:
We'll call the meeting to order. As I look up, I see an old friend, and that's great.
This is the twenty-third meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) and the motion adopted by this committee on Thursday, September 30, 2010, we have a report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's activities in relation to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, as referred to the committee on Wednesday, July 21, 2010.
All that means is that you've sent us a report and we want to hear from you and hear what you've done.
Madam Dawson, it's great to have you here again. I'll let you give an opening statement and introduce the people who are with you. Then we will certainly have the committee ask you some questions afterwards.
I apologize ahead of time--and I do this for all witnesses--but this committee takes place from eleven to one o'clock, and therefore some of the members will be eating in front of you, as it's their only way to get sustenance for the afternoon. I apologize ahead of time for that.
I also apologize for the fact that we have a bit of committee business to do right at the end of our meeting, so we may break about five minutes early just so we can get that committee business completed today.
With that, Madam Dawson, it's great to have you here again. Please give us your report.
I have with me Lyne Robinson-Dalpé, the assistant commissioner, advisory and compliance, and Nancy Bélanger, head of our legal advisory services.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear before you today.
I would also like to take this opportunity to personally welcome your new members. My office has enjoyed a productive relationship with the committee, and I look forward to continuing to work together effectively in the coming weeks and months.
In the next 10 minutes or so, I am going to summarize some of the highlights of my 2009-2010 annual report on the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. My remarks will include reference to my inquiry reports, in which I raised several issues that I would like to bring to your attention today.
Then, I will briefly review our proposals for amendments to the code that are currently before the committee.
[English]
As noted in my annual report, in the last year my office has acted on a number of fronts to improve our administration of the code, including in the areas of advisory and compliance, and outreach and communications. We have also conducted a number of inquiries. We improved our compliance processes, implementing a system of reminders to help members meet the code's disclosure and reporting deadlines. We upgraded our electronic case management system so our advisors can give members more timely advice and guidance. We're in the process of adding annual review dates to our online public registry—in fact, I think they are all up there now—in order to further encourage respect of compliance deadlines and to enhance transparency.
In keeping with the code's requirements, we're also making all supporting documents related to sponsored travel available in the registry. These measures were complemented by ongoing research and communications activities, which in the 2009-10 fiscal year included several presentations to parliamentary caucuses and members' staff, and an information session held as part of the Library of Parliament's seminar series.
The last year has been particularly busy in terms of inquiries under both the code and the Conflict of Interest Act. My office has released the findings of three inquiries under the code. In these recent reports I've also commented, where appropriate, on several issues reflecting broader ethical concerns that could raise questions about the integrity of elected public officials and governing institutions.
In April I reported on my inquiry under the code into allegations that 60 members had used partisan or personal identifiers on ceremonial cheques or other props in connection with federal funding announcements. I found that enhancing political profiles is a partisan political interest and not a private interest within the meaning of the code, and that the code, as written, does not cover partisan political interests. I concluded, however, that the practice of using partisan or personal identifiers in announcing government initiatives was inappropriate because it has the potential to diminish public confidence in the integrity of members and the governing institutions they represent.
The distinction between personal and political interests was the focus of my other two inquiry reports, which raised issues of fundraising and lobbying as well. In May I reported on my inquiry under the code into the activities of the , member of Parliament for Halton, in connection with a political fundraising event organized by the Halton Conservative Association.
In September I issued a report on my inquiry into the activities of , member of Parliament for St. Catharines, in connection with a political fundraising event organized for the benefit of the St. Catharines electoral district association and held in the owners' suite at the Rogers Centre in Toronto.
In both reports I pointed out the need for effective fundraising guidelines in relation to political fundraising events for members of Parliament. In the Dykstra report, I reiterated the recommendation that I made in the Raitt report that consideration should be given to amending the code to possibly include prohibitions against solicitation of funds, broader recusal obligations, and provisions for establishment of conflict of interest screens.
I've had the privilege of working with the committee to bring about a number of amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, and I'm grateful for the assistance you continue to provide in ensuring its effective administration.
I was pleased to see that many of the amendments I proposed last year to the code's gift provisions were adopted by the House of Commons in June 2009. The changes to the gift rules will no doubt help members respect those rules more consistently. In my annual report, however, I noted that gifts and benefits from a riding association or a political party or services from a volunteer working on behalf of a member are no longer covered by the code at all. While such gifts would not usually place a member in a conflict of interest, I am concerned that the changes reduce transparency by removing them from the disclosure requirements and that lobbyists could gain access to members by volunteering for them.
A perennial challenge I have with respect to the gift rules is the tendency of members to think that the $500 gift value threshold relates to acceptability. It does not; it relates to disclosure. I don't know how many times I have to say that. I find myself taking every opportunity to remind members that the value of a gift or other benefit does not determine whether or not it may be accepted. The conflict of interest test applies no matter what the value of the gift is. So I'll continue to make that message, I think.
In March 2010, I submitted to the committee for its consideration two sets of proposed amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons in response to the invitation you issued to me in October 2009 as part of your ongoing review of the code. Some of the changes I suggested are technical in nature and relate to the code's disclosure and public reporting requirements. Among other things, they would establish distinct disclosure processes for annual reviews and the re-election of members. Their purpose is to ensure that the code reflects the way it's being administered, and they are, as I say, technical amendments.
The other changes I have suggested relate to the inquiry process and raise more substantive issues. For example, I've proposed that the commissioner be allowed to make public the reasons for not pursing an inquiry where the matter is already in the public domain. I've also proposed that the commissioner's power to summon witnesses and compel their testimony be made explicit in the code. That power is explicit in the Conflict of Interest Act. I believe I probably already have this inherent power, but I've not yet had to use it. I would be pleased if the committee would proceed with these amendments as expeditiously as possible. I will gladly discuss them with you at any time.
Since submitting my proposed amendments in March, I have identified one other amendment in connection with inquiries that I would like to see adopted. Because of the different procedural requirements for releasing reports under the code and the Conflict of Interest Act, it could be problematic when the House of Commons is sitting for me to produce a joint report for parallel investigations under the two regimes. I would hope to make it clear that I can produce a single joint report whether or not the House is sitting; you may have noticed that I did issue one when it wasn't sitting. I have a proposed amendment that I could add to the package that I submitted to you last year in relation to inquiries.
I've identified in the Raitt and Dykstra reports a few other areas where amendments might be considered, and I'd be pleased to pursue these as well with the committee at an appropriate time.
I'm also seeking House approval of a new inquiry request form, which was included in the March package, that would help streamline and expedite the inquiry process. The issue of having to obtain the committee's approval of our forms and guidelines under section 30 of the code is one that I've raised before and that continues to concern me. Under the Conflict of Interest Act I can issue forms and guidelines without further approvals--indeed, I issued a request for examination form this spring that is similar to the one I have before you for the code--but I'm prevented from doing so under the code.
Because of the potential delays involved in seeking and obtaining formal approval, we've been using other tools at our disposal--namely, advisory opinions and communiqués--in order to communicate with members in a timely manner, but we cannot proceed with the guidelines without specific approval of this committee. Perhaps the committee could take this opportunity to consider whether it still feels there is the need for this approval requirement.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the committee taking the time to review my 2009-2010 annual report on the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, and to examine the issues raised in it.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
:
We have certainly met with Mr. Wright, as we have very frequently with people who are about to be appointed. We always communicate to people who are actually appointed.
I might note as well, of course, that Mr. Wright is under the act and not the code, and it's the code that I'm here to discuss. He's a reporting public office holder and not a member of Parliament...which is the document that we're discussing here today. But I can, if you want, tell you a little bit about what we do.
When there's a new reporting public office holder, there's a requirement that lots of information be given to our office within 60 days....
Actually, no, there's no deadline. In the act there's a deadline, but in the code there are no deadlines, so I get confused when I'm talking about it.
At any rate, with an MP we would always send out a letter as soon as an election is held, and we would solicit a lot of information, which is set out in the code. When that information comes in, we take a look at it and see whether there are any issues that we want to discuss. And then there are measures that could be taken, such as sometimes under the act....
The problem is that I don't know whether you want me to talk about the code or the act. Under the code, there are not a lot of requirements.
:
Well, I'll give you the general rules.
When a new public office holder, or a “reporting” public officer holder--there is a distinction--comes in, we ask for information. It's required that we be given information on holdings, activities, outside activities. So we would expect a full disclosure of all outside activities.
There are prohibitions in the act. If, for example, one is a director of a corporation, one must relieve oneself of that directorship when one becomes a public office holder--again, a reporting public office holder; a lot of these rules don't apply to a plain public office holder, which is why I keep making the distinction. Anybody who is full time, generally speaking, is a reporting public office holder, although there are some exceptions to that.
So the very first thing we do when we examine the holdings or the situation of a reporting public office holder is we discuss the divestment of those responsibilities as well as the divestment of certain types of holdings. That's exactly the sort of thing we'd be working on in that period.
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi: I have just a little--
Ms. Dawson, I had previously been a member of the committee and I am now here again. I am also the chief political organizer for my party. A week ago, I asked you for an opinion. The name of one of my MPs was drawn by the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada. She was given 50 policy coverages that she could give to an organization in her riding. The policies were intended to help accident victims, especially victims of fire. The names of five members were drawn. I asked for your opinion, and you said, among other things, that the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada is an organization registered as a lobbyist. You wrote me the following:
Therefore, given the IBAC's role and its relationship with MPs, the provided policy coverages [...], even when awarded through a draw, could reasonably lead one to believe that they were provided with the purpose of influencing the member in the fulfilment of her public duty. For those reasons, our office believes that [member's name] cannot accept this donation on behalf of a non-profit organization in her riding.
I take no issue with this opinion. However, I read the Dykstra report, which states that MP Dykstra asked Ms. Bonnell for access to the Rogers Centre suite. Ms. Bonnell is a registered lobbyist. You said so yourself. In your conclusion, you said that you could not intervene because a fundraising activity was involved. It appears to me that if my MP were to give those policies away as part of her fundraising activity, it would be legal. Something's off about that, and I'm having a hard time accepting it. I can accept the letter that you wrote me regarding my MP and the fact that she cannot receive policy coverages from a lobbyist and then give them to an organization in her riding, but I am having trouble accepting your report conclusions. You said that Mr. Dykstra, who spoke with Ms. Bonnell, a registered lobbyist, in order to get a Rogers suite, had the right to do that because it was related to a fundraising activity. Unless you tell me that my MP could give those coverages away as part of a fundraising activity, there is something here I don't understand. This actually doesn't come under your jurisdiction. I am just trying to understand.
:
I just want to finish up the debate on the Dykstra affair.
Ms. Bélanger, I take issue with the explanation you gave me. In the report, you state the following:
Although the owner's suite is not generally available to the public in the sense that it is not explicitly advertised along with the other luxury suites listed on the Rogers Centre website, it is often rented out to third parties, including businesses and non-profit organizations, who can obtain access by requesting use of the owner's suite through contacts that they may have with Rogers.
Therefore, the suite is not available.
Imagine! You're saying that someone using his contacts with Rogers and Mr. Dykstra using his contacts with a lobbyist is not an issue! It's not something that's available to the general public. It's as if one of my MPs wanted to use the Montreal Canadiens' suite, which is the most beautiful suite at the Bell Centre and belongs to the owner. If that person told me this, I would hit the ceiling. I would tell them that it's not right, that they can't do that, and that, even if they paid $3,000 for it, no one has that privilege.
In addition, you say that the suite isn't available, that it's not advertised on the website and that there's no problem, but if we have contacts with Rogers, we can perhaps get it, whether we are ministers, parliamentary secretaries, MPs or anyone else, there is no problem.
Oddly enough, I'm still under the same impression: if the case had involved one of my MPs, the report would have had a different outcome than it did for a Conservative member. To be honest, I have a lot of trouble accepting that. The suite is not available to everyone, and contacts are necessary. I take issue with an MP having ties to a lobbyist.
As for my MP we discussed earlier, she gives the policies to a non-profit organization; she doesn't keep them. However, Mr. Dykstra keeps the money because it's not only for his constituency, but also for his political fundraising. I take issue with that. Don't you feel something's wrong with that picture?
:
Thank you very much. It's a guest spot, a guest appearance.
Thank you very much, Ms. Dawson, for being here today.
This is just to wrap up what one my colleagues had been asking before. I recall that when we were doing the study on gifts and the whole issue around acceptance of gifts, you cautioned the committee at that time about not just a conflict taking place but the perception of a conflict, and making sure there was no perception of conflict.
To use the hypothetical case that my colleague referred to, if somebody was leaving an industry, an industry that does billions of dollars of business with the Government of Canada, and that individual was leaving that business and assuming the top political staffing position in the country, knowing full well that they were going to go back to that industry in subsequent months, do you not see...? You know, if we're wanting to hold the trust and faith of the people of Canada, can you understand that the people of Canada are asking if we're leaving the dogs in charge of the meat here? So it's the perception around it as well.
Are you confident that the safeguards are there to protect the perception of conflict of interest?
Thank you, Ms. Dawson, for being with us today.
In the interests of actually referring to your report, which I think this committee was charged with today--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Albrecht.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Harold Albrecht: --I would like to refer to page 14 of your report, where you talk about the forms. At the top of the page, you're talking about a couple of different ways in which an inquiry could be initiated: a request by a member or the House of Commons could compel you to do an investigation. Earlier, you pointed out that you could do it on your own initiative as well.
Further down in that same section, you talk about the fact that you have this form under the act and that you've also produced one for under the code. You're awaiting our instruction on this. I'm certainly open to that.
Prior to that, on page 13, you state in the middle paragraph, “There were five instances where Members of the House of Commons raised concerns with me about possible contraventions....” I guess my concern is that if we have this form that is mandated, that we need to use, many of us around this table are not lawyers. We're not legal experts and we don't know the code inside out.
But as you indicated earlier, if something doesn't pass the smell test in our operation within our constituency or here on the Hill, I guess I would hope that we would still have the opportunity as individual members simply to say, “Here's a concern we have, and we have no idea whether it's a problem or not, but could you please give us your advice?”
Are you still open to those kinds of inquiries without the formal inquiry label attached to it?
The Chair: All right.
Ms. Yasmin Ratansi: 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.
:
Confidentiality is very important when it involves an individual. When I'm talking about transparency, I try to make my processes and my activities as transparent as I possibly can.
With respect to Ms. Guergis, I have confirmed that there is an investigation ongoing, at the request of one of the members of the New Democratic Party--Ms. Davies, I think. And really, there's no more I can say about the other request.
Certainly, I try very hard not to, and in fact don't, divulge confidences or advice that we've given. But by the same token, I am a believer in transparency. I will say as much as I possibly can, that I want to say, in my reports. And as I said before, I've done what I can in my investigations to make observations, even if they're not specific to the actual question of whether there was a contravention.
I guess, as you say, I'm trying to balance transparency with confidentiality. The system wouldn't work if people, when they're looking for advice, couldn't trust that what they have told me in confidence would be kept confidential.
Ms. Dawson, I'm very new to this committee, and it's a pleasure to be here today to hear you bring forward comments on your report here.
I have a couple of questions and they're following along the same line as Madam Ratansi's comments around confidentiality.
In your report you do speak quite lengthily about confidentiality, and in that section you do express some frustration, I guess, to say the least. One of the statements you make that kind of jumped out at me was “This situation may sometimes lead the public and Members to surmise that I do not take requests seriously....” That kind of troubles me, I guess, to be very frank with you, the statements you make, that members might not take your requests seriously.
I guess where I'm going with this, and it's following up with some of your earlier responses around certain instances, is how do you feel? Surely you're not suggesting here that releasing information would go anywhere towards making people feel better-served by your role. And I apologize if I seem to be leading here, but I'm trying to grasp how you feel you could rectify the situation to give better confidence to the members, and the public for that matter, and still respect the confidentiality that's expected of you by the individuals in question if there is a complaint or an investigation undertaken by you.
I'll use myself, for example, as a member of Parliament. If you undertook an investigation of some situation regarding me and some information were to come out, you referred to information that's already in the public domain, but that doesn't necessarily mean the information that's in the public domain is correct. The information that you deal with is actual factual information. I guess I'm a little perplexed at this point in time by the comments, by the statement, and what you feel would be a better situation for you, as a commissioner, to be in.
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?
:
No. I examined a few elements of the code and of the act.
[English]
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.”