HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 26, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

The Chair

Á

1110

Mr. E.N. (Ted) Hughes (Individual Presentation)

Mr. Robert Clark (Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner for Alberta)

Mr. Gerald Gerrand (Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Robert Clark

Á

1115

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

Á

1120

Mr. Ted Hughes

Á

1125

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Robert Clark

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Ted Hughes

Á

1130

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

Á

1135

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Robert Clark

The Chair

Á

1140

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Robert Clark

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Ted Hughes

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Á

1150

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Robert Clark

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Clark

Á

1155

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ted Hughes

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Â

1200

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Robert Clark

Â

1205

Mr. Ted Hughes

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Â

1210

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Robert Clark

Â

1215

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Â

1225

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Robert Clark

The Chair

Mr. Robert Clark

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Ted Hughes

The Chair

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

The Chair

Mr. Robert Clark

The Chair

Mr. Robert Clark

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Robert Clark

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

Mr. Gerald Gerrand

Mr. Ted Hughes

Mr. Robert Clark

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 008

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 26, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we may begin.

    We're here today pursuant to the committee's mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), consideration of matters related to the inclusion of a code of conduct in the Standing Orders of the House.

    With respect to Michel Guimond, who has objected to the fact that I tend to do housekeeping business at the beginning of a meeting, I would like do two things very briefly, if our guests will be patient.

    With regard to this topic, we are having to move the MPs' round table on ethics again. This has to do with clashes with Christmas parties organized by the different parties. So we're going to try to find the most appropriate room and have it next week sometime, probably Tuesday evening.

    Second, I received a letter from John Reynolds that was essentially a notice of motion. As you know, we don't need notice of motion in this committee. John, should I read your motion, or would you like to read it?

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): No, that's okay, go ahead.

    The Chair: Okay. The motion is that the committee resurrect the security review conducted by the committee last spring to consider the circumstances of the latest breach of security and make recommendations to the Speaker--

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): I have a point of order.

    Mr. Chairman, since this is item B on the agenda, could we start with item A before dealing with item B, please?

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, I'm going to explain what I'm doing.

    Let me complete this: --that will assist the Sergeant-at-Arms in his capacity as head of security for Parliament Hill.

    I've spoken to John Reynolds about this, and as you all know, we were returning to security anyway. We were awaiting information that was follow-up from an ongoing review of security. As long as we agree to return to this and have a meeting on this topic in the relatively near future, John is quite willing to let it ride as it is. Agreed? John, I appreciate your doing that.

    I'd now like to introduce our guests. I would like to say to you all, we greatly appreciate your taking the time to come here and join us. It's a great privilege for us to have you here.

    We have the Ethics Commissioner for Alberta, Bob Clark. We have the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Gerald Gerrand, of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. And we have the Honourable Ted Hughes, the former Conflict of Interest Commissioner for British Columbia, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories legislatures. We do appreciate your being here.

    Would you care to begin with some comments, Mr. Hughes? We're in your hands. How would you like us to proceed?

Á  (1110)  

    Mr. E.N. (Ted) Hughes (Individual Presentation): I'm not sure. Perhaps I'll just make a very brief opening statement on behalf of my colleagues. They may wish to add to it.

    We appreciate the invitation to be here today. We know an attempt was made last week to have some of our colleagues from other parts of the country with us today, but the short notice made that impossible for our colleagues from Ontario and to the east. But we are a group that meets annually under the chairmanship of Howard Wilson, who is here to listen to us perform today. We are glad to come and see if we can be of some assistance to you.

    For Bob Clark and myself, it's sort of déja vu. We were here before a similar committee on October 23, 1995, and we're pleased to come back. I'm not sure we can count on being available seven years from now, so we're very hopeful that some substantial progress will be made. It was subsequent to our appearance here that the Milliken-Oliver report was prepared and filed, I think in 1997. I think it's fair to say that we have always, since that time, viewed that as a very positive report and have been waiting for the day when some implementation of it or some variation of it would occur. I think it's fair to say that our reading from our respected jurisdictions is that the Canadian public is like-minded.

    We've come today to be of whatever assistance we can, based on the experience we've had. The three of us combined bring 25 years of participation as commissioners in the various jurisdictions, Bob Clark holding the position throughout the last 10 or 12 years in Alberta, Gerry Gerrand the last three or four years in Saskatchewan, and I currently hang my hat as commissioner in the Northwest Territories.

    So with that background, we'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the experiences we've encountered along the way over those years and to comment on any area that would be of assistance to the committee.

    Bob, would you like to add to that, or Gerry?

    Mr. Robert Clark (Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner for Alberta): I don't think so.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand (Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan): I would add simply that I'm the junior of this group. I've served for close to four years as commissioner, having been appointed by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan and carried out the various functions called for by the act. I join with my colleagues in thanking you for inviting us here. I think it's very important work, and we'll be pleased to answer all questions we think we can answer.

    The Chair: Okay, we appreciate that, thank you very much.

    Dale Johnston, Joe Jordan, Michel Guimond.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your willingness to be here and answer questions today.

    Some codes of conduct or ethics packages contain a requirement for spouses and, in some cases, dependants to disclose their interests. What advantages or disadvantages do you see in that? So much of what we do is perception. Is this something you think would be desirable from that point of view? Is it necessary? Are there any drawbacks or advantages?

    Mr. Robert Clark: In Alberta spouses and dependent children come under the Conflict of Interest Act. Initially, to be quite honest, there was some concern from a few spouses, and in our system the member is responsible for the information provided to the commissioner, and it later becomes part of the public disclosure. I recall one occasion where a spouse chose not to pass on information. I simply recorded on the public disclosure that the information was not provided, and within a short period of time it was, because once the people have seen that it's a very simple disclosure, not becoming involved in the amounts of the assets and the liabilities or the interests, but simply allowing the public to see where the interest is, it has not been a serious problem for me in Alberta.

    On balance, I think it's positive, but Mr. Hughes and I, when we were last here, heard arguments saying it shouldn't be done. I've not been persuaded yet.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Dale Johnston: As a follow-up to that, what I think I hear you saying is that you're in favour of disclosure by spouses and dependants, but not with specific amounts. For example, you say, we have investments in this and this and this, but we don't have to disclose any amounts. Is that right?

    Mr. Robert Clark: The public disclosure document that's filed in the clerk's office in Edmonton will show what a member's assets are--I disclose mine also. It would be that you have shares in TransAlta, you have mutual funds, you have a loan at this bank, but the public disclosure does not show the amounts at all, it simply shows where the member's interest is. I believe that's based on the premise that the public has a right to know what the interest is, but it isn't germane to how a member conducts himself to know what the amounts are.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: If I have any time, I'd defer to Werner.

    The Chair: Werner, you've got about a minute and a half.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): I was asking the same question.

    The Chair: Okay, are you sure?

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Actually, that's very well answered.

    Ken, I think, has a question.

    The Chair: Ken, Go ahead.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): You're talking about spouses and dependent children. What about girlfriends? How about people who aren't married, but are living together? Are they also included? Do you use the same definitions as the Income Tax Act? How do you define it?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: By reason of recent judiciary decisions, most jurisdictions have altered their definition of spouse to include the relationships to which you allude, and they are now included in Saskatchewan.The declaration is the declaration of the member of the legislature. The act applies only to the member of the legislature, but he is obliged to include in his declaration the financial affairs of his spouse, as defined by the act, which includes the traditional spouse and the other spousal relationships we're aware of. The spouse is requested to visit with the commissioner if it is convenient, and in my experience, only on about 3% or 4% of the occasions does the spouse visit with the husband or wife at the annually required meeting. It's not really seen as a problem in Saskatchewan. I think the view of the legislators who required this to be done was that a conflict could include the financial affairs of a spouse, so that information should be before the commissioner.

    I think it's important to note that only my eyes see the detailed financial statements of the member. What I file for public viewing is a statement of categories and not amounts.

    The Chair: Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I want to welcome our guests, because we have a good opportunity to learn from their experiences.

    We have put together a draft, and this is all it is at this point, a draft of a code of conduct, and also a framework for an independent ethics counsellor, commissioner, whatever the term is. There are a couple of issues that seem to be causing some contention. Dale asked about one of them, the spousal notification, so I won't touch on that. With the independent ethics commissioner, the proposal is that he be selected in the same way the Auditor General is selected. I would like to know whether you feel Parliament itself should make the final decision or Parliament should vet and advise on decisions, with the final decision on who it is resting with the executive branch. Perhaps the way you were chosen might be helpful.

    The second issue concerns a single ethics commissioner who serves two roles. Members may go to that person for advice on their own initiative, and a year later they might end up at the other end of an investigation, and the person investigating them is the very person whom they may have confided information to voluntarily when this person was wearing the counsellor's hat. Do you think that potentially is a problem? If you see it as a potential problem, is some sort of splitting of that function a solution we want to look at?

    Finally, in the code of conduct for MPs there is the process where an MP can complain about another MP. There is some concern that this might turn into something less than the high moral ground and may be used for partisan reasons, as sometimes, even if you are cleared, there is a residue left from the accusation. Is that in your jurisdiction now, and how do you find that working?

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I'll take a try first, and my colleagues will add to it, I'm sure.

    Insofar as the method of appointment is concerned, we have all been put in place by the respective legislatures that we serve. Under the statute of British Columbia, where I served for some years, the provision is that the vote must be in favour by two-thirds of the members present on that occasion, recommending that the lieutenant-governor in council make the appointment. In the Northwest Territories, where I presently serve, it's a straight vote in the House. For a parliamentary commissioner, I think that is the preferable way to go, for the commissioner to be appointed by the House he or she is there to serve and to report to them.

    I've had the opportunity to look at the proposals that were published here, with respect both to the amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act and the draft code of conduct that was put out, and I see that it's proposed to have one officer performing both roles, the counsellor's role under the code of conduct that's been in place in Ottawa for several years and that of parliamentary commissioner. If there is going to be one person to perform both functions, then I guess you have to take into account the needs of both Parliament itself and the Prime Minister's Office, which is responsible for the membership in the executive council. I think the recommendation in the Milliken-Oliver report was that the Speakers of the two houses canvass House leaders and bring recommendations to the House. It may be that the preferable way, in light of the dual role, if that's the way this legislation is going to end up, would involve some consultation between the Speakers, after their consultations with House leaders, and the Prime Minister's Office. But if it can be done, I think my overriding preference would be that Parliament make the appointment.

    With respect to the dual role, the provincial legislation provides that a member can consult the commissioner for advice, and if the commissioner is apprised of all the relevant facts and gives an opinion, that's an opinion the member can rely on under all circumstances at all times. I have not had a situation where the fact that an opinion, under those circumstances, has been given has subsequently caused any problem when an issue arose. If we're going to have a continuation of that responsibility, as you've outlined it, I think it imperative that the provision be there: if you are to rely on an opinion, the commissioner has to have all relevant facts in his possession.

    Your third question related to the complaint process--

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Just quickly--

    The Chair: Whatever it is, it has to be very quick. I should mention to our witnesses that we have roughly five minutes for the questions and the answers, so that we can move around the committee. We're most interested in what you have to say, so I'm being a bit more lenient.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I may have consulted you on a completely separate matter and you have collected a body of information, and then something comes up a year later that has nothing to do with that, but the fact that you have that information in your possession as a result of being the counsellor to me may put you in a different position as essentially the person who's investigating me. I'm just stretching to see the case, but this is something that's been expressed.

    The final thing, though, concerned member complaining against member.

    Mr. Robert Clark: Mr. Jordan, could I just make three quick comments?

    I was elected for 21 years and have ended up being commissioner now. I had a situation where I had what I thought was a conflict, so I asked the Speaker, and we agreed to have Mr. Hughes investigate the matter, and the matter was dealt with that way.

    As far as the selection issue's concerned, I strongly endorse Ted's comments. I'm stepping down at the end of March next year, and already there's been a committee of the House set up with members from all three parties. They're going to be advertising. Hopefully, they will have a name to bring to the House that all three parties agree on, after the public advertising and so on, by the end of March.

    And on the question of complaints by members about other members, yes, that's a concern. A member brings a complaint to you and you commence the investigation. Quite often I have found that the complaint is frivolous or, shall we say, somewhat vexatious, and have called the member in and said, look, this is what I found out; do you have anything more of substance to give me? On one occasion, in fact, I had a member withdraw their complaint after they had the information I'd seen.

    I think the most important work the commissioner does is, in fact, the advice he or she gives to members of the House.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond, then Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: Mr. Chairman, let me comment just briefly--

    The Chair: Yes, Gerry.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: --on the appointment of the commissioner. My experience might be helpful to you.

    I was appointed by the legislature, of course, because that is required by our act. I made it a condition of my appointment that it be unanimously approved by the members of the House. Being of the view that I was going to be an officer of the legislature, I wanted the complete confidence of all the members of the House, and that is the way it was done. There are some jurisdictions that call for a majority vote, and it may often be the case that this is the practical way for it to be done, but I think, for the system to work best, it would be desirable for the person appointed to have the unanimous support of the members of the House, if possible.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    My question is to whichever of our three witnesses would care to reply.

    Since you represent specific provinces and territories, you have had an opportunity to tell us how the system worked in your legislatures. Mr. Hughes, you mentioned earlier that there was an association of ethics commissioners that met to share information on a regular basis. Can you tell us whether the situation is much the same in the provinces that are not represented here this morning—namely that commissioners are appointed following a vote in the legislature, either a simple majority vote or a two-thirds majority vote?

    Are the commissioners appointed in the same way in the other legislatures and is the practice similar as regards the commissioners' independence?

[English]

    Mr. Ted Hughes: It's my understanding that what occurs in the jurisdictions the three of us represent is repeated across the country. The only jurisdiction that does not have a commissioner as such in place, although I understand it's perhaps imminent, is the Province of Manitoba.

    At our annual gatherings we don't seem to see much from the commissioner in Prince Edward Island, but certainly, when we have our round table and discuss what goes on, our colleagues from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, and the west and the north are all usually present, and we all hold our positions by virtue of a vote in the legislative assembly. And I think, as Gerry Gerrand has said, it is usually a unanimous vote, because it would make it very difficult to perform this function if there were not support from all sides of the House.

Á  (1130)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I come now to my second question. I am going to use the example of an officer of Parliament who is extremely neutral, such as the Auditor General of Canada. I believe that person is appointed for a 10-year non-renewable term.

    I understand that in the provincial legislatures, the trend is more toward five-year terms. I do not remember whether or not these terms are renewable or not, but do you think that a five-year mandate, whether renewable or not, is long enough and should be the term in effect, or should we be thinking rather of a longer, non-renewable term of office?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Clark: My best advice is that it should be renewable. I'm in my third term now. I'm not sure if that speaks well or ill, but I do think the House needs that opportunity to renew a person if they choose to. That's true of all five legislative officers in Alberta who are appointed the same way, and I think it's that way in most of the provinces across the country: it's a term of maybe five years and there's no prohibition on renewal.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: Let me address the first part of the question. No one act is identical to another act in Canada, as far as I've been able to see, but they all have the essential principles reflected in their provisions. I would venture to say those essential principles include a mechanism for private and public disclosure of assets by the members; a definition of conflict of interest, with the guidelines in that regard; provisions for advice by the commissioner to individual members, which, as Bob Clark has indicated, is one of the hallmarks, I think, of the position of a commissioner; and provisions for the carrying out of investigations. Each of the jurisdictions has legislation that touches similarly on those four points.

    The Chair: Jacques Saada, Yvon Godin, Geoff Regan, Rick Borotsik.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    We often have wise individuals appear before us, but to have three at once is exceptional, particularly since there is a fourth one who is watching our proceedings as well. We appreciate your presence very much.

    I have a number of questions I would like to ask, but I am going to start with the one I consider very important under the circumstances. It has to do with the fear mentioned by one of my colleagues a little earlier, about the political use that could be made of a complaint made by a colleague or anyone at all.

    In your systems, can a complaint be made public before you have ruled on it and before it is validated by your office? In other words, let us say that I, Jacques Saada, member of Parliament, make a complaint, without revealing my name, of course, about one of my colleagues. Are you authorized to disclose that complaint? And can complainants reveal the fact that a complaint has been filed before you have ruled on it and guilt or innocence has been determined?

Á  (1135)  

[English]

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: Complaints under our act must come from members of the legislature or the president of the executive council. Ted Hughes has had some experience with complaints that have been initiated by reason of an anonymous communication, and he'll certainly speak to that. If a complaint is initiated in the Legislative Assembly, of course, it is public. If it comes by way of letter, the obligation under the act, if the commissioner decides to carry out an inquiry, is to advise the member who has been complained about of the nature of the complaint and give him an opportunity to express his views. If the complaint is viewed by the commissioner as frivolous, he will not act. If the complaint is viewed as one that has merit and an investigation should be carried out, it is then carried out in the fullness of time, and the act provides for the filing of a report by the commissioner with the Speaker of the legislature, who must file it with the Legislative Assembly or make it public in a timely way.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: Let me just add that there's nothing in the statutes I've worked under that makes it confidential,. The conflict commissioner doesn't announce that a complaint has been lodged with him, but there's nothing preventing the member who has lodged it or anyone else announcing they have taken a complaint to the commissioner, and that has usually been what happens. So if you're going to stop any information that there was even a complaint on the table, you'd have to see that the person who made the complaint somehow was restrained. Also, of course, as Mr. Gerrand has pointed out, a member against whom a complaint is made is immediately notified by the commissioner, so he's given every opportunity to respond, and perhaps that member might want to speak publicly, unless there is some legislative prohibition against that. At the moment that's the way it works.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Would you agree with the following statement?

[English]

Anybody who is filing a complaint, as well as the one who is being accused, if I may put it that way, should not be allowed to publicize anything concerning this complaint until a decision is actually made in this regard, to prevent anybody from using that, especially when it comes to election time, when you have very little time to turn around, and actually having someone who may be totally innocent pay a political price through the single fact that there is a complaint against him.

    Mr. Robert Clark: I've had members come to me with situations where they have breached the act. One member had a very small business. His son was running the business, and he got a contract with Public Works, I think it was for $10,000. Yes, there had been a breach, I investigated it and reported to the House that it was a breach. No one in the media picked it up, but later in that member's term someone in his constituency of another political persuasion tried to make hay with this. The member had the report from the commissioner there and said, I went to the commissioner myself, and I've been vindicated. Then the issue was dead.

    I find that when people release the fact that they're going to ask for an investigation from the commissioner before the letter gets to you, there's generally not a lot of substance in the complaint.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: But the political point is still made, because you cast a doubt.

    Mr. Robert Clark: After the commissioner has done his investigation, it goes to the Speaker, it becomes public. Several members have been able to hold it up and say, I've been investigated, here are the results. It's not been seen as an issue to hurt people, I think, on either side of the House--and we've had complaints on both sides.

    The Chair: It's Yvon Godin, Marlene Catterall, Rick Borotsik, Geoff Regan, Werner Schmidt.

Á  (1140)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I would like to thank the witnesses we have before us today, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions.

    In the provincial jurisdictions you represent, are members and ministers in the same category? In other words, everyone should be treated equally under the same piece of legislation. A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest, regardless who is involved. I have trouble seeing how we can make distinctions between different groups here in Parliament. Apparently there are two classes of citizens, and one of them has a separate set of rules.

    I would like to know how this works in your jurisdictions and what you would recommend in this regard.

[English]

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: In Saskatchewan, and I think it's true of virtually every other provincial jurisdiction, there is no distinction in the statute between members of the legislature and those members of the legislature who happen to be serving on executive council. The entitlement to carry out an enquiry regarding their activities, the manner in which complaints are made, the obligations of the member with respect to observance of the act are essentially the same. There are some small distinctions. The president of executive council, who in every case is the premier, in my experience, can ask for an opinion from the conflict of interest commissioner respecting the activity of a certain member. Often that is done with regard to a person who is a cabinet minister. That reply goes, under the act, to the premier, who makes a decision based on the reply as to what action, if any, is going to be taken. Other than that, cabinet ministers and ordinary members are treated in exactly the same way.

    Mr. Robert Clark: I have just two small differences. One is that our legislation says a minister may not carry on an occupation. Second, a minister, once he becomes a member of executive council, must dispose of shares, preferably into a blind trust. They can hold mutual funds, but not shares in specific companies. Otherwise, ministers are treated in the same way as any other member.

[Translation]

    The Chair: You have two minutes left, Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Tell us about your experience. First of all, if we have an ethics commissioner, it is because we want the system to work. Every time you reply, Mr. Clark, you say that no one has ever been found guilty. Sometimes it seems to me that that is the problem. With all due respect, it is as though the ethics commissioner were engaged in saving people, rather than determining whether there had been a conflict of interest and exposing that if it were appropriate.

    Do you see a problem in the fact that the public can make complaints, not just parliamentarians? If this procedure were reserved for parliamentarians, that would mean that individuals would have to go to see their member of Parliament and ask him or her to file a complaint for them. Personally, I have always felt that people who had a complaint should make it themselves, without going through an intermediary.

    In this case, the complaint would have to be turned over to a member of Parliament, even in cases where people prefer to deal with the problem themselves. Moreover, if they do not find a member of Parliament to make the complaint for them, there is no complaint. The underlying idea is that it is up to the ethics commissioner to decide whether or not there is a complaint.

[English]

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I think a very important part of the ethics commissioner's work is to perform the task of preventive medicine. If members use the service of consultation that's available to them, the likelihood of their having conflict problems is very substantially diminished. I think you're correct, sir, that there's a lot of emphasis put on that area, rather than on finding people in conflict. I think the prime job of the commissioner is to try to put people in the position where they can avoid ever having complaints made against them.

    Having said that, I work in a jurisdiction, as with my previous appointment in British Columbia, where the public can make a complaint. If the statute only provides for members making complaints, I don't think you'll find that a person among the public who wants to make a complaint will have any difficulty getting an opposition member to bring forward a complaint if there is substance to it. That has been my experience. My experience also has been that where it's open to the public, you're going to get a lot more frivolous complaints, perhaps, in fairness, based on people not understanding what your office is, what your guidelines are, and what you're there to do. I have no problem with opening it up to the public, but I don't see that as a critical requirement, because my experience is that if there's substance to a complaint, an opposition member will be very quick to cooperate with a member of the public.

Á  (1145)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: You will have to keep your comment very short, Yvon.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, that is fine.

    The Chair: Yes, yes.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: In French, it is this long, however...

    The Chair: I know, I know.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: My other point is about members of Parliament and their spouses. I think that if we exclude someone, the impression is that we have something to hide. I believe the system in place at the provincial level includes the spouses of members of Parliament. The system in place currently at the federal level for ministers includes their spouses. I would like to hear your opinion on this matter.

[English]

    The Chair: It should be a short reply. I hate to do it in the case of three witnesses as distinguished as these, but some of our colleagues ask very long questions.

    Mr. Robert Clark: I expressed my view earlier that it should be included.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: I agree. The financial information of the family unit should be revealed for it to be a complete revelation.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I might just add that in British Columbia, where I did this work for six years, the requirement on the member is to indicate the nature of assets, liabilities, and sources of income. They are not required to show the amount or the extent of the holdings. It's true that this could make a difference when a conflict allegation is made, but the commissioner has full power to enquire when he or she has the annual meeting with the member, and that can be drawn out. Yet I always felt I got better cooperation from the member without their having to make a public declaration of what their worth was. I know that's not the case in most jurisdictions, where they have to put a dollar value on their holdings and so on, but I've never found that to be a critical requirement for the work I've done.

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall, Rick Borotsik, Geoff Regan, Werner Schmidt, then the chair.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Given your experience--and you all have substantial experience--can you just comment on your legislation, any gaps you've seen, any ways in which it could be stronger and perhaps better serve the interests of the public, as well as the legislators?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: There's a constant study of all acts, I think by reason of the experiences of the legislators themselves and the commissioners. As a result of specific inquiries that have been carried out, in some jurisdictions amendments have been proposed and passed to the various acts. Eight or nine months ago I was obliged to carry out an inquiry regarding the activities of a former cabinet minister. As a result of the report I filed, steps were taken to amend the provisions of the Saskatchewan act. We should, of course, not lose sight of the fact that this legislation is only eight or nine years old in most jurisdictions and is evolving fairly rapidly. We're trying to improve it. If it should come to pass that this act was passed, the Parliament of Canada should expect it will have to take steps in a year or two to try to improve it as well, by reason of experiences.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Robert Clark: In the legislation in Alberta there's a mandatory five-year review of the legislation. That's done under a legislative committee, something like your committee here, and it seems to have worked reasonably well.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I would just make one suggestion. I'm going to make reference to the first principle in the code of conduct administered by Mr. Wilson for public office-holders in Canada under the federal code. The first principle says this:

Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.

That provision is right within the statute in both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. I endeavoured to get that inserted as a legislated section in British Columbia and was unsuccessful. Ontario has now put that principle into the preamble to its Members' Integrity Act. I administer the act of the Northwest Territories, where the members, by virtue of the statute, are bound to live up to that standard. Quite frankly, I'd love to see that standard implanted in your legislation. I think it really says it all.

    Mr. Robert Clark: I tried to get that done in Alberta, and the furthest I could get was to have it put in the preamble. It's basically the same wording, but it's in the preamble. That's as close as I was able to get.

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome, commissioners.

    I don't mean to harp on it, but I find that this particular issue is the cornerstone of the whole ethics package, spousal disclosures. The proposal in this ethics package is to not have spousal disclosure as a part of it. Every province and territory does have spousal disclosure as part of their ethics package. The question is going to be asked a little differently, not what your opinion is, but if you had pieces of legislation that did not include spousal disclosure, would your job be more difficult than it is currently?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: Speaking from my limited experience, I think it would be. I would have reservations as to the sufficiency of the information I was receiving for providing advice to a member who comes to me about some proposal that he has in mind or carrying out an inquiry regarding some alleged conflict of interest. I feel I would be hamstrung in some respect if that did not exist.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I'll give you a very simple answer--yes. I know the document that has been put out in draft form for your consideration doesn't include spouses. My overwhelming preference would be to have that included. If the choice was legislation as it has been floated to you in draft form or no legislation, I'd go with what you've got.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: As you said, politicians have to be perceived to be and actually be squeaky clean. So we need the legislation. If there is no spousal disclosure in that, would your job be more difficult in the administration of it?

    Mr. Ted Hughes: Yes.

    Mr. Robert Clark: I'd have less work, because from time to time I get calls from spouses: I'm planning on doing this, is it appropriate?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: But if there were a complaint lodged and no spousal disclosure, could you honestly, in your opinion, say you could make the right decision based on the information you have without the spousal disclosure?

    Mr. Robert Clark: Under the legislation you have the power of a public enquiry, so you could get the information that way if you felt you absolutely had to. But it would make it much easier to have the spousal information.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I lived under a regime that had conflict of interest guidelines. We had to disclose confidentially, but there was no public disclosure until an issue was raised. Our proposal is that we have, as you do in your legislation, a confidential disclosure to you gentlemen, who I have a lot of faith and trust in, so I would give you the confidential disclosure. Do you believe it's necessary to have that public disclosure even before there is a complaint laid by the members or by the public?

    Mr. Robert Clark: The public disclosure is, if I can use the word, sanitized. It cites where your interests are, not the amounts. Yes, I think that's essential.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: I agree.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: Yes, absolutely.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is there any appeal of a decision any of you three gentlemen makes, other than the courts?

    Mr. Robert Clark: In all provinces--I hope I'm right here--we report back to the legislature. In Alberta you report to the legislature, and if the commissioner recommends sanctions, the legislature's got 60 days to accept, reject, or alter those sanctions.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: What we do is simply make recommendations to the legislature.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I've been at this 10, 11, 12 years, and while I've had a number of inquiries, I've never had occasion to recommend a sanction against a member. My overwhelming belief is that the members really strive to comply once this legislation's in place. They don't want to be caught out, and they really strive to comply. I've never had to recommend a sanction to a legislature.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is that true with the other two individuals?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: The only potential breach I've ever encountered was with regard to the activities of a person who is no longer a member of the legislature and over whom I did not have jurisdiction. But the inquiries I have carried out have vindicated the activity of the member and, in many respects, restored the faith of the public.

    Mr. Robert Clark: Last year about this time I had an investigation where a member had not disclosed his assets of about $750,000 and had loans with Treasury Branch. After I had finished the investigation, I talked to the member and advised him what my sanctions were, and the member chose to resign before the sanctions went to the House.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Most of us have portfolios that change in a fairly fluid way. How often do the members have to update their assets, confidentially and publicly? You mentioned, I believe, that there's an annual declaration. Is that when they're expected to do that? If I made a substantial change tomorrow in my portfolio with the business, would I have to make that call then?

    Mr. Ted Hughes: You'd have 30 days. We call it a material change. Annually, you have to file a brand new statement. We don't take a statement that simply says “the same as last year”, that's unacceptable, because we think there's merit in the member having to put his or her mind to the issue once a year as kind of a check. I've taken a bit of flak from people who say, well, I told you last year and you've got it all. I say, fine, here's my new set of forms, and I hope within 30 days I'll get them from you. And I do.

    The Chair: I think it might be useful, if you have public disclosure documents in your jurisdictions, if we could have them or if you could give our staff some indication where we can get them. I think they would be very useful to us. Rick, do you not think so?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Oh, absolutely. I'm fascinated.

    The Chair: It's Geoff Regan, Werner Schmidt, the chair, Michel Guimond , Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    To our distinguished guests, thank you for coming today. First I'd like to ask you what you do to ensure procedural fairness in the process when there's a complaint that comes before you? And what avenues for appeal are there for a member who feels that he or she has not received procedural fairness?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: I'll begin by relating my brief experience in the carrying out of inquiries. There's an obligation under the act, which has been remarked on, for the commissioner to, on a timely basis, advise the member of any complaint that has been made or the fact that the commissioner is going to carry out an investigation. Those investigations are carried out in private, in accordance with the provisions of the act. The commissioner, in this case, makes every effort to apprise the member who is alleged to have breached some provision of the act of all the factual matters that have been raised against him and the information that's come to his attention and, prior to the completing of a report, to review with the member some of the findings he's presently inclined to make, to give the member an opportunity to make submissions.

    My investigations have not been of a serious nature. Ted Hughes has had inquiries where he has arranged for the calling of formal evidence, with the entitlement of parties involved to be represented by counsel. So depending on the nature of the complaint, the seriousness of the complaint, the principles of natural justice follow.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I would only add that I firmly believe an inquiry should be conducted in private, for the very reasons that were put to us half an hour ago about the damage that can be done by something unfounded coming into the public domain. We have found it very satisfactory to conduct it that way, and always counsel has been allowed to appear with the person against whom a complaint has been laid and to make representations. I think that's probably the greatest safeguard we have, to allow counsel to come and make representations, so one can listen and hopefully rule with fairness and equity.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: May I ask who pays for the counsel?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: If I ever had to employ one, the legislative assembly would pay for the counsel.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: No, I mean if a member of your House wants to have counsel there.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: Ted Hughes has had that experience, I haven't. I've never turned my mind to it.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I'm just not certain whether any bills have gone in from counsel representing individuals. I don't know of the legislature having paid a counsel fee for a member who has appeared with counsel. That isn't a definitive answer, I'm just not aware of it.

    Mr. Robert Clark: My experience is similar.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I want to turn to the to the rules for ministers. I wonder if you could expand on this a bit. What in your jurisdictions are the additional burdens that are placed on ministers, how are they determined, and how do they work, if you haven't already exhausted that subject?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: We have a similar provision in our act to the one in Alberta: ministers must not carry on any trade, business, or profession. That restriction doesn't apply to the member of the legislature who is not a minister. There are prohibitions against entering into certain contracts with the government that apply to all members, including ministers. No prohibition attaches to contracts that are available to the ordinary member of the public, such as obtaining power, telephones, that sort of thing. If you have a lease on a certain pasture land that was in existence prior to your being elected, there's provision for that sort of thing to be referred to the commissioner, who will put his stamp of approval on it. The minister may, if his conduct has been brought into question, be the subject of a request by the premier for an opinion from the commissioner.

    Mr. Robert Clark: May I just add, though, that my experience has been that the legislation in place hasn't prevented the premier from removing a minister if the premier felt the minister wasn't conducting himself in an appropriate manner. My experience in Alberta is that this is a whole different issue, an executive issue, and the premier and executive council deal with that. We had an experience where a minister left executive council after the inquiry, but that was a decision of the premier, it wasn't my recommendation.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Ted Hughes: The question was, what in addition is applicable to ministers? Bob Clark outlined earlier the various things that apply to ministers, such as a prohibition with respect to carrying on a business or a profession. The only thing I would add is that the code of conduct that has been in place for public office-holders in Canada and is administered by Mr. Wilson makes certain additional requirements for ministers that must be met, one of which, of course, is that the disclosure statement shall include spouses and dependent children. So there are differences to be found there, it's more stringent, I suppose you could say. What's been floated in the draft form says, I think quite correctly, what's in that code would be paramount if there were a conflict between it and the code of conduct for parliamentarians.

    The Chair: I'm going to the end run then. It's Werner's turn now. I propose to then go to Ken, then to Jacques Saada, who has asked to go again. So it's Werner Schmidt, Ken Epp, Jacques Saada, and then the chair.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here. It's great to hear you and to have that lucid illumination of what you're doing in respect to your jurisdictions.

    I have a question with regard to self-directed RRSPs. The suggestion is that they be disclosed. First, what is the rational for disclosing self-directed RRSPs? And in the event that investments need to be put into a blind trust, could an individual, on taking office, simply move the self-directed RRSP into a non-self-directed RRSP without changing any of the investments in it, and then avoid disclosure?

    Mr. Robert Clark: Self-directed RRSPs are listed as part of the public disclosure in Alberta and where they are, not the amounts, not the numbers.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: What do you mean, where they are?

    Mr. Robert Clark: Well, the Bank of Montreal, for example, or Nesbitt Burns. Where the funds are. The member files with me his last statement from Nesbitt Burns.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: But that's not really my question.

    Mr. Robert Clark: Oh, I'm sorry. One of my colleagues may help.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: In Saskatchewan the member is obliged to give me the details of the spouse's RRSPs, the organizations, the shares held, the amounts, the dollar values. I see that. What is revealed in the public disclosure is simply the fact that there are RRSPs held in these shares or these mutual funds. The rationale for my knowing the dollar and the detail and the chapter and verse is in case some matter comes by way of legislative responsibility to that member where he might want to consult me as to whether or not he has a conflict: does holding these self-directed RRSPs and these assets constitute a conflict in what I'm doing? That's the reason for the revealing of it to me.

    The Chair: The question, I think, was whether the member has the option, before he publicly declares, of making them non-self-directed?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: I suppose, by the time he's competing his statement, he either has a self-directed or a non-self-directed RRSP. Whatever the factual situation is at that time is what he puts in his private disclosure statement to me.

    The Chair: I think that means the answer is yes.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's exactly what it means. That could lead a lot of places, but I'm going to change the direction a little, because that would lead to a lot of technicalities we don't want to get into right now.

    In some of these disclosure statements certain information is given to you, and you could become aware, as a commissioner, of a member being in conflict. Can you launch a complaint?

  (1210)  

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: Under the act in Saskatchewan a complaint can be launched by a commissioner following the receipt of a request for an inquiry, or a complaint from a member of the legislature, or by the commissioner's own volition. He cannot initiate an inquiry himself. I've not had occasion to do that.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: But I think it's fair to say that if the commissioner, once a matter had been disclosed to him or to her, saw there was a conflict, his responsibility would be to work with the member to point a way to change directions so that conflict didn't exist. The commissioner wouldn't want to be in a position of laying a complaint against a member, but rather he would help the member to make changes in his or her portfolio, whatever the case may be, so that conflict didn't continue. That goes back to what I said about the important role of providing preventive medicine.

    Mr. Robert Clark: Some of the advice I got when I took the job on in Alberta from the committee that recommended the legislation was that I seek to be 90% priest and 10% policeman. That does cause some challenges.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: So as a priest, would you initiate preventive action?

    Mr. Robert Clark: Yes.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: It's Ken Epp, Jacques Saada, Rick Borotsik, then the chair.

    Mr. Ken Epp: My first question has to do with what is proposed here in Ottawa for federal parliamentarians. When the commissioner makes a report, it will simultaneously be released to the person about whom the complaint is made and the person who made the complaint, tabled in the House, and made public. Is that good, bad, otherwise? How does it compare with what you do?

    Mr. Robert Clark: In the Alberta situation, once the report gets close to its final stage, I'm obliged to give the member who the complaint is against a copy of the report. The member then has a day or two to come back and question anything, and on occasion it's been to argue too. When the report is finished, it goes to that member and the leader of that member's party the day before, and on the morning it is to be released it goes to the person who's made the complaint. Copies go to the Speaker for every member of the Assembly.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: If I carry out an inquiry, without exception, the results of my inquiry must go to the Speaker of the House. The Speaker of the House is obliged, under the provisions of the act, to file my report with the legislature within 48 hours if the legislature is sitting. If the legislature is not sitting--and this is the result of an amendment within the last few months to deal with a deficiency we found in the act--the report is made public by the Speaker. So the making public of the report I file is done by the Speaker.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: The British Columbia provision is this. If it appears to the commissioner that the report may adversely affect the member, the commissioner must inform the member of the particulars and give the member the opportunity to make representations, either orally or in writing, at the discretion of the commissioner, before the commissioner finalizes the report.

    Mr. Ken Epp: That is quite different from what is proposed, and I think we'll want to pay attention to that.

    The next stage is my next question. Let's say a member is found guilty, but maintains he's innocent. The commissioner says, no, you're guilty of a breach here, and I'm going to report that, but the member says, no, I'm holding my ground, because I haven't done anything wrong. It goes into the legislature. How is it dealt with there? Is there a motion of the day? Do all the members debate it? What is the final resolution of the matter?

    Mr. Robert Clark: With the legislation I work under, within 60 days a motion has to be brought in the House to accept, reject, or alter the commissioner's finding, because the legislature is the highest authority. I'm an employee of the Legislative Assembly, which is the decision-maker.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: Similarly, in Saskatchewan the legislature has the final ruling on a report and any sanctions that may be applied within 60 days.

    Mr. Ken Epp: So it's debated and voted on.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: Theoretically. I've never seen that happen under our act to date, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: There can be no imposition of a sanction unless by the legislature. The legislature can accept or reject the recommendation of the commissioner with respect to a sanction, which can go all the way from a reprimand to the seat's being vacated. But the committee can't substitute its own view of what the sanction should be, it accepts or rejects.

    As to the point you make about the finding itself, I don't think there's any recourse for a member who doesn't like the finding. For instance, last week the report of the current commissioner in British Columbia on the Clark affair was made public. He didn't recommend any sanction, and he gave his reasons. Mr. Clark didn't like the report and said so, but I don't think he had any recourse, even if he was still in the House. The report is the report. If anything was going to happen by way of reprimand, which couldn't happen to someone who's no longer in the House, the member would have the opportunity of speaking, along with everybody else, before the House voted on imposing the penalty. Other than that, I don't think there's any recourse with respect to the finding that there has been a violation.

    Mr. Ken Epp: What I'd like to conclude with here is that your jobs as ethics commissioners could be very critical to a person's well-being in the future, so I think that you would tend to lean.... As you indicate, most of the time you're exonerating these people. I think that was your consensus, that you haven't had cases where you actually found people guilty. In view of that, how do you prevent the public from viewing you as simply part of the damage control team?

    The Chair: Can I just interject? It seems to me that you said prevention is a large part of what you do.

    Mr. Robert Clark: There are three things I tell people. First, I'm an employee of the legislature, not an employee of the government; I report to the Speaker, and the legislature then has to make a decision. Second, in Alberta individual citizens can make complaints to the commissioner's office, so I say to people, if you want to complain, launch it. I can't recall a matter of great significance that's come in that way. Most times members have made the allegation. My budget is approved by the same committee that hires all the five officers, it's included in the budget, it isn't subject to Treasury Board. So I make quite a point about the independence the office has and get out and talk a lot.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: There's quite a bit of activity in the carrying out of one's responsibilities. We must receive and examine the private disclosure statement of each member, which in our jurisdiction must be filed annually. We do have a provision, unlike the Northwest Territories and Alberta, for filing a statement asserting that there has been no material change, which I can accept or not accept, a simple one-page statement. I must meet once a year with each member of the legislature, and I do; there are 58 members of the legislature. Every report I do file is given press coverage. There's an awareness that there is a conflict of interest commissioner for Saskatchewan and his role is that of a watchdog over ethics. We have a sensitivity to that sort of thing in our province, for reasons going back to a number of years ago. I think there is a heightened awareness of the need for this sort of activity, and there's a greater sense of confidence in our legislators as a result.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I think there is really quite great respect in the provinces and territories for this position and the holders of the position. I think the public is really very glad that we're there, and I have never sensed a feeling that someone sees us as being part of the system and bought out by it, not at all. As far as news programs or editorials are concerned, the perspective I have read in the jurisdictions where I've been says, when is Ottawa going to get onside with the same kind of regime?

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Can you summon someone to testify?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Clark: Yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: In that case, let us say we have a system whereby spouses do not make disclosures automatically, but do so optionally. If it becomes important for you to get this type of information in investigating a complaint, you do have ways of getting the information you require, do you not?

    A voice: Yes.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Fine. So, in light of that, what is the advantage of spousal disclosure? I ask the question, because I know that among my colleagues, there are some very informal [Editor's Note: Inaudible]. There were a lot of reservations about spousal disclosure including the principle itself: we are the people who are elected, we are the people who ran for office, not our whole family. If you really can have access to all this information, if necessary, why require preemptive or preventive mandatory spousal disclosure?

[English]

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: Speaking for myself, the greatest portion of the good work I do is providing advice on a regular basis to a great many members of our legislature regarding a whole range of matters. I have available to me, with the private disclosure statement that is on file, the entirety of the family's financial affairs, and it makes it very easy for me to provide that information. If I didn't have the totality of that information, I suppose I'd want to obtain it in order to provide the advice. Having it in advance, from that point of view, is an advantage.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: You just don't have the whole picture on the basis of which you can give advice without it.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand your answer, and I respect it very much. I need to dig more to be convinced fully, but I understand what you are saying.

    It's the same thing concerning the spousal situation. What barriers do you have in the system to prevent spousal use of these statements, if, for instance, you have a split within a family. Is there any potential for utilization by one of the spouses of the statements made as a family unit to you?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: Well, I'm a recovering lawyer....

    Mr. Jacques Saada: So my question was pertinent.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: In our province there is an absolute obligation on the part of spouses who split up to fully reveal what their assets are, chapter and verse, so it wouldn't be a disadvantage doing it initially through the statements.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: And you would maintain the records pertaining to the disclosure of the spouse who is not a member?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: We must not lose sight of the fact that the statement is not the statement of the spouse, it's the statement of the member as to his understanding of the financial situation of the spouse. The statement comes from the member. The only person over whom we have jurisdiction is the member, and it's his understanding of the assets, the income, and the employment of the spouse.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Would you be patient with me? I'm a bit slow this morning. You mentioned a minute ago that you have the ability to call someone to testify. If you have no jurisdiction over the spouse, how can you call the spouse to testify?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: We don't have any jurisdiction over the spouse for the purpose of filing a private disclosure statement; that is not an obligation under the act. If some difficulty arises and it's determined that there should be an inquiry and the calling of evidence, there's no limitation on who we might call as a witness, but that situation would only arise if there were a need for an inquiry. Ordinarily, you use these statements for purposes of giving advice, and for the purpose of giving advice, I wouldn't think I would want to subpoena the spouse.

  (1225)  

    Mr. Jacques Saada: For the record, Mr. Chair, I don't know what the situation is or was in all the provinces, but this issue we're taking here of the code of ethics for members of Parliament is done within the context that no member of Parliament, or senator for that matter, has been involved in any case of conflict of interest that I can remember. So it's not under pressure. I'm not just saying that for you, I'm saying it for the record. We are anticipating and preventing more than anything.

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I personally have really appreciated your candour, your views, and your thoughts. You can see there's a lot of concern, and a bit of paranoia, quite frankly, about spousal disclosure. One of the comments I've heard from a number of people from all sides, not just from the government side, is that if this goes through and there is a requirement of spousal disclosure, it will certainly stop people from running for public office. You've held your positions for a period of time in your own jurisdictions. Have you ever had anybody approach you and say, I would really like to run for public office, but I am not prepared to, simply because I have to disclose my spousal assets?

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I've had potential candidates come in, discuss the requirements of the act, and make a decision as to whether they think there's something in there they would want to take into account in reaching a final decision on seeking a nomination. I've never had it broken down that it's because of the spouse that they might make a negative decision.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: I've never had a potential candidate approach me on that basis. In the course of carrying out interviews with the 58 members of the legislature of Saskatchewan on three occasions now, not one of them has ever raised with me a concern over their obligation to reveal spousal assets in the statement.

    Mr. Robert Clark: I offer to all the parties that I will sit down with potential candidates before the election, so the people know what they're getting themselves involved in, and no one has indicated to me that they chose not to run because of the spousal requirements.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Gentlemen, I've got some clean-up to do and I have one question of my own.

    Do you feel there are any significant omissions in our proposed code of conduct? Do you feel any of the provisions are unnecessary?

    Mr. Robert Clark: When Mr. Hall phoned me, I asked what would be expected of me, and he said he hoped I would comment on what we do in the province of Alberta. I've just gone over the proposal. My sense is, for goodness' sake, move on it. I would like to see the person appointed by the House. I would urge you to consider maybe having a different person to look after the Prime Minister's matters from the person who is responsible for the House. I think it might be much easier to get unanimous consent if it's just someone to deal with all the members, as opposed to the members plus the particular range of choice the Prime Minister may have in extra requirements and so on.

    I think this is a good start, and I really hope you move along on it.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Gerry.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: I earlier remarked on what I thought were the four pillars of conflict of interest legislation, and I see they are present in one form or another in the drafts that have been sent to me. I join with the views of Bob Clark. I think it's an admirable effort you're making, and I wish you well in carrying it out.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ted.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: Bob has pointed out areas we think you would want to put your attention to, but I confirm what my colleagues have said about this being a positive thing. I know we work under statutes, where all this is legislated. I know what's before you has its roots in the Milliken-Oliver report. I would just point out that it is not proposed that the code of conduct go into statutory form. I don't feel that's a negative thing at all, provided you keep in mind the two recommendations that were in the Oliver-Milliken report, the first being that the Senate and House of Commons adopt a code of conduct--they said their code of conduct--the second that the rules of the Senate and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended to provide for the appointment of a jurisconsult or ethics counsellor, as the case may be, and a joint committee of official conduct. Those steps would have to be taken into account to put it all into place, but I think it's a very positive move to bring this forward for implementation.

    The Chair: I appreciate that.

    This is our list of questions. We have notes, and I'm just trying to cover the bases. I do understand you're here to bring us your experience in your own jurisdictions. It says here that none of the jurisdictions you represent has a committee of the legislature that plays the kind of direct role, including that of an investigating body, that is envisaged by our proposals. I wondered if you'd care to comment on the role of the committee now. Again, I know why you're here, and it's our business to do this, but what do you think about the role of the committee in the proposals before us?

    Mr. Robert Clark: I was very surprised to see it.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: I can understand the reasoning behind the idea of the committee. When you're dealing with a legislative assembly that has 58 members, it's much easier to deal directly with the Speaker and those members than it is with a legislative assembly that has 300. You continue to be the creature of that Parliament, and it may be reasonable to deal with Parliament through a committee.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: I haven't had any experience of the committee, but I understand the proposal here, and I think it's reasonable.

    The Chair: Have you any thoughts as to how it might be framed so that when something gets to such a committee, partisanship is kept to a minimum? I only ask you to think aloud.

    Mr. Robert Clark: I think that's a pretty tall order.

    The Chair: Okay.

    My question is this. A few weeks ago we had an event here on the Hill, and there was a professor from the University of Montreal interested in ethics. His experience had been, I think, in ethics and medicine, also ethics with respect to lawyers--and recovering lawyers. He was making the point how much more complicated this thing we're discussing is, and how much more complicated, therefore, your work is, because of our diverse backgrounds. By definition, legislatures are full of people from every field of life. In the studies he'd done of the professions, it was much easier, because they all had a common culture. They had been educated in a certain way, they met the same people, and so on, whereas we differed in these respects. I was wondering if you'd care to comment on that, because you're operating ethics systems, frames of reference, for your jurisdictions.

    Mr. Robert Clark: My experience has been that people who have been elected, regardless of what party--I sat in the House in Alberta for a number of years in the opposition--can't really fool the folks back home, and most of the people who get elected are there for the right reasons. Certainly, there's partisanship in Alberta when it comes to some of these issues, but I think, when it gets serious and people's reputations are at stake, when you have to make a tough decision about suspending someone from the House, not having them paid for a period of time, or whatever other sanctions, the vast majority of members are able to rise above partisan issues and do the right thing, because it reflects on everyone in the House.

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Before I thank you all, I have very short interjections from Ken Epp and Derek Lee.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I have a short practical question. How big is your staff?

    Mr. Robert Clark: There are three people in my office, and I also do the conflict of interest stuff for 73 senior officials, the deputy ministers and so on.

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: You're looking at the staff.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: When I was in British Columbia, I had two assistants. In the Northwest Territories I operate on my own and get secretarial help as and when I require it.

    The Chair: Derek Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

    It is envisaged that this code will apply ultimately to the Senate as well as the House. Although you may not have any experience dealing with the Senate, do you have any thoughts on this? Although the disclosure provisions would apply to MPs as they got elected and from time to time thereafter, certainly every four years, whenever there's an election, once a senator is appointed, he or she is there until age 75. How do you react to my suggestion that for senators who are already appointed, there's no point in making disclosure? They're already there, they're already appointed under the old regime. The disclosure provisions should be there, perhaps, on a voluntary basis, and certainly as new senators come in, but why bother making a senator who has three years left go through all this procedure? Do you have any thoughts on that?

    Mr. Gerald Gerrand: The reason for the disclosure is to arm the commissioner with total information on which to give advice as to whether or not the carrying out by the parliamentarian of his legislative and parliamentary tasks indicates any prospect of conflict. Senators do carry out a legislative function, and they should, like everybody else, in my view, disclose their assets and regularly update the disclosure in a reasonable fashion as long as they serve.

    Mr. Ted Hughes: There may be a point about whether it needs to be annual, but there has to be, from time to time, updating, because it may be that the senator's ownership interests when he or she entered the chamber bear little resemblance to what they are at the time of departure. To make this current, the commissioner has to know, from time to time, what is the current state of affairs. So I don't think saying you've got a disclosure on day one and then closing the file would meet the requirements at all.

    Mr. Robert Clark: I think the public would find it hard to see that kind of transparency in the House of Commons and not in the Senate.

    The Chair: Colleagues, I'd like to thank Bob Clark, Gerry Gerrand, and Ted Hughes on your behalf. Gentlemen, it's been a very great pleasure and extremely useful to us. We do appreciate your being here. I want to say to you, it's a privilege, if you can watch minds working, to watch three minds working the way yours work. We want to thank you for the work you do in your jurisdictions. You bring credit to our electoral system. Thank you very much indeed.