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.
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't think you'd ever get a decent set of indicia on what a friend is.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Is there any worry with the definition of “reasonably seen to influence”? I'll use an example of a friend of mine giving me a gift on my birthday or at Christmas. They also happen to be a registered lobbyist, and I'm a public office holder. Probably why the “friend” exception is there in the first place is to codify what a reasonable person might expect, which is that when you get a gift from a friend in the ordinary course of that friendship, it's not seen to reasonably influence you.
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, but you know, it seems to me that you could say to your friend, “Look, we have a situation here. Right now you're looking for something from my office, so could we desist with the gifts for a while?” or—
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
—“Let's both pay for our lunch”, or whatever. If he's a good friend, for heaven's sake, why can't you say that to him?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
We could improve the act and make it more stringent in the sense that by removing the “friend” exception, we could make it very clear to public office holders, while they are public office holders, to hit “pause” on—
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, it would make it clear.... I think it would just remove a bunch of confusion from it.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Sure. That confusion maybe led to this situation in the first place.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
We have a motion, which was previously approved, to discuss your 2013 recommendations. We'll now have Mr. Dion before us to discuss potential recommendations of this committee with respect to the Conflict of Interest Act. Would you want to add anything to your testimony today, not specific to “The Trudeau Report” but specific to the recommendations that we perhaps ought to make as a committee in relation to the Conflict of Interest Act more generally?
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm sure I could probably dream some up. Those recommendations were made five years ago, and I think—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Yes, so I guess the question is.... You've added removing the “friend” exception to your 2013 recommendations. Would you simply say that otherwise you stand behind your 2013 recommendations?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
There are no other additional recommendations you would make.
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm sure there are some, because every year when I do an annual report, I probably have recommendations that are not listed in that five-year thing. I've made recommendations over the years. This is a new one: just take “friend” out. I hadn't put that in any annual report and I won't get to do another annual report, but the source of my recommendations is not only this five-year review.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Okay. We can ask the analyst to pull out any recommendations from the annual reports, but if you do think of other recommendations that you, as the former commissioner, would want this committee to review and consider in the course of our study of the Conflict of Interest Act, would you submit those in writing so we don't waste any more of your time?
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, but I won't submit them in writing unless I know you want to hear from me or you're going to look at them or something.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Certainly. We've adopted a motion that says we want to hear from you, so we certainly do want to hear from you, and we will want to hear from Mr. Dion. The fact of the matter is there's you and there's Mr. Dion who has just taken on the role, and I think it would be very useful for this committee to understand what reflections you, with your experience, would have, and what changes we have to make.
We had started to explore this idea of world leaders, and you indicted that the Pope was the closest thing to the Aga Khan in terms of an analogy. The Pope and the Vatican council are hosting a conference in, I think, April. One of the items in that conference is healthy eating and promoting healthy eating around the world. If they invite world leaders and they say, “We'll pay for you to stay for the purpose of the conference, and we're pushing you to spend money on healthy eating strategies globally and in your domestic countries”, is there a concern about accepting the gift of the stay at the residence or the hotel?
12:20 p.m.
As an Individual
There's a difference. If a gift is broadly offered, then it's usually not a problem. I've looked at lots of examples of that over the years. If you invite all of the MPs to something or other, that's fine, but if you target some of them....
Another thing I want to say is that people are always talking about lobbyists. The act that I administered doesn't focus on lobbyists: it focuses on stakeholders, and they're a much broader group than just lobbyists. Just remember that just because you're not a lobbyist doesn't mean you're not necessarily caught.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
The simplest answer for us as politicians and for public office holders is to make sure we confirm in writing with the Ethics Commissioner in advance of undertaking any action or accepting any gift to ensure that we're compliant with the law.
12:25 p.m.
As an Individual
If you have doubt, yes, or you phone up and talk to an adviser and just talk it through.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.
Next up, for seven minutes, is Peter Kent.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Your last answer provides a nice segue into my next question.
In the addendum to your report and your list of witnesses, you included a written submission from the Aga Khan and from four other representatives of Aga Khan organizations or the Ismaili Council for Canada. With regard to lobbyists, you've noted before that lobbyists used to be covered by the conflict of interest protocols and so forth. You have noted, as you did today, that public office holders are defined in quite a different way by the Ethics Commissioner, in the Conflict of Interest Act, and under lobbying.