Evidence of meeting #150 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We are working hard to produce a report within the next few months.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
With regard to the other three matters, one of them, I assume, is member Vandenbeld. The other two matters are of what nature, sir? Please refresh—
4:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
According to our research, they are not currently in the public domain. One of them is not in the public domain, but the report will be issued in a couple of weeks, so you'll find out two weeks from now what the third matter is. The fourth matter is the situation involving MP Grewal, and that is in the public domain.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Right.
Jumping back just a bit now to the allegations regarding the Prime Minister or others in his office or in other ministerial offices, has the Prime Minister been co-operative? I recall that for your predecessor, in the investigation of the illegal vacation on the Aga Khan's island, it took some months for the Prime Minister to make himself available for conversations. Has he been more available in this situation?
4:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I think it's fair to say that we are very pleased with both the speed and the extent of the co-operation at this point in time.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Okay, thank you.
Moving now to the discussion earlier of the work you've been doing with the lobbying commissioner and the webinars, I think the webinars were very helpful, very informative. Surely you're aware of the Federal Court's direction to the current lobbying commissioner to reopen the investigation of the other side of the Trudeau report with regard to the illegal gift, on one hand, accepted by the Prime Minister and the fact that the lobbying commissioner's predecessor found nothing wrong with the lobbying side of that relationship.
Have you had a chance to talk with the new lobbying commissioner about the fact that this is exactly the sort of situation where if wrongdoing is found on one side of an officer of a Parliament and a lobbyist, there must be wrongdoing on the other side?
4:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
First of all, I think I would like to use this occasion, Mr. Chair, to point out that the lobbying commissioner and I never discuss, of course, any ongoing investigation we may be carrying out. It's a bit premature to conclude what the result of the new investigation into the Aga Khan she will be launching will be, but I understand the member's question. I spoke about an overlap. There are rules in the code concerning lobbyists concerning gifts they make to either members of Parliament or public office holders.
There are rules in the act and in the code. There is an obvious connection between these provisions. The lobbying commissioner and I are simply trying to explain to our constituents, if you wish, or the stakeholders, our interpretation of these rules and how they.... Our interpretations are not inconsistent, by the way. They are quite consistent, if not completely consistent. We're trying to emphasize to people that it's actually possible to respect both sets of rules at the same time and, as the member pointed out, it's actually possible to violate both sets of rules at the same time.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Would you think a more explicit definition of “gift or benefit” would be helpful? I'm thinking back now to the Supreme Court judgment written by Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, in which she had a number of very precise definitions that I don't believe are actually written into either your act or the Lobbying Act.
4:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I hesitate to answer this question on the spur of the moment. The definition of “gift” is quite extensive in our act and in the code as well. It's any advantage, any benefit received by a member, but I would like to take this one under advisement, if the chair agrees, because it's tough. I do not recall the judgment that the member's referring to as well.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Thank you, Commissioner and Mr. Kent.
Next up for seven minutes, we have a visitor.
Welcome back, Mr. Cullen. Go ahead.
May 16th, 2019 / 4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
A visitor, that sounds so “stranger in the House” and somehow intimidating.
Commissioner, it's nice to see you. I'm glad you have returned and I hope your health is well.
4:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It's very well.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You have important work to do on behalf of Canadians, but we are people too and I'm glad to see you back and on the job.
4:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Thank you very much.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I had some similar questions as to the outstanding reports. I guess three out of the four have been identified. We will wait with bated breath to find out what the fourth one was.
I have one small question. Has your senior counsel had to recuse herself—I believe her name is Ms. Richard—from one of the ongoing investigations?
4:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Can you remind me of section 9? This was the focus of the report and the potential violation that your office detailed when—
4:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I have it right in front of me. I will quickly read it. It says, “No public office holder shall use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person” so as to further the private interests of somebody in his family “or to improperly further another person's private interests.”
That's the section. It's about using your position to seek to influence a decision in order to improperly further another person's private interests. That's the focus of our investigation in the Trudeau matter.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right, because in that matter of Trudeau, the question of inappropriate pressure has been sometimes at the heart of other conversations. Section 9 doesn't really deal with that aspect or any interpretation of what is inappropriate. It's simply the seeking to influence. Is that right?
4:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's right.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay.
Can you explain something? Some Canadians have asked me about dealing with ethics and violations of the ethics act under a scenario in which someone, say Mr. Erskine-Smith, received a lovely painting from somebody who was seeking to influence him and it was deemed by your office to be inappropriate.
Would a normal recourse be for an MP in that position to return the gift that was deemed inappropriate or in violation of the ethics act?
4:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's right. That would be the normal recourse. Most of the time we suggest that people do that and they are doing that—returning it.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I would never suggest that Mr. Erskine-Smith would ever even receive such a thing, but let's go further.
If somebody having dealings with the government were then to offer travel and it had some monetary value, expensive travel as was the case with the Aga Khan, I'm not understanding why.... There is no return of the gift because you can't. It's an experience, a trip, but certainly there's the value of the gift if the office holder had gone out and simply purchased that gift, purchased that travel, which would have been more appropriate, rather than receiving a gift.
Why do we not have within the act the notion that, as in the case of the painting that was received illegally, for a gift in the form of a sponsored trip that was also deemed to be inappropriate or illegal, the value of that trip would also have to be compensated for?
Am I making myself clear? I know it may be a too commonsensical kind of approach, but what's the difference?
4:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
First of all, I would like to complete my earlier answer by saying that we only intervene when the gift is actually disclosed. There are several disclosures each month, but I'm convinced there could be gifts that are not always disclosed. Of course, we cannot do anything if they are not being disclosed.
If disclosed, we suggest that the gift be returned. Sometimes we suggest that the gift be reimbursed as well when it's not actually possible to return it because it was a show or a public event that has already taken place.
I have no power to order. We simply provide advice to people who disclose a gift. In the example of a trip for instance, the advice may be given that somebody should reimburse the cost of the trip, but I don't have any tools in the act to actually force the execution of my advice.