Information & Ethics committee  Certainly, if the breach of law you're talking about is a criminal matter, for example, I would not have the jurisdiction. My obligation would be to refer it to the RCMP, as per the legislation. If the complaint is about a public office holder in terms of the breach of the code that we're talking about, which is the limit of my jurisdiction, then I would have to consider the matter and respond appropriately.

Information & Ethics committee  I don't find myself in an ethical dilemma; I find myself in what I would call a nominal dilemma, that is, the title of Ethics Commissioner is much broader than the powers I actually have and am entitled to exercise. So it's a misnomer, in a sense. As I've said to the committee before, I think a better title would have been the conflict of interest commissioner because that is what in fact I'm entitled to do.

Information & Ethics committee  First of all, I think at the very beginning you quoted me correctly; it may not have been exact, but the sense of it is correct. I need to point out that the Office of the Ethics Commissioner has a certain range of purview relative to this matter. There are huge other kinds of issues that come up that would be quite beyond the powers given to me inside the act.

Information & Ethics committee  I am not at all familiar with the event you describe, so I'm certainly not going to make any further comment on the substance of it at this time.

Information & Ethics committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. First I'd like to thank you for inviting me to meet with the committee. As this is my first appearance during the current Parliament, I wish you, Mr. Chair, and the committee all the best in your proceedings and business.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Relative to the members, it would be to the House itself. It's the Speaker of the House of Commons to whom I've been reporting for the last two years. On other occasions, it turns out that it has been the Prime Minister in administering his particular code. There are requirements for publicity in both these cases for public...

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I haven't got a wording right now to suggest, but I'd be glad to provide one.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  There isn't any way to write any legislation guaranteeing that everybody will always be dealt with in exactly the appropriate manner all the time. This is a human effort, and humans will make mistakes and do things they will regret, etc. We all do, and we try to minimize them, but there's no perfection to be had out there.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It's certainly flies in the face of ongoing experience. But in any case, I think it's never a serious issue when the project is one of a large number of projects that arise out of a particular government program. Let's say that if it's in support of small business and a whole series of grants are going to be made on various criteria, it doesn't matter that one of those grants happens to go to the minister's riding, and there's no need to recuse him or her in that respect.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Perhaps I could add a general comment that's not related to the specific examples. In general, when we try to administer these guidelines, we try to focus on decision-making; it's who made the decision that's really crucial, not who gave out the cheque or who appeared to shake hands, or whatever.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I would say that in some of those cases the minister should recuse himself or herself from the decision made at cabinet.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Going back to their own riding only. It makes a big difference.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Relative to the last point, the issue--at least, the issue as it appeared to me--was whether anything special that isn't offered to any other person who has been in cabinet is being offered in this case. When a person gets an opportunity to be a minister, something special has happened to the person's life and career in every case, but we don't consider it a conflict of interest, simply because it's part of the package that is offered to everyone and therefore is not any kind of special inducement.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'm not going to comment on a specific case, which leads me back...because that's the one that comes to mind, so I won't comment on that. I do think it makes it much more problematic than the question of status, the salary that goes to a cabinet minister, or things of that sort.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  As the current commissioner, I administer two, one for public office-holders and one for members of the House of Commons. I don't see anything conceptually difficult about expanding to three. It does mean you have to be careful when you're asked for advice, because it means you have to differentiate, for example, between whether the person is a public office-holder, a member of the House, or a senator.