Evidence of meeting #6 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was conacher.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Mr. Conacher, thank you very much for being here today. Your dedication to ethics over the past 32 years is very honourable.
Do you consider the Prime Minister's personal investments to be a serious ethical issue? I think we know the answer, but I would still like to hear your opinion.
Co-founder, Board Member and Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Can you repeat your question? My earpiece isn't working.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Okay. Do you think the Prime Minister is currently in a blatant conflict of interest, whether apparent or actual? The way you analyze it, do you see a lot of conflicts of interest?
Co-founder, Board Member and Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Yes, the Prime Minister, pretty much any time he's making a decision that affects businesses in Canada, is in a financial conflict of interest.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Do you think our current structure is able to handle a conflict of interest? Do you think the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is equipped enough to deal with a situation like this that has never been seen before?
Co-founder, Board Member and Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
The Ethics Commissioner has recommended expanding the number of secret investments you can have. He views an investment in an ETF, because you don't control it, to not be a financial conflict of interest. Of course, it is. Just because you don't control it...but you know what it's invested in. An ETF can be industry-specific, so can a mutual fund, and he wants to allow those to be invested. He also wants to expand the “broad class of persons” loophole to match what is in the MP code.
Both of those are going to weaken the act and make it even more possible to participate in decisions when you have financial conflicts of interest and to have secret investments—which you know about but the public doesn't know about—that cause financial conflicts of interest. He's saying, “No, when you're making a general decision, you're not in a conflict of interest because it's not about one company.” Yes, it is, because it's about your investments and you could profit from that decision. His attitude is negligently weak, unfortunately, concerning conflicts of interest, and he enforces the Conflict of Interest Act.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Do you think that, for the first time in history, the door is being opened to people who enter politics to use the system to enrich themselves and further their personal interests rather than those of Canadians? Are we trying to attract these people instead of people who are truly committed to improving the living conditions of Canadians in every province? Do you think that a loophole is being opened?
Co-founder, Board Member and Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Yes, very much so. Hopefully, the committee will look at the entire list of “dirty dozen” loopholes, close them all and also strengthen enforcement in key ways—and the penalties. There are zero penalties. The Ethics Commissioner has recommended a maximum $3,000 fine. That's meaningless, as most of these people the act covers are making $220,000-plus. A maximum $3,000 fine is not going to discourage anyone.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
I'm glad you brought this up, because I wanted to talk about it.
In our system, the consequence of a demonstrated conflict of interest is like a slap on the wrist compared to all the money the conflict of interest may have brought in. I gather you think the conflict of interest laws should be much stricter.
For example, if someone made money on the backs of Canadians, not only should the person have to pay it all back, but they should also have to pay a penalty based on a percentage of the amount that was paid back. In short, we should be stricter.
Co-founder, Board Member and Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Yes, the laws across Canada for parking illegally are more clear and effective, the fines are higher and parking illegally almost never causes a problem, except when you're in front of a hydrant and there's a fire—then your windows get broken by the firefighters. The laws for parking illegally across Canada are stricter and stronger, and the penalties are higher for violating them than for violating this law, even though it's one of the most important laws protecting democratic government in Canada. That's why I call it a sad joke of a law.
It also doesn't apply 99% of the time, so it's almost impossible to be in a conflict of interest. When you're caught, you get a report saying you're in a conflict of interest. There has to be a sliding scale of penalties that are mandatory and go up with the more power you have, to really discourage these violations.
Also, all the loopholes have to be closed. If apparent conflicts of interest were added to the act, it would be meaningless because you're still allowed to be in an apparent conflict of interest 99% of the time. Unless you close the “general application” and “broad class of persons” loopholes, you are doing nothing to change the status quo, which allows for unethical, corrupt behaviour.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Conacher.
Thank you, Mr. Hardy.
As a former firefighter, there were lots of times when I wanted to break the glass of cars that were parked in front of a water main. I never did, though.
Monsieur Sari, go ahead.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Conacher, thank you for your testimony and for being here today. You mentioned parking regulations. Unfortunately, in Canada, people don't always respect them, or for that matter the lanes reserved for firefighters and buses.
That said, one of my colleagues and you said today that the ultimate goal was to avoid or outright eliminate what is called “the appearance of conflict of interest”.
Can you tell me quickly, yes or no, whether it's possible to eliminate the appearance of a conflict of interest?
Co-founder, Board Member and Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
It is a perception standard. It is subjective, but you do have an enforcer of the law who would be making the decision as to how a reasonable person, reasonably well informed, would view the situation. The Ethics Commissioner would be the one drawing the line.
It does exist in British Columbia as a standard in their conflict of interest act for members of the B.C. legislature.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Yes, but it's a perception standard or decision, as you said yourself.
I want to go back to the terminology itself. This is very important, because we are talking about the technical details, which is your area of expertise.
The term “general application exemption” is often, as you rightly said, a loophole. This makes it possible to set aside the interest analysis, including the pecuniary component, which is significant. As an expert in the field, what specific, less subjective and operational replacement language would you recommend?
Bloc
Co-founder, Board Member and Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
This is not working.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We'll have to take a time out here and figure out what's going on.
I've stopped the clock, Mr. Sari.
We'll make sure everything is working.
You can try again now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I think we're good now.
Mr. Sari, I stopped the clock at three minutes just now.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I'll be sharing my time with Ms. Lapointe. I just want to get back to my question and then I'll let her take over.
Conservative
Liberal
