rules, particularly the one-year or two-year...whatever you call that—

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL

The moratorium.

11:20 a.m.

Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

Mary Dawson

Whatever you call that period of one or two years, it would be a good idea to have, I think, some reporting during that period on what you're up to.

I also had a fair bit to say about the divestment of controlled assets. I find that those rules are too broad. They apply to anybody who is a reporting public office holder. It includes chauffeurs. It includes all sorts of people that are drawn into the ministerial office. I think the more usual conflicts with that rule—or not conflicts—the usual places where it gives some people some trouble is with board members who don't have a particular connection with any.... They may have shares in some company, but they have absolutely nothing to do with that company in their day-to-day work. I think there's absolutely no discretion given to me to decide that I don't need to apply those rules, and of course it costs the government to repay the trustee fees, etc. That's one that didn't get mentioned.

Also, on the fundraising provisions, there was nothing said in the report here about them. I suggested as well that on the administrative monetary penalties, it's a little bit odd that they apply only to the limitation period, the delays for getting notices in, although there is a place for those regimes. I wondered whether there's a couple of substantive breaches that might be drawn into the administrative monetary penalty scheme when it's an open-and-shut case and there's no need for a full report to be made.

I also dropped the idea, in both the code and the act's five-year review.... There's concern about partisan activities sometimes going overboard. I'm not sure that my office would be the place to administer a code on partisan activities, but it seems to me that some attention should be given to at least establishing some guidelines or rules about partisan activities and behaviour of members.

I made also a whole bunch of suggestions for technical amendments, but I don't think the committee necessarily dismissed them; I think they just didn't.... Anyway....

A couple of things were picked up, and one was the harmonizing. I think there should be an attempt to harmonize the various vehicles. There's a dissonance between the Lobbying Act and some of those provisions and my act. There is a reason for it, I think, to some extent. It's not totally stupid that they are different, but where I think there could really be an improvement is in the members' code and the act, because a number of people are both members and ministers. For that one, I was happy to see a mention of that.

I know there are issues on the Senate as to whether they should be under the same regime. Then there's the outside activities we've talked about.

There are some nice things in the report, but I was disappointed with a lot of the omissions.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL

Thank you. I know that you had a number of recommendations, some technical in nature and a lot of substantive ones. Thanks for highlighting them.

What about the government's response to the report? Do we even see on the radar some of these changes actually being implemented? I don't think there has been very much action at all on the report.

11:25 a.m.

Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

Mary Dawson

I absolutely don't know. I mean, the government report was very quick. It was just a short page and a bit, and it basically endorsed the committee's recommendations. It said that it would consider how to move forward, basically. I have no idea whether the intention is to move forward or not.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL

You gave us an update on the Nigel Wright case or the status of that suspension. Can you give us an update on the other files that you have under investigation now as to whether they're ongoing or suspended, and how many you have on your plate right now?

11:25 a.m.

Nominee for the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner , As an Individual

Mary Dawson

Yes. I have two suspended ones; the other one is Mr. Carson. I have, I think, about five ongoing investigations or, in any event, open files. They may not all come up to investigation, but certainly some.... I'm definitely investigating, I think it's five.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Patricia Davidson

Thank you very much, Mr. Andrews.

We'll move to Mr. Hawn, please, for seven minutes.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Thank you, Madam Dawson, for being here.

I want to talk a bit about some of the investigations. You have self-initiated investigations and you also obviously respond to complaints. My understanding is that you do more self-initiated investigations than complaints. Complaints.... I mean, all of these things obviously take time, and some people think too long, but my understanding is that it's improving.

First of all, what criteria do you use to self-initiate an investigation? What prompts that? Do you think you're diverting attention away from complaints you receive that may or may not be more relevant?Those are the things that people are seeing out there, so to speak, and maybe they're not getting the attention they deserve because you're concentrating on self-initiated investigations.