Evidence of meeting #12 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charity.
A video is available from Parliament.
As an Individual
I mean that we can't catch them all. That's exactly why I highlighted in my opening remarks that our most important work is to educate, to be available for consultations and to give advice.
You know, there are going to be ethical breaches that slip through the cracks, and there always will be, because somebody will not be paying attention.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
In your opinion, based on the work you did in the past, during your tenure, these things were coming up from time to time and were dealt with appropriately, one way or the other, through your investigative work.
As an Individual
I sure hope so. I did the best I could to make a good decision in all my investigations.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Out of curiosity, when you were doing your investigative work, would you often regard cases differently where you determined that the individual had knowingly gone against the act versus one who may have done it unintentionally?
As an Individual
Yes. In my reports, I have quite often commented on how these things happened. I tried to make my reports quite fulsome, explaining the circumstances as they were, so....
I sort of lost the train of the question.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
What I was getting at is that there have been a lot of questions, at least a few from the other side of the table, that were asking, after your second finding, whether the penalty should be greater. I respect the fact that you're basically saying that it's not the position of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to make that assessment and it would have to be a criminal charge, etc. You got that point across.
I'm trying to differentiate between the seriousness of repercussions for somebody who intentionally did something versus somebody who didn't. What's your opinion on that?
As an Individual
I think malice or forethought, or whatever, would be taken into account. Again, I go back to the section that says it's a condition of your employment or appointment.
My reports, and I'm sure the current commissioner's reports, spell out the circumstances. It's for people to read.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I want to get to the point about when you're supposed to be declaring this. When you say it's a conflict of interest that relates to an individual who is a family member, a friend or a relative, I think it goes without saying that you have to know in advance that the conflict exists. Otherwise every single time somebody makes a decision, they would have to talk to every relative and friend they have to find out if they have some kind of association with the organization.
Would that be correct?
As an Individual
Well, the test in section 6, for example, is “if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know”. It's not necessarily that they actually know, but if they're willfully blind or something, in other words if they're not paying attention, they reasonably should know, so it's a reasonable man test.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Okay.
This committee's work is to determine some recommendations to possibly put forward. I realize that having a conflict is pretty much a binary choice: either you do or you don't. But there would also be different times when the threshold might be greater or lower in terms of the amount.
When considering how to go about establishing the degree to which you personally must look into the various relationships or conflicts that you might have within relationships, do you think that consideration should be given to the dollar amount associated with the perceived conflict? Should there be a threshold where different tests are put in place?
As an Individual
Philosophically maybe.... The contravention is a contravention, but the facts will be there on the face of the report. It will be there for all to see how big a thing this was.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you, Ms. Dawson.
We're moving into a two-and-half-minute round.
The floor goes to Mr. Fortin.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Dawson, let us indulge in fantasy. Let's say I am Prime Minister of Canada and you are the ethics commissioner. I consult you and I tell you that I have an important decision to make. We are getting ready to award a contract of $43.5 million to an organization to manage $900 million in student grants. I tell you that, given the emergency, the decision must be made in an unusual way, that is to say without calling for tenders. I also tell you that there has been no full due diligence of the company to confirm its ability to run the program.
Then I tell you that the organization in question has, in the last two years, paid my mother a quarter of a million dollars for speaking engagements. I tell you that the organization has also paid several tens of thousands of dollars to my brother for the same things, that the organization retains the services of my wife as an ambassador, and that I myself have spoken on behalf of the organization and encouraged people to work with it.
Lastly, Madam Ethics Commissioner, I tell you that the situation is troubling me, and I am asking you for some clarity.
Should I participate in the decision-making process? What advice would you give me?
As an Individual
I would say it is your decision, because it is the person who has to decide. But if they were aware of all these issues, I would point out the ethical issues. It's not necessarily clear-cut that a relationship a member of the family had at some point will continue in the future, or whatever. The circumstances of each case are quite different. That's the thing that has to be teased out in the course of looking at all the circumstances surrounding something.
The way you've presented this case doesn't have all the details you need to determine something. The Ethics Commissioner would show the pitfalls and do the best to give advice. Probably the best advice would be to avoid the situation if you possibly can, because it's dangerous.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you.
Now let us add, that, as the decision is being made, I realize that the organization that is going to have the management of the program entrusted to it, is not the one I thought, but another organization with which the first has close ties. The second organization has no financial history and no staff, to my knowledge, and there was no due diligence that allows me to determine whether or not the organization is financially viable.
What advice would you give me?
As an Individual
It was what? Sorry, I missed.... I think the translation missed the last couple of words there. You're positing a case of choices to be made, I think. Maybe you could just say in a nutshell what it is you're asking. I think the translation missed a bit there. I'm sorry.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
The interpretation is not my responsibility. I am sorry that the system is having problems, but, unfortunately, I do not control it. I am going to repeat my question.
Now let us add, that, as the decision is being made, and the contract is being signed, I realize that the entity that is going to be given the contract is not the one I thought, but another entity with ties to it. The second entity has no financial history or staff, and has been incorporated for one or two years only. In addition, no due diligence was done.
What advice would you give me?
As an Individual
I would advise caution. I would advise to go back to the people who are recommending this happen and see what the rationale is, and hesitate. If there's no assurance about something that's important, you wouldn't go ahead.
Conservative
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
We've heard that ethics has been defined as a situation and that it's a learning, as you suggested today. During your tenure at the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, how often did the Prime Minister request your advice?