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.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
It's probably cutting out because we have a few members who are speaking to one another across the floor rather than through the chair. If they would speak through the chair, I think we could avoid that problem.
I would ask, for the record, Mrs. Shanahan, whether you are directly quoting Mr. Conacher from yesterday.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
From Mr. Conacher.
I'm asking in relation to investigations. You clearly spoke to examinations that may or may not have been happening at the same time. I just want to get your reaction, Ms. Dawson. How does this affect the work of the Ethics Commissioner?
5 p.m.
As an Individual
I obviously don't agree with some of Mr. Conacher's comments. I found a number of people to have contravened the act. I do believe in applying the law as it's written and not making up aspects of the law. I can point out that, on a number of occasions, Mr. Conacher took me to the courts on a judicial review and was never successful. It was just a whole series of judicial reviews.
Different people approach legislation in different ways. Some people go beyond the mandate. I try to read the law as it reads. But you know what? By the same token, I've seen Mr. Conacher make sensible suggestions on a number of occasions and actually say some sensible things. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's not an idiot.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Well, thank you for that. In your earlier statement, you referred to the fact that the Ethics Commissioner has the full power of a court to call witnesses and obtain documents. Does the Ethics Commissioner need our help in conducting his or her investigations?
5 p.m.
As an Individual
No, I don't think so, but it doesn't hurt. All the Ethics Commissioner can do is take account of what's on the public record and go from there.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Okay.
One thing that Mr. Conacher did say yesterday, in response to a question, was that the partisan public discourse around any ethics investigation is not helpful. How would you respond to that?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
You alluded to misunderstandings in the media and so on.
5 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes.
Opposition parties will say nasty things about the current government and vice versa, and some of the things that are said are exaggerated. I proposed and acted on a proposal to amend the members' code. It's not in the act but a member is not allowed to make false statements. There's a little provision in there, and I've forgotten exactly how it reads now. That was a problem, when people would make baseless allegations.
It doesn't happen all the time. Obviously whichever party you're in, you're looking to find the foibles of the other party; that's politics but it shouldn't go too far.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you.
I'm going to move over to Mr. Fortin for six minutes, please.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for joining us, Ms. Dawson.
You talked earlier about the definition of a conflict of interest. Could it not be said that a conflict of interest is an intrinsic problem, inherent to an individual?
From the moment I begin to wonder whether I am in a conflict of interest situation, because divergent interests are worrying me, am I not already in a conflict of interest situation? I may not have done anything wrong, but does not being in a conflict of interest situation come specifically from the fact that I am wondering whether I have the opportunity to favour the interests of one party or another?
5 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, but that's only the definition of a conflict of interest. That's not a contravention section; it's just a definition.
You have to look at the definition. For example, it's of relevance to the recusal provision, because if you feel that you're in a conflict of interest you have to also look at, for example, section 6. It's probably the most obvious one; you can't then participate in making a decision if you have one of these conflict of interest situations.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
From the moment you begin to wonder or you have a doubt, a conflict of interest exists. You have not done anything wrong yet, but, if, despite that doubt, you participate in a debate or a decision, you are doing something wrong.
Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
No. You have to look at a substantive provision in the act. Section 4 is not a substantive provision, it's a definitional provision. Unfortunately.... I've always advocated—in fact, that's one of my 75 recommendations—it should go in the definition section, because it's confusing to people. They think it's a substantive rule and it isn't.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Fine, but let me give you an example. Let's say my mother received a quarter of a million dollars from a company, my brother received tens of thousands of dollars from the company, and my wife also received money as an ambassador.
Doesn't the fact that those interests become mixed up in my mind with the state interest indicate that there is a conflict of interest and I should therefore refrain from participating in a decision?