Evidence of meeting #90 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 gift.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
However, we can sense when someone hesitates, when they present a situation under a certain lens to avoid having it viewed under another one.
9:30 a.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Indeed.
9:30 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We are smart enough to ask questions to learn more on a given subject, on things people would rather keep to themselves.
It's like your annual income tax returns: They're only investigated when there are reasons to believe that you are cheating. If not, they are simply accepted.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
MPs have the option to meet with the commissioner to ask if they are allowed to make certain trips. Should it be automatic as of a certain amount, or should it remain a matter of good faith, even if we're talking about amounts of $150,000 and more, maybe even up to $500,000?
9:30 a.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The act says that it it is mandatory to disclose gifts or other advantages when their total value exceeds $200. However, there are exceptions. For example, a public office holder would not be obliged to communicate with the office of the commissioner if they receive a gift from their family worth $200 or more, because they are not obligated to make a disclosure in this situation.
The test in section 11 does not always call for the commissioner to get involved. In fact, public office holders can find themselves in a situation where they might ponder the potential influence a gift may have. If the public office holders decide that this isn't the case, they do not need to communicate with the office of the commissioner.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
We are unfortunately beyond five minutes.
Next up we have Mr. Picard.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask you some questions on political financing.
The act, as it is written, does not allow anyone to finance their own campaign. All candidates are required to seek funding for their electoral campaigns. All parliamentary secretaries and ministers are primarily MPs, and they will eventually all be candidates again.
I have a problem to present to you. It is highly probable that at least one company or individual in a candidate's riding will ostensibly create a conflict of interest by donating money to the candidate, especially if the candidate is a parliamentary secretary or a minister, because there's always this notion of “scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours”. In these circumstances, does the candidate have a choice or not?
I'm not sure that the “I'll scratch yours” part applies for a $1,500 donation, because the impact on the total amount raised for the campaign isn't big enough. However, the court of public opinion doesn't care about the amount donated: It casts its verdict on the donation alone.
As the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, what is your position on the obligation that all candidates must evaluate the average value of their campaigns, and, by law, raise funds accordingly? It's a bit ridiculous for some candidates who have the means to finance their own campaigns, but the law requires them to raise funds. The candidates then ask the public to pay for their campaigns, because they are forced to do so. This restrictive approach disadvantages those who have greater public responsibilities.
9:30 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Does your question relate to the participation of a minister or a parliamentary secretary in a fund-raising activity?
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
I was mostly referring to the candidates' circumstances, not an invitation from the party to increase the popularity of an event.
9:30 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I haven't looked into that issue at all. I would rather answer you later, because I don't have the necessary resources to give an opinion this morning. I will send my answer to the Committee via the clerk.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Thank you for doing so.
I want to address a question of principle. You have public trust in your organization and ours at heart, and that is essential. I think that it is a noble cause, even a compulsory one.
However, at the same time, you are suggesting that the commissioner have a firmer role: the ability to impose fees or penalties; obligations on matters of confidentiality; and even the authority to prohibit the media from sharing certain information. You're proposing to have much more control over information, which is contrary to your desire for transparency, in my opinion.
9:35 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We actually do suspend transparency until we have reached a conclusion on the guilt or innocence of the person whose conduct has given rise to the complaint. We do suspend transparency
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We suspend the transparency until an appropriate analysis has been done and the right of the person to be heard has been upheld. So transparency is suspended, very temporarily.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Does the mandatory training you are suggesting, which seems to be just common sense to me, also become an administrative argument from a human resources point of view? Does it become a tool that would let you act more convincingly in carrying out the actions you are proposing, because no one could plead ignorance?
9:35 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, that would be one of the results.
I feel that the large majority are people of good faith. They will have at least one opportunity to educate themselves and to learn what they must comply with. It's a matter of principle, actually.
It is doable. It is quite a focused field. We could provide training that would give a very good idea of what can and cannot be done. It would also indicate who to go to when you want to discuss something before you do it.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
You mentioned the ratio of your two roles, priest and policeman.
Is your police role like it is in England, in that you carry no firearms?
9:35 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
True, we do not carry much in the way of firearms at the moment.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
Thanks very much.
Our next five minutes go to Mr. Kent.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
I'd like to discuss whether, in your recommendations for improvements to the act, you might discuss or consider post-employment provisions as they are today, such as the cooling-off period. There have been voices raised in complaint that the five-year provision is too stringent, that perhaps it should be reduced.
Could we have your thoughts on that, please, sir?
9:35 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The five-year rule essentially only attaches to the possibility for somebody to act as a lobbyist. I guess your committee will have to address this question with my newly appointed colleague, the commissioner of lobbying.
The limitations that I'm responsible for relate to one year in the case of public office holders, and two years in the case of ministers and parliamentary secretaries—
9:35 a.m.
Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Ministers.
9:35 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
—ministers only, and it's not about lobbying.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Any such consideration on that side, of course.... There have been recommendations from previous commissioners that the two offices should in fact be functioning with more integration, if not actually merged again. What are your thoughts on that?