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.
9:55 a.m.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No investigation would be undertaken for accepting a gift worth $30.
9:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
She chose $30 as an arbitrary amount.
9:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Well, that depends. It's a judgment call. We will see; it is up to Parliament to decide. Currently, the limit is set at $200.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Currently, the limit is set at zero. You plan to move it from zero to another amount: $25, $30, or $50. Is that correct?
9:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That is correct. It's Parliament's decision.
9:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The limit of $200 was set more than 15 years ago now. It has not been indexed since, either.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I have one other small question on confidentiality.
If I understand, you want the right to do your investigation in confidence, if and when needed, and hold witnesses to confidentiality.
Let's say in a situation the person has a spurious accusation, it's not right at all, and you do your investigation and it's completely fabricated, but there's an old saying that “Where there's smoke, there's fire”, or someone is throwing mud on someone. After your investigation that has found the person who was accused completely innocent, why would the accuser then be allowed to go and have non-confidentiality post-investigation? If I understand that to be what you're saying, why would we not extend that to say, if someone has been found not guilty of something, there's no need for the public or anybody else to smear that person?
9:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Again, something that would have to be looked at is the credibility after an investigation has been duly conducted, after the report is made public. Somebody who continues with “something wrong has happened” would have a bit of an uphill battle to convince people that he or she was right when she made the complaint, and you cannot bar freedom of expression forever. There are things called libel and slander at a certain point, unless you have parliamentary privilege, of course, so you cannot with impunity say anything about anyone without consequences.
9:55 a.m.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There is also case law supporting the proposition that confidentiality orders should just be in place while the investigation is ongoing and that, once it's been concluded and there's been public reporting, it ought not to be extended. The courts have looked at that very issue and said it has to be time limited, and usually it's with the conclusion—
9:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Freedom of expression prevails.
9:55 a.m.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's correct.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
You have one more question, Mr. Picard, and then I have a few.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
I have just one question.
You've committed to continuing some of the major open investigations that were passed on to you by your predecessor. I'm just wondering, given we're getting into the pre-budget period right now, if you can offer any sort of timeline with regard to completion of the investigation into the finance minister.
9:55 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There's only one publicly known investigation involving the Minister of Finance, and I've already mentioned to the media that we are aiming to complete this investigation by the end of the spring. At this point, I think it's impossible that it will be completed prior to the usual time when budgets are tabled. It's impossible; it's almost inconceivable.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
I am not looking for a conclusion or an answer, because you have just started your mandate. But I am interested in your vision and your understanding of things.
I am following the lead of my colleague Mr. Baylis when he says that the essential problem is the influence rather than the amount of money. Each individual, each elected official, has a different network. Depending on people's professional situations, an amount of $200 can be good or not, high or not. In some settings, a five-hundred-dollar meal may be much more usual than in others. I am not talking about a recent case in which someone gave $300,000 to a very dear friend. However, the reality and the amounts can vary from one person to another. One individual might expect to have more influence by giving $300 than another professional network where amounts of $500 or $1,000 are, if I may say so without sounding arrogant, small change.
Who is to judge if there is any influence, if someone is accustomed to moving and talking in those kinds of professional circles? Goodness knows, people like that make no bones about criticizing, making comments and proposals, working and influencing, whether or not any gifts are involved, monetary or otherwise. As things stand, simply being part of a network can put you in a situation where you will be on the receiving end of what I would call “strong recommendations” at very least.
10 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Let me quote section 11, dealing with gifts:
11 (1) No public office holder or member of his or her family shall accept any gift…that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the public office holder…
It will be seen by others. It will not be seen.... It's general, what the reasonable man or person—I was taught “reasonable man” in law school, sorry—would conclude, given the circumstances, including the nature of the network you're talking about, including the customs and the habits in the case at hand, essentially. That would be a part of what would be—
10 a.m.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Generally, the intentions of the person providing the gift are not considered. Nor is the possibility that the person receiving the gift is likely to be influenced. So the criterion applied really is about the reasonable person.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Which standards define a reasonable person? We have a lot of reasonable people here, from various backgrounds: what are the standards?
10 a.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The commissioner is the reasonable person who will make the decision.
10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Ha, ha!
10 a.m.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's right