Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 5th, 2010

[Mary Dawson]

On the other hand, there are lessons to be learned from one to the other. Usually it is from the act to the code, because the act is more stringent. Some of the proposals that we made with respect to the gift provisions that were changed, for example, had some inspiration from how much better the act seemed to be working than the code. Similarly, in some of the proposals that we've made that are before the committee, we've taken a look at the act and improved the code. But I think there are some areas that are legitimately different, some areas that are questionably different, and some areas that could be more similar.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Just so that I'm comfortable with or understand your answer, you are comfortable with the distinction and with operating under both a code and an act, or do you think there could be some better harmonization of the two?

I know you have suggested some amendments to the code for our consideration, but on a more macro-level view, do you think there should be a closer alignment between the act and the code so that there might eventually be one act/code with the distinction contained within of public office holders?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, it might be possible to have one instrument with different rules for different people. But MPs are quite different from some of the public office holders in what the rules ought to be.

Definitely, it's not the easiest thing in the world to be administering the code and the act simultaneously. As you can see, from time to time I forget which one I'm talking about.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I guess that's what I'm getting at, not so much from the perspective of a member of Parliament or a public office holder but from your office's perspective. Would it make your lives a little easier if there were more of a harmonization between the code and the act?

[Mary Dawson]

It might make my life easier, but I'm not sure people would be happy with the rules.

I'll tell you what would be easier: if I could do just one report sometimes instead of two. I'm forever having to do two of things. I'm trying to find ways, with these more recent amendments that I'm suggesting, so that I can always issue a joint report and not look like I'm in contempt of Parliament for not following the exact procedure.

At any rate, it would be a lot easier, in cases where it's the same matter under both the code and the act, either for an investigation or indeed for my annual.... I have two annual reports I have to rush out at exactly the same time in June. But that's another question. We're coping. Actually, I'm gradually using techniques where significant portions of both reports are the same.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I have a final question on that, then. Would you be prepared to make recommendations to this committee on that matter? I know we've talked several times before about the frustration you have on two reports rather than one.

Would you be prepared at some time in the future to make specific recommendations to this committee on how we could streamline that to assist you in your office?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, I could do that.

Now, there are two issues. One is the investigations, and I have one ready to send you for the investigations, joint reports, but we could also look at sending you one for the annual reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

[Mary Dawson]

I would just add--I knew there was a problem there, but I'd forgotten what it was--that it's under the Parliament of Canada Act. So it would require an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

All right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I always come back to the Dykstra case, because I want to understand. I have the code here in front of me and subsection 10(1) states the following: “A Member shall not use information obtained in his or her position as a Member that is not generally available to the public to further the Member's private interests or those of a member of his or her family, or to improperly further another person's or entity's private interests.”

The idea of holding a fundraising event appears to have originated during a conversation between Mr. Dykstra and Ms. Bonnell at a downtown Ottawa restaurant in early spring 2009. Mr. Dykstra and Ms. Bonnell happened to bump into each other while they dined at the restaurant. Your report was clear, the suite was not available, it was not advertised as being available on the website and the member used information obtained in his position as a member. He met with Ms. Bonnell, a lobbyist, and asked her—it doesn't matter who brought the subject up—if the suite was available. The information was obtained in the course of his position as an MP. In light of subsection 10(1), I have a bit of a problem with your finding.

Regarding the Dykstra ruling, did you examine subsection 10(1) which stipulates that a member shall not use information that he or she has obtained? This was, after all, information obtained in his position as a member. He met with a registered lobbyist in a restaurant and inquired—it doesn't matter who raised the issue—whether the suite was available. Your finding does not sit well with me because it will surely be viewed as a precedent. You cannot reverse your findings. What this means is that anyone will be able to hold a fundraising event in a suite at the Bell Centre, in the owner's suite that is not available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Laframboise, I have a point of order.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

On a point of order, I guess I would simply remind the member why we're here today--not to talk about specific cases but to look at the code itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm going to give a little leeway here, because that is in the report. We're asking questions about the report, so I have to give a little leeway there.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

When you conducted your investigation, did you look at subsection 10(1)?

[Nancy Bélanger]

Let me begin by saying no. Subsection 10(1) was not at issue when we received the complaint. Even if it had been, I doubt that subsection 10(1) is relevant to the information that was obtained in a restaurant. According to the provision, “a Member shall not use information obtained in his position as a Member”. As a rule, suites are not available to the public, but the evidence shows that many charitable organizations had used the suite. Wait, just let me finish.

More importantly, we have to look at the second part of subsection 19(1). Did receiving the information further the member's private interests or those of a member of his or her family? No family member was involved in this matter. Did the information improperly further another person's or entity's private interests? These questions were addressed within the framework of section 8, which we also examined. We considered whether there had been a conflict of interest of some kind. That is the test as far as conflicts of interest go. We determined that there was no such conflict of interest. As for private interests, you have to look at how this expression is defined in the code. The definition specifically refers to a person acquiring a financial interest.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I think that we do have some connection, all things considered, to our riding association. I'm all for you're trying to absolve Mr. Dykstra any way you can, but if you did not review the case on the basis of subsection 10(1), then as I understand it, a new complaint could be filed pursuant to subsection 10(1) and the matter investigated anew.

Based on the personal information he obtained, he was, after all, able to gain access to a suite that no one, except for a handful of people associated with Rogers, had access to. I won't reread the part that says you need to have dealings with Rogers in order to rent this suite. Take, for instance, the suite belonging to the owner of the Montreal Canadiens which is located right above the ice, a suite that obviously everyone would like to rent. The team's website does not advertise that this suite can be rented. Do you understand what I'm saying? It is the same thing in the case of Rogers. I get that. However, you're telling me that this event was not connected with his duties as a member and I'm telling you that when he leaves his riding and goes to Ottawa, he's working for his constituents, as I see it. If he met with a lobbyist in a restaurant or elsewhere, I have to wonder about subsection 10(1). You say that you didn't look at this provision as part of your investigation. Fine. You didn't. End of story.

[Nancy Bélanger]

Just let me be clear about one thing. I repeat, we did consider the second part of subsection 10(1) in our analysis. We also looked at whether the information was used to improperly further the interests of another person or entity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have about 30 seconds, if you want to take it. No?

Anybody?

[An hon. member]

What, to take 30 seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

No, to ask a round of questions.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I have a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Dawson, you've had an illustrious career. You're very well respected in your field. I'm trying to get my head around certain things, so you'll have to excuse me if I ask questions that.... You can always tell me if they are not relevant.

I look at what you have presented, and you say that some of the guidelines are stringent. But do you have sanction powers? I do not know whether you have sanction any powers.

Your title includes the word “ethics”, but the word “ethics” is not used anywhere in the code. The expectations have been raised because the minister has said that now that this code is there, everything will be fine and Canadians will be able to ensure that there's no unethical behaviour.

I'm trying to figure out how you balance confidentiality with transparency. How are we able to communicate to our constituents that, yes, this is happening and that we have these checks and balances in place.

I'll bring a case that I had in front of me at OGGO, and that was Madam Guergis's case. We did not know who said what to whom, yet we were told that it was your report that made her be demoted from cabinet.

Maybe you can't say anything, but help me understand how we alleviate that confusion.