Evidence of meeting #8 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 rules.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
There are currently costs that go with the management of blind trusts as well. Who pays to manage the trust?
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
You talked about the act being “toothless”. If we were to give it real teeth by allowing meaningful fines.... You did speak to what you thought were material or immaterial amounts, and you referenced jail time, saying that no one is getting arrested or paying fines. Would $10,000 fines for serious, ethical breaches—instead of just limiting penalties to paperwork errors—serve as sufficient deterrence for the people who would hold these offices?
Lawyer, As an Individual
I think making something an offence and allowing for prosecution and conviction by the courts, with real fines or imprisonment, is the way to do it, but I'll add, in response to the question, that this may mean some things go out of the law.
The problem with making this an act and not having penalties is that you're actually giving the illusion that it means something. Most of the time when Parliament enacts something, it adds penalties. We have laws that govern marine transportation, railways, airports, customs and all that. Generally, when Parliament legislates, those who break the rules are subject to either administrative monetary penalties or, most often, prosecution and real penalties. The problem with this act is that it's kind of illusory. It looks like it means something because it's in an act, but it's not there.
The answer to the question is that I think there should be real penalties, including the possibility of jail time, but that may mean some rules have to be stripped out of the act if they are the kinds of rules that ought not to be amenable to those harsher consequences.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Giorno.
Mr. Sari, you have the floor for six minutes.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Giorno, earlier Mr. Thurlow stated that the concept of an apparent conflict of interest should not be enshrined in the act.
Do you agree with him?
Lawyer, As an Individual
I don't agree that the appearance of conflict should be ignored. I'll tie it back to what I said a second ago. Whether it is something that should subject somebody to imprisonment or a harsh penalty is a different story.
The reality is that one of the reasons we have this act and the codes before it is that there was an understanding not just that there must be integrity in our national public institutions, but that Canadians must be able to have confidence that there is integrity. Perception is not just window dressing. Perception is substantively important to the future of our institutions because public confidence is essential to their continuation.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
During the last legislative session, the idea was put forward that Parliament should consider combining certain functions, notably those of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner.
What are your thoughts on this?
Lawyer, As an Individual
I don't agree with it either. I think they're regulating different people. One is regulating the private sector. One is regulating public office holders.
The commissioner has already pooled responsibility for different public office holders—members of Parliament, for example, and then POHs and reporting public officers under the code. I think there is the scope to expand a public sector reach, but I don't think it's good policy to have the same regulator regulating the private sector and the public sector at the same time.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I'd like to ask you the same question I put to Mr. Thurlow earlier.
Could a more restrictive system that would, for example, require public officials to sell their assets in order to avoid any conflict of interest—or apparent conflict of interest—deter some people from running for office? Might this have the effect of limiting the flow of talented people into politics?
Lawyer, As an Individual
It might be. I believe we should not structure our rules to turn people away or to encourage them. We should simply structure our rules to ensure that there is accountability, integrity and transparency in the operation of the government.
It's a legitimate concern. I wouldn't bend the rules to let more people in or keep people out. I agree that it's a significant factor.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
My Conservative colleagues have mentioned that it seems inappropriate that a Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council are not included in the ethical review mechanism under which the Prime Minister operates.
While you were chief of staff to the Prime Minister, were there any omissions in your disclosures regarding ethical issues?
Lawyer, As an Individual
I want to make sure I understand the question correctly. Is the member referring to screens?
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
When you were chief of staff, did you make a declaration regarding ethical issues?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Are you referring to Mr. Giorno's personal investments, or as they related to his role as—
Liberal
Conservative
Lawyer, As an Individual
Thank you, Chair.
No, my holdings were modest at the time. They were in RRSPs only. I declared them to the commissioner according to the law. I did not have any other active interests. I resigned from my law partnership, as required by the act. I didn't personally have them.
If it's helpful, my successor, Nigel Wright, had an extensive screen with the commissioner.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I didn't ask if you had any assets. Did you make a conflict of interest declaration?
Lawyer, As an Individual
Yes, I did, and repeatedly. It was an annual thing.
Every time my investments changed, I had to file again. Every month, I would send my RRSP statement to the commissioner's office.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
So you also had investments while you were chief of staff. You had assets.
Lawyer, As an Individual
Yes, but RRSPs are not controlled investments, so I was allowed to keep them.
Liberal
Conservative