Evidence of meeting #86 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 friend.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
What kind of procedure or process did you use to ensure that the test was applied fairly and appropriately?
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
You mentioned in your report that there was a test that applied. I'd just like you to explore or comment on that test you used and how it was applied.
As an Individual
I don't know quite how I used that. I'd have to look at the exact wording. Basically, if it's a gift, what you have to do is see whether it could be seen to have been given to influence you. You stand back and ask, “What would a reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus think?”, as they say in legalese. You try to stand back and take an objective reading of something.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Okay.
Also, in your analysis of section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act, you noted that there is no evidence that the treatment of the Aga Khan or his institutions by this Prime Minister was more favourable than by previous prime ministers. Is that correct?
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Given that, is it fair to say that while you concluded that certain behaviours might have been inappropriate, there does not appear to be any evidence that this trip changed the relationship between the Aga Khan and his institutions and the office of the Prime Minister, or the Aga Khan and his institutions and the Government of Canada?
As an Individual
You know what? I'm going to have to look at this. This is on section 7, is it?
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
You know what? Let's move to another question. I'll ask a more general question.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Some of us in the medical community from urban areas, whether small or large, tend to accumulate a lot of patients if we've been in medical practice for many years. In a smaller area, those patients tend to have interactions with us publicly and privately—that is, as patients and socially. Sometimes we have friends who become our patients, and sometimes we have patients who become our friends. In that scenario, could you comment on how one should approach the test of friendship and the definition of friendship? What guidelines should be followed?
As an Individual
There's a paragraph somewhere in this report in which I say that when you get into a position of power and there is some kind of a relationship that may be developing, watch out in the development of that friendship, because whenever you're in a position of power and somebody is in a position in which they're wanting to get something from you, that is a situation where you have to be very careful.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Do you think the term “friendship” should be defined in the act?
As an Individual
I don't think you could ever define it properly. The trouble is that it means many different things to different people.
Liberal
As an Individual
You know, friendship is used all the way through the act. It's in the quasi-definition of what a conflict of interest is. It applies on both sides of the scale—whether you can accept gifts or whether you can do favours when you're in a position. I think I mentioned as an aside in the course of my opening remarks that I'm not so sure it's very helpful to have that exception in the act, as I look at this whole situation. It isn't in the code. With regard to the “reasonably seen to have been given to influence”, there's a whole history on the code's gift thing, which I find interesting but which you probably don't want to hear about. There were a number of changes to that provision in the code. It was tightened up in about 2010. Anyway, it's never had an exception for friends specifically.
You take a look and ask yourself whether it could reasonably be seen, and that's a better test. In the act there's no way that having someone as a friend should always obviate the obligation under section 11. The real test should be whether it could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence you. Having that exception for friends confuses the situation. An improvement—not one of the original 89 amendments I suggested, or however many there were, but one that has occurred to me since—would be to maybe take a page out of the code's approach and not have that as a specific exception.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I want to talk to you about that specific recommendation. In 2013 you said that Parliament should try to harmonize the Conflict of Interest Act and the conflict of interest code for members.
Do you think that would be necessary? Do you think there would be benefits to harmonizing them?
January 10th, 2018 / 11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I think attempts should be made to harmonize them. I don't think it would be possible in all circumstances. Some rules need to be different.
I'm just saying that a lot of confusion is created through the use of slightly different terminology in the two. For example, the code covers relatives and the act covers family. Different terminology is used, and it has slightly different definitions. What I'm really saying with that recommendation is, for heaven's sake, take a look. I mean, the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries are under both the old act and the code. Sometimes it might be useful if the same rule were there if there weren't a reason for there to be a different rule. That's all I'm saying.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Thank you, Mr. Saini.
Up next for the five-minute round is Mr. Gourde.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Dawson, thank you for being here. I want to congratulate you...
As an Individual
I'm having some trouble hearing you. Also, since I am more comfortable in English, I will probably answer you in that language.