Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 10th, 2018

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

You are on record as saying that the only person the lobbyist commissioner is concerned about is the lobbyist. You're concerned with both sides, and you've recommended in the past that in fact you believe the two offices should be joined one way or the other. I'm wondering, because of the exceptional circumstances in this case, whether there is yet work to be done by the lobbyist commissioner with regard to the other side of “The Trudeau Report”.

[Mary Dawson]

I can't speak for the lobbying commissioner.

As you say, lobbying rules used to be under the conflict of interest regime. There's certainly a good rationale for putting them together. The thing that's kind of unusual about the Lobbying Act is the power for the lobbying commissioner to establish some rules. That's not usual with somebody who is administering an act. I don't establish any of the rules that I'm administering; I just interpret them and apply them. For the commissioner to be able to establish the rules is an unusual power.

My feeling on whether the two should go together depends on the extent of the.... There's nothing that necessitates their being connected and consistent with each other. There's terminology used under the lobbying regime that is the same as what's used under my former regime, but it means different things. It's very confusing. There are a number of terms there, and I'd have to dig them out. Care needs to be given to make sure...and it's the same with the difference that I mentioned between the code and the act.

In the code, by the way—it must have been with the recommendations for the code—it's not organized very well. I did a bunch of drafts because I'm a former drafter, of all things, so I actually did a number of drafts as to how the code could be better presented. There are lots of technical improvements that could be made to these things, but none of them is earth-shaking.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Just to come back, do you believe there are any loose ends, as a result of “The Trudeau Report”, that are beyond your purview and that would be better considered by the lobbying commissioner?

[Mary Dawson]

No, not per se. I haven't thought that through.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Okay.

In the past you've also suggested that some of the considerations of friends and associates in the Conflict of Interest Act be broadened in terms of who is covered. I would assume that would be in your continuing list of recommendations for Parliament, for—

[Mary Dawson]

Do you mean who's covered by the...? By what?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The code and the act, in terms of friends and—

[Mary Dawson]

No. I was talking about relatives and the family. There's different terminology.

It's worth looking at. I mentioned that in one of my recommendations.

As well, I was very pleased that at the end of the last government, a number of amendments were made under the code. For example, they went from the $500 limit for reporting gifts to $200. A number of good changes were made, but there were still a whole bunch under the code that had been recommended that weren't looked at, particularly the technical ones.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Right.

When your 2013 recommendations were presented to government, it was quite a long list.

[Mary Dawson]

I think there were 87 or something. There were masses of them.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

If you were to revisit that list of recommendations today, would it be the same list? For example, I think the recommendation or the advice to close the ministerial loophole between divesting and blind trusts was in there, but it wasn't at the top of your list. Would you reshuffle your priorities today?

[Mary Dawson]

I think that one has captured people's attention—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

It has now.

[Mary Dawson]

—and why not?

Just to explain why I didn't go beyond what.... First of all, I had recommended that the amendment be made in 2013, so then how could I start interpreting it in a different way? That's one thing. Also, in making my decision on how to interpret that, I looked at masses of other legislation, parallel legislation, either in other jurisdictions or in financial-type legislation federally, and almost to an act it says “direct or indirect”. In my act, it just said nothing, so you have to interpret that by looking at all the other uses in the legislation. That was the rationale behind that interpretation.

There are masses of things I could say about that area. There's much controversy amongst certain circles as to whether conflict of interest screens are appropriate. Conflict of interest screens are an additional mechanism to cover situations that aren't covered well by divestment.

I have recommendations relating to divestment that go to.... I think it's overly broad for some people. It matters if you have controlled assets. In many situations, it matters. You should get rid of them—put them in a trust—but in some cases, if somebody holds a public office that has nothing whatsoever to do with that and would never have a power that they could use with respect to the particular holding they have, sometimes that's a bit draconian. Some people like to manage their financial affairs, and I think there should be a conflict test in there for certain levels of people. There are a lot of interesting things in that area that could be fixed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

Next up, for seven minutes, is Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can I stay with that conflict test for a moment?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Sure, there might be a public office holder who has no influence on a certain field where they may own some assets, but as you move up the chain of influence—

[Mary Dawson]

Precisely. Every time you change your position, you have to reassess.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Particularly if you move up to places such as Prime Minister and cabinet minister, the field of influence you have grows dramatically, so you would imagine that the measures people would have to take if they want to have that job should also grow. With great power comes that great responsibility.

[Mary Dawson]

Right.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

To be clear, this loophole that exists.... I don't know what you want to call it; I'll call it a loophole or an escape clause. It says that if something is directly controlled, here are all the rules that guide an office-holder, a cabinet minister—

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—but if it's indirect, if it's in a numbered company, if it's....

[Mary Dawson]

Then we look for other measures. There's—