Yes.
Evidence of meeting #23 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #23 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've read both of your reports, Ms. Dawson. I want to share with you my initial reaction to them. I believe that in order to constitute a breach of the code, the conduct in question must be very serious. In my opinion, the cases that you examined were serious. You found, however, that no breach of the code or of the act occurred. I was surprised by most of your findings. On reading your report, one cannot come to the conclusion that the members in question behaved in a way that is above reproach. For each of your findings, for instance, in the case of the use of the Conservative Party logo on ceremonial cheques, you added that you were unable to find that there was in fact a conflict of interest because the definition may be unclear.
For each case that you examined, there seemed to be elements lacking in the code or in the act to allow you to carry out your analysis fully. As an MP, I'm shocked by this. I know that our code has not been around long, in fact, only since 2007. The act has been around somewhat longer, however. I'm wondering if either the code or the act needs to be amended, to avoid such serious incidents in the future as the presentation to a municipality or to a company of a cheque bearing the logo of the party in office. How is it that this practice which, in my view, is partisan, is not prohibited under the code or act?
Everyone knows that the money at the government's disposal really belongs to the taxpayers. Right now, the party in power forms the government. Eventually, another party will take over the reins. To my mind this is a very serious breach, so I have to believe that our code and our act must be worthless. I found it quite frustrating to read that the problem stemmed quite simply from the fact that the term “private interests” is not defined clearly enough to give you enough leverage or to allow you to reach a different conclusion. Does the package of amendments that you have recommended for the code include provisions that down the road, will help you deliver stronger rulings in cases such as the use of partisan identifiers on cheques?
12:40 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No. I examined a few elements of the code and of the act.
I'll go to English; it's easier for me.
I try to expose deficiencies in the code or the act, or problems in my.... I've taken the approach now of having observations as well as an analysis. I think that there are a lot of areas in which if members want to enhance the code or the act, they can. I've tried to shed light on areas that need further thought.
It's not up to me to make up the rules if it's not covered in the code or in the act, but I do try to expose where there are problems. In fact, when I had the discussion of the cheques in the cheques report, very shortly thereafter it was a practice that was discontinued. So it has its effect, but I can't read something into the act or the code that isn't there. I can point out what isn't covered.
I don't know what else to say. One of the big issues is what is a private interest? It's fairly narrowly circumscribed in the code at the moment.
You know, I'm commenting, I'm putting the light on things, but I can't find that there has been a contravention if there hasn't technically been a contravention. I feel that in those cases where I did not find a contravention, there wasn't one, technically, but I try to go on to say, for example, “But this is not a good practice, and perhaps there should be some amendments.”
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Sorry, Madame, but we are nearing the end.
Monsieur Proulx, you're up for maybe two to three minutes.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Ms. Dawson, we'll do this quickly.
You were saying, Ms. Dawson, that you were finding that witnesses were forthcoming. I'm referring you to your investigation in the report into the doings of MP Rick Dykstra.
In your report, you wrote that it took almost three months for Mr. Dykstra to comply with your request for a list of the fundraiser's invitees. You wrote that Conservative Party lawyer Arthur Hamilton hid the extent of Mr. Dykstra's role as an organizer of the fundraiser. You wrote that it was “inappropriate” for Mr. Dykstra to be present during interviews with other players in the case.
Is that what you call forthcoming?
12:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, I said generally.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I felt strongly enough that I made comment in the report.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Ms. Bélanger, could you define the word “entity” for me? I am asking, further to a question from my colleague Mr. Laframboise. In the second part of this provision, it is noted that the information obtained must not be used to further an entity's interests.
Should a riding association not be considered an entity?
12:45 p.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Absolutely.
What we looked at first in our analysis was whether or not the information obtained was used to improperly further the entity's private interests.
But you are quite right. The riding association would be considered an entity.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Do you not think the riding association, an entity, improperly benefited from this contact with a lobbyist for fundraising purposes?
October 5th, 2010 / 12:45 p.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The report is final. I will not comment any further on the matter.
12:45 p.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Thank you.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have two quick comments.
First of all, you pointed out in your opening statement today, as well as in your report, the process improvements that you've included. One of those is reminders to members. May I say personally that I appreciate those reminders? Because too often time goes on and suddenly you don't realize the time has elapsed.
Are there other processes to be improved similar to that which you're envisioning?
12:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
None come to mind at the moment. There probably are.
Go ahead, Lyne.
12:45 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Basically, over the next year we'll focus a little more on outreach, on informing members of their obligations and being more visible in your day-to-day life.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
That reminds me of the local police services: we are visible....
12:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Nothing.
I have one other quick question on the statement regarding sponsored travel that is filed on your website. I understand that recently you've decided to include supporting documents on that as well. Is that something that's required under the code or is this simply a change that you've initiated?
12:45 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No. I think it's required.