November 30, 2016
John Ivison's Nov. 29 column entitled "Buying access as watchdog simpers" misinterprets parts of my mandate.
Mr. Ivison contacted my office yesterday. I regret that he did not take the time to read the material my office sent to him. He might have discovered that I had recommended that the House of Commons consider implementing a separate code of conduct to address the political conduct of Members and their staff, including political fundraising activities as a whole.
Mr. Ivison contends that I have neglected to enforce the Act. He states that I could have found a contravention under section 7 of the Act. The section reads as follows:
7. No public office holder shall, in the exercise of an official power, duty or function, give preferential treatment to any person or organization based on the identity of the person or organization that represents the first-mentioned person or organization.
It is a strange section. It fails to prohibit all preferential treatment, which should be the rule. Section 7 only prohibits preferential treatment that results from the intervention from a third party. As I have said before, this section might be triggered after but not when the funds are given.
He then turns to section 16 of the Act, which reads as follows:
16. No public office holder shall personally solicit funds from any person or organization if it would place the public office holder in a conflict of interest.
Two elements must exist to establish a contravention of section 16 of the Act. First a public office holder must have personally solicited funds from a person or organization or have asked someone else to do so. Secondly, it must be established that the solicitation would place the public office holder in a conflict of interest. As I explained in the material sent to Mr. Ivison yesterday, if the first element is not found to exist, the second element is not engaged.
Mr. Ivison then argued that I should rule that ministers cannot participate in these fundraising events. In The Dykstra Report in 2010 I suggested that consideration be given to prohibiting ministers and parliamentary secretaries from soliciting funds, regardless of whether or not doing so would place them in a conflict of interest. In my Annual Report 2012-2013, I indicated that I would support an absolute prohibition from attending fundraising events. However, I must administer the Act as it is written. It is for Parliament to decide whether to amend it.
I have made recommendations in relation to section 16 on a number of occasions in the past. I have raised concerns about the Conflict of Interest Act's fundraising rule as early as 2010, in The Raitt Report, The Dykstra Report and The Glover Report and in my written submission to the committee for the five-year review of the Act. In my 2015‑2016 Annual Report under the Act, in the section entitled Matters of Note, I reiterated my recommendation from the five-year review of the Act that a more stringent rule be established for ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
My experience has been that public office holders want to comply with the Act. Indeed, I have found that the Act works well overall. This does not mean that there is no room for improvement, but any improvement considered must be based on facts and not on misinformation and must be sanctioned by Parliament.
Mary Dawson
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
