Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 31st, 2012

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's 20 out of 308. I'm going to suggest I was one of them, because we had difficulty getting some documentation of some of my wife's assets. I don't think it was seven months, but it was pretty close to that before I got it.

Of the 20, how many had valid reasons for not being able to complete because they couldn't get the documentation you were requiring?

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

I can't say how many. There was a handful that were maybe valid. Some people were out of town, some people could not access the documents, could not obtain the information from their spouses, so there were a number of reasons for people not getting.... In some cases people did not get back to us, so we had to revert to other procedures. But seven months is still a long time, and I'm only saying in the last stretch. Basically, after 120 days we still probably had more than half--I'd have to go back and look at the statistics, but probably more than half of the MPs were still outstanding after 120 days.

[Mary Dawson]

If I could go down the list--obviously we're not going to have time in your time--I could go down each of those things and identify what prompted the request for the recommendation. I'm not sure if you want me to continue to do that down the—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Let me switch to another problem I have. If we implemented all of these 19 recommendations.... I'll simply use one example. If we did the meals, it's not unusual for members of Parliament to go to four or five receptions every evening--I won't say every evening, but two or three times a week, because some are more dutiful than others in getting to the receptions. But based on this, we would have to file a report. If we had any gifts over $30, we would have to file a report.

I'm wondering where you expect us to be able to find the time to do that and still perform the rest of the duties we have as MPs. Have you done any analysis, in fact, of how much time we would end up spending on reporting?

[Mary Dawson]

You know, I have a great deal of difficulty in the whole area of gifts and invitations, because people aren't telling me about them. I get virtually no information on gifts or invitations under $500, and yet people tell me they're getting invited six and seven times an evening to something or other.

There's a disconnect there, so what I'm trying to do is shed a bit of light on what goes on. I've been trying for four years to find out what the heck goes on up here, on the Hill, and it's very difficult to find out. It's only recently that people have started telling me that they go to millions of these receptions, and I think they would bear a little bit of scrutiny. The people who put on these receptions are the people who have the money to put on the receptions, so is there discrimination in who has access to MPs? There's a whole area there I don't have very much information about.

I would also wonder how many people get more than a couple of gifts over $30. I don't know how many gifts you guys are being given because I don't get told about them either.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Let me use an example. We regularly get books given to us, and very few of those books.... I must get two or three a week, and I think that's probably pretty standard. Some of them are the nice big picture books. Others are documentaries on problems. I doubt if any of those I get are under $30.

[Mary Dawson]

Who gives them to you? People from abroad or people—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Constituents. Municipalities give us picture books of their municipalities. You get conservation authorities giving us books. Going down the list, you have a lot of non-profits who give us books. The list is almost endless.

[Mary Dawson]

You see, I'm in the position of not knowing what you're getting, and I can't seem to get that information. Maybe there's a list of several things, like books, that you want to exclude from that rule, but simply because you have to report them doesn't mean you can't accept them. What it means is that at least we're seeing what is flowing in to MPs from people, and there's no way of finding that out now. In theory, you should be checking with my office to see whether they're acceptable, but there seems to be an inability—not on everybody's part, I have to say—a feeling if it's under $500 you don't have to worry about it.

That's why I'm suggesting we collapse the dichotomy between what's reported and what has to be scrutinized for acceptability. Basically what I'm doing is saying let's have only one test so people don't confuse the two of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Comartin is absolutely right. It could be as many as four or five on a given night; in a week, twenty or thirty. I don't report those. Usually I won't attend them, unless a member of my constituency is at that reception, if it's agriculture-related, or if it's related to manufacturing.

Is there some way we can make it so it's the holder of the reception's responsibility to tell you they're going to have something and what they will be doing at it, instead of 308 members all having to say “I attended and took a sandwich”?

[Mary Dawson]

All of them would not be unacceptable—that's the other thing about it. My big problem is that there is a veil of secrecy. It's probably not a deliberate veil of secrecy, but there's a—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, wander around—they're here.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, but there is no way of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I've had the sandwich.

[Mary Dawson]

A sandwich is probably all right. But is somebody wining and dining you in an expensive way, looking for something from you? That's the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Is there a simplification to what you're asking? If someone is going to hold the reception that MPs are going to be at, they just tell you they're holding a reception and MPs are going to be at it. That's better than you receiving reports from 308 of us that we went to a breakfast for the egg farmers.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, that would certainly help. Maybe there is somebody or other who knows of all the receptions that are going on. I don't know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, Harold knows them all.

Anyway, that's enough from your chair today.

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to flog this reception thing to death, but let's say that my friend Laurie Hawn and I go to a high-end reception. He has a glass of wine and one oyster, and I have three glasses of wine and six of the shrimp. I'd be doing a mental calculation of whether I've exceeded the $30 threshold. If there is a way to simplify it, that would be great. I think the chair has proposed something good, if we can go in that direction.

But getting to serious things, in your 2010-11 annual report you noted that “there was a need for some guidelines on the involvement of members in political fundraising events, particularly in the case of ministers and parliamentary secretaries”. Could you expand a little bit more on that, please?

[Mary Dawson]

Is that my report on the code?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

It's the 2010-11 annual report.

[Mary Dawson]

That's on the code, yes. I noted that there are fundraising prohibitions in the act but not in the code. I've had several investigations, and I've touched upon the question of whether I'm looking at them as an MP or as a minister. There is generally more danger for contraventions under the act than under the code, because people under the act have more power in some ways. It's when somebody is trying to influence somebody with power that the problem arises. In theory, it seems to me there should be a rule in the code parallel to the one in the act. It would require a rule that you can't fundraise where it would put you in a situation of enhancing a private interest.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

You seem to be suggesting that we should, first of all, harmonize the two documents, the code and the act. I sense that you would like to take the code in the direction of the act so that in many cases you're dealing with the same rules for both.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, and there are some cases where I will be suggesting that the act go more along the lines of the code. For example, the inquiry rules are clearer in the code than they are in the act. There are improvements in both directions that could be made. A number of improvements could be made in the code. I don't expect to find many guilty people under these enhanced rules, but there is still a possibility of having some situations that should be covered.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

One of your recommendations is this 120-day deadline. If somebody doesn't meet that 120-day deadline for providing the required information—let's say under the code—could that person be subject to a $500 fine?