HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, April 26, 2004

¹

1535

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

¹

1540

Mr. Bernard Shapiro (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, CPC)

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Ken Epp

¹

1545

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.)

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. Roger Gallaway

¹

1555

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

The Chair

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

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

The Chair

º

1600

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

The Chair

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Lynn Myers

º

1605

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Lynn Myers

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Lynn Myers

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Lynn Myers

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Lynn Myers

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Lynn Myers

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

º

1610

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

º

1615

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

º

1620

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)

º

1625

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Hon. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

º

1635

Hon. John Harvard

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. John Harvard

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. John Harvard

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. John Harvard

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. John Harvard

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. John Harvard

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

º

1640

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

º

1645

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

º

1650

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

º

1655

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

The Chair

»

1700

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Shapiro

The Chair

Hon. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

»

1705

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Hon. John Harvard

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

»

1710

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 016

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, April 26, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

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

    The orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(1), the proposed appointment of Bernard Shapiro to the position of ethics commissioner, referred to the committee on April 21, 2004.

    Before I introduce our guest today, there are two things I would like to do. One is to remind you that tomorrow, in camera, if things go according to plan, we will be looking at our future activity on security on the Hill. We'll also be looking at planning how we are going to deal with the 313, or whatever it is, appointments that are the responsibility of this committee. You're all comfortable with that?

    Again, before I introduce our guest, you should have his biography; you should have a copy of the news release, the announcement of the suggested appointments; you should have a summary of Bill C-4; and you should also have copies of the code of conduct that goes with Bill C-4, which was this committee's 51st report in the last Parliament. Do you all have those four things, colleagues?

    Yvon, oui? Non?

    Again, that's the biography, the news release, the summary of Bill C-4, and copies of the code, which was our 51st report. All that material is important.

    We are sort of on new ground here. This is the prior review of an appointment, which is different. Although similar things have been done, this is different. It's in advance, clearly in advance, of the appointment. It has been referred to this committee, it's our job to make a recommendation to the House of Commons, and then there will be a vote in the House of Commons.

    It's my understanding, by the way, and if you look at the bill, that under the bill this prior review is not absolutely necessary. If the House leaders had agreed and it had been referred to the House, there could be a motion in the House. We're doing a prior review.

    There have been similar things for the various offices of Parliament--the Chief Electoral Officer, the Privacy Commissioner, and people of that type. I'd like to read to you something from the Standing Orders that refers more specifically to those hearings, as distinct from this pre-review hearing, but I think they're relevant.

    It says here that the committee that is considering such an appointment “shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated”. There's quite considerable emphasis on that. It's the qualifications for the task at hand.

    Then it goes on, and if you look at Marleau and Montpetit, pages 876 and 877, in part that paragraph says, “Any question may be permitted if it can be shown that it relates directly to the appointee’s or nominee’s ability to do the job.” It goes on, and some interpretation of that is that questions regarding the nominee's political affiliation and political activities, if any, are not normally allowed.

    I would say to you as chair in this case that it's an unusual situation. Because we're looking here at a position in which clearly the person has to be regarded as non-partisan, in my view, within reason, such questions will be acceptable today.

    So as your chair I will interpret the rules as well as I can. I don't have direct rules and precedents for this situation.

¹  (1540)  

    The questions, I hope, will focus on our guest's ability to perform the functions for which he may be appointed. Whereas in the other hearings questions of political affiliation have been ruled as out of order, generally speaking, I'm going to allow them.

    Are you comfortable with that, colleagues?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: I'll now introduce our guest, Dr. Bernard Shapiro.

    Dr. Shapiro, we thank you for coming here today. I think you know this hearing is being televised. I think you know as well as we do that it's a pre-review in the way I've tried to describe it.

    I think you may realize this is the committee that was responsible for the bill that became Bill C-4, under which this appointment will be made, so our members are well informed about that.

    I know, Dr. Shapiro, that you are, and you've just heard my remarks. There's one other thing, though, that I think I should say to you. Normally in this committee we proceed with exchanges, questions and answers, of five or six minutes. We rotate fairly quickly so that all the members and all the parties get an opportunity, and then we go around again.

    The five or six minutes that each member has includes the question and the answer. Sometimes I warn the members that their questions are very long and sometimes I have to cut witnesses off because their answers are.... In this case, we're going to try to handle this in as civilized a way as we possibly can.

    Now, Dr. Shapiro, it's my understanding that you do not have a preliminary statement.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro (As Individual): That's correct.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are you comfortable now? You understand how we're going to proceed?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: That's fine.

    The Chair: Then we're going to begin with a Conservative, which would be Ken Epp, in this case. We'll proceed to a Liberal--and I'll determine who that is in a moment--and then we'll go to the Bloc, to the government side, and then we'll go to the NDP, and then to the government side.

    Ken Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Dr. Shapiro, thank you for showing up for the interview. It's good to see you here.

    I'd like to begin by asking you a few questions with respect to your past. I've read your resumé. It is indeed academically very impressive. One question I have specifically is whether you would put forward to this committee any specific credentials you have to deal with issues of code of conduct, ethics and so on.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I'd say the answer to that question is no. I think in the variety of positions I've had I've often found myself in a context in which you have to make judgments of this sort, relative to various kinds of procedures that are adopted inside some of the organizations for which I've worked and which I've led. But that would be it.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Before going into your past, perhaps I'll ask one more question in terms of your resumé.

    The chairman has given us permission to ask this. I know that for ordinary civil service jobs this is inappropriate. In this particular position that you're putting your name forward for, we deal with a number of different political parties. And I have observed around here that the House of Commons' staff are singularly astute in treating all of us equally, regardless of our political affiliation.

    With respect to your past, I'd like to ask if you've ever had any political involvement. Have you ever run for an elected office? Have you ever been involved in the campaign of a political candidate? If so, for which party? Also, I'd like you to elaborate somewhat on your ability to be politically totally 100% neutral. That's a requirement, and I'd like to know how you express yourself on it.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I've never been active politically in the sense in which you've raised it. I have not belonged to any political party; I've never participated in any campaign. So in that sense I've not had that kind of background.

    In terms of support for political parties, I am trying to remember whether I'd ever made a political contribution in my life. I think there were two, both of $100. One, I know, was in support of Elinor Caplan, who was someone I became familiar with when I was in Toronto, and the other I simply can't remember. It was in 1993, but I couldn't remember what it was. The records seem to indicate it had something to do with Scarborough East, but it escapes me as to what that might have been.

    In terms of the other part of your question, as I look on my own experience in working with government, in any government, I seem to have managed, from my point of view, reasonably well--other people might have other views--in dealing with governments of various different kinds. I've worked with Conservative governments, Liberal ones, the Parti Québécois in Quebec, the NDP in Ontario. So it seems to me I have been able to function effectively, from my point of view. Again, you would have to ask other people to know more precisely in those various contexts.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Thank you very much.

    I'd like to ask you, with respect to the appointment, one question of great curiosity to me. Did you approach the government? Did the government approach you? How did you find out about the job, and what process specifically brings you to us today?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I had not been aware that the job was actually open or available. I remember when the legislation was passed that there was a new interest in ethics in the Parliament of Canada, but I was not aware that there was a specific job or that in fact it was open. I was contacted some weeks ago—I think it's probably about three or four now; I don't remember exactly—by the Prime Minister's Office, who asked me if I would be willing to come to Ottawa to talk about this possibility.

    I then proceeded to have discussions with them and with the Privy Council Office. That's what brings me here today.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Do you know how it is that they singled you out from among the other 29 million Canadians?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I do not know and I did not ask. That is, it did occur to me to wonder how it is they got to my name, but I usually find that asking that question doesn't produce an answer that's helpful.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, that's what I'm thinking right now too.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: The sense I got when I spoke to them was that they had considered a variety of different people and they were asking me, but I don't know any of the details.

    Mr. Ken Epp: This brings us to a very important issue in your potential position, and that is that you have been contacted, and I suppose you could say “recruited”, by the Liberal Prime Minister and the Liberal Prime Minister's Office, which in a sense puts you on one side of the fence here in the parliamentary picture. I wonder whether that is going to come back to haunt you later, because if they give you the job, then you may have even a subconscious predilection to give them a little bit of an advantage when issues of conflict come up.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Of course, I cannot speak to my subconscious. That, by definition, is not available to me.

    I can speak for the rest of the question; that is, that the reason.... Let me put it as bluntly as I can. I think I want this job. I think it's a very exciting possibility. I think it could contribute something substantial to the people of Canada. I don't need the job. I think I will defend myself ferociously in it. To defend yourself ferociously in that case is to be absolutely clear that you're not parti pris relative to any of the parties involved.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: That's it, Ken, for this round. You're back on the list. Chuck will get on there as well.

    I have to mention that unless I missed something there, I assume before we arrived here the House leaders were consulted, because the act requires that all five be consulted, which suggests that whatever the selection process was, the House leaders know Dr. Shapiro is here.

    I have Roger Gallaway, Michel Guimond, Lynn Myers, and then Yvon Godin.

    Is there a point of order?

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC): I asked our House leader. He doesn't feel that he was consulted. He thinks there was a name put forward and that was given to him rather as—

    An hon. member: —an announcement.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: —“This is what the government would like to do”. That was the consultation. There was no request for names or any of that kind of consultation. It was a very brief consultation, at the very least.

    The Chair: And there is now, that being the pre-review, I guess, so that fits.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, I think so.

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much for that clarification.

    Mr. Gallaway.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Shapiro, would it be fair to characterize your career, if I can put it in those terms, as consisting of one as an academic and one as a bureaucrat?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I think of my career as having three or four different aspects. Why don't I relate them chronologically, to be very brief?

    I began, of course, as a businessman. I was in the restaurant business in Montreal. I then pursued an academic career as a university professor. Following that, there was some time in university administration, which is a really quite different kind of thing. Following that, of course, there was the time with the Ontario government as a bureaucrat. Following that, I came back to university administration.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: All right.

    In an article that appeared this past Saturday in the National Postwritten by Andrew Stark, who's defined as a professor of strategic management at the University of Toronto, the caption on the headline is “Job One for the new Ethics Commissioner”. I'm wondering, did you read that article?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Yes, I did.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: All right.

    Mr. Stark lays out what seems to be a very rule-based view or approach to ethics. Do you believe ethics are exclusively rule-based?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: No, I don't think any ethical system is exclusively rule-based, since even rules have to depend on something you believe in, in order to make the rules sensible. Ethics have to be based on the principles you develop over time, and these can change over time.

    The other issue about rules, of course, is that although we need them from time to time to help people through the various lives they're leading, so to speak, I think—how can I put it?—an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The task, to some extent, is of course to enforce the rules and the regulations.

    Much more interesting is the task to create a context in which people willingly prepare themselves in advance, so that you don't have a remediation to deal with; you have just compliance.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: Under the ethics bill, which creates your proposed office if you're approved, you have enormous powers as the ethics commissioner. You have the powers of a court. You have the power to subpoena people. Will you be making those decisions, or are you going to have a fleet of lawyers making those decisions for you?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I would intend to make them myself.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: You've obviously thought about this a great deal. What do you think your staff complement will be? I'm talking about the office itself. How much is this going to cost?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I don't have an answer to that question. I really can't tell you. That's not one of the issues I've considered.

    It will to some extent depend on the extent to which the members of the House of Commons adopt a code for themselves as part of the Standing Orders, because that will change, of course, the workload that has to be undertaken. But I don't know the answer to your questions.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: Under the bill, you may act on a letter. I'm a member of the House of Commons. I could write a letter to you alleging that another member has done something that in my view is unethical. How do you protect innocent members against frivolous and vexatious complaints? How do we ensure this doesn't become a form of Children's Aid Society for the House of Commons?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: There's no way of ensuring that in advance. It has to do with the sensitivity with which you handle the cases as they come up. We learn from that experience how best to deal with it.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: Members may also learn from that experience. What I would like to know is, what do you do if you receive complaints that are clearly frivolous?

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: If it's clear on the face of it that they're frivolous, you wouldn't proceed further except to respond to the claimant that you believe it to be frivolous and therefore are not pursuing the matter.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: The final question, asked around this place a great deal, is this. You have been proposed to be the ethics commissioner. How do we know you're ethical?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: You will have to judge from my behaviour.

    The Chair: If you can reconcile the University of Toronto and McGill, I think you must be fairly ethical, and you have done so in your background.

    Michel Guimond, Lynn Myers, Yvon Godin, and Claude Duplain.

[Translation]

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

    Professor Shapiro, I am very pleased to meet you.

    I have read the biographic information about you. Perhaps I am having difficulty understanding the English version of the release put out by the Privy Council Office compared to the French version. What has your status been since 2002? Concretely, what do you do?

    I read here: “Doctor Shapiro is currently emeritus Vice-Chancellor, Principal and Professor at McGill University, where he served as Principal and Vice-Chancellor from 1994 through 2002.“ What have you been doing since 2002?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I have been doing several things since 2002. I perform professional tasks for which I am paid. I have carried out a few projects for the McConnell Foundation as well as one for the government of British Columbia. I also give a graduate and post-graduate level course at McGill University.

    Finally, I am doing a lot of things for the Community of Montreal.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: For whom? I do not understand.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I am doing a lot of things for the City of Montreal, as well as for the province of Quebec.

    For example, I, along with Mr. Lucien Bouchard, co-chair the Société du Havre. I also headed the selection committee responsible for choosing the musical director for the Orchestre symphonique de Montréal. These are things people do on a volunteer basis. In my case, there is therefore a combination of professional and community work.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I would like to come back now to a question Mr. Epp asked earlier. It seems that until you got the call from the prime minister's office, you had never contemplated holding the position of Ethics Commissioner. Is that the case?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Indeed, I had never contemplated it before.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: If the position had been advertised—I do not know if this kind of position could be advertised in Canada's major newspapers—and if you had had to apply for it, do you think you would have done so? Perhaps that with all of your other activities, you would not have considered it.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I do not know. I was doing a lot of things at the time and had no desire to go seeking out any particular position. I therefore probably would not have applied, but I cannot be absolutely sure of that.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Have you had the opportunity, despite all of your activities, to follow the debate surrounding the passage of Bill C-4?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: No, not in detail. Over the course of the last few weeks, I did a little study on the matter. While the bill was being examined, it was not something that was very important to me.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: You have therefore not looked at excerpts from Hansard or from this committee's “blues“.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: No.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Any colleague around the table could say that the next question is a hypothetical one. And it is, I must admit.

    You say that you read the act very carefully. I do not know if this would change anything, but in your view, is it a good thing for there to be two ethics commissioners, one for the Senate and one for the House of Commons?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: One can say that it is one way of doing things.

[English]

    The Chair: If I can say, and I know you know, but if there are questions you don't wish to respond to, I know you'll feel free to say so.

º  (1600)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Shapiro is not afraid of answering questions.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: It is one way of doing things, but one could imagine another way. If there are two ethics commissioners, they can share a lot of things, such as administrative services, for example. It is one way of doing things, but there are others.

    That is all I can say.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: If you are appointed to the position for the House, do you believe it would be desirable for there to be exchanges, on a professional basis, between you and the person holding the position of Senate Ethics Officer?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: In my opinion, yes. One always needs colleagues.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I asked you earlier if you had followed the debate surrounding the passage of Bill C-4, but even if you did not do so, I am certain that you are up to date with regard to current affairs. As parliamentarians, and it was mostly the case on the opposition's side, one of our grievances with regard to Mr. Wilson's duties was that in our view he was acting rather as political advisor to the Prime Minister.

    We wish to ensure that the incumbent of this new position will work in a more independent fashion. The bill aimed at giving greater independence and greater transparency to the ethics commissioner and ensuring that he report directly to the House of Commons.

    A position of advisor reporting to the Prime Minister would therefore not, in your opinion, fit with the approach of Bill C-4. Correct?

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Shapiro, a very short reply, please.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: In my opinion the approach of Bill C-4 is important in this regard.

[English]

    The Chair: Next, Lynn Myers, Yvon Godin, Claude Duplain, Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In your former position, with respect to universities, I think you will appreciate what I'm going to say. That is, when I was a lowly student at the University of Western Ontario, I can recall Dr. Shapiro coming in as dean. I can tell you, point blank, right here, right now, I was impressed then, and based on everything he has done in the interim, I am equally impressed now in terms of not only his credentials but in terms of what he has done to serve this country.

    I'm very happy, Dr. Shapiro, to see you here today in front of this committee.

    I think I heard you, in response to one of the questioners, say you had a chance to in fact review and look over Bill C-4. I would be interested to know, almost from a philosophical base, given your reading of it and given what you know about it, and the flavour of what Parliament wants in this case, what you would say your mandate would be as ethics commissioner. What would you say based on the reading of the bill, based on your familiarization with the points that have been raised? What would you say your mandate is, and how would you articulate that for the benefit of this committee?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I would say that the mandate is to make the legislation real, to be able to not only be independent, but to be seen to be independent, and to deliver judgments that are appropriate and supportive of the House's intention relative to the ethics issues.

    The priorities, it seems to me, are two, in the very first instance. There are many that will come immediately after. One priority is, of course, to learn a lot. There is a lot I need to know. I come to the job without the collective memory of an office that might launch it more effectively, so to speak.

    The second is one that I referred to before. That is to work with this committee to the extent it wishes to, at least to make sure that the code for the MPs itself is adopted. In terms of change, I'm not quite sure what the House will want to do in that regard, but adopt it so as to make the office real.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: Are you--and obviously you are--familiar with the House code and all the various documents, for example, of the Prime Minister? I wonder if you could give us a sense of where you see that going and how you see that all interplaying with respect to this future position.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I think the House code, the one that was adopted by this committee, the 51st report of this committee, seems an entirely appropriate way to begin. It may even be an appropriate way to end. Only experience can tell us whether it works effectively or needs change. I have gone through it quite carefully. I find it a very useful document and something that I think will bring the markers forward.

    What's happening in the world at large is a continuous rise in the ethical standards demanded of people in public life. We can expect that over time some changes will occur, but I think it's a very great step forward.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: If you had to argue the one or two singular things that would qualify you for this position, what would you say they are?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I would say there are two things. It's very difficult to talk about yourself in this regard. It would be more appropriate to ask somebody else, but I am not modest about myself. I try to be reasonable. I think what it needs is some magic combination of intelligence, wisdom, and judgment. No one knows whether any one person is going to have that in the context. All you can do is look back on your own experience and ask whether you've been able to rise to similar types of occasions. I believe that more often than not I have. I think in particular the range of my experience, although it makes my own mother feel that I can't hold a job long enough, is what is going to be most helpful.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: Do you anticipate personal attacks over the course of the events of this position?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I anticipate that people will personalize their own judgments about my judgments. That just comes with the territory.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: Are you prepared for the term “lap dog”, for example, and all of the things that have been said in the past?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I'm prepared for it. The secret is not to have skin as thick as an elephant; the secret is to be elastic, to feel it, but to come back.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: It would be fair--let me finish the point--Dr. Shapiro, to say that you are a lap dog to no one. I think that would be a fair assessment.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I certainly wouldn't characterize myself that way.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Lynn.

    It's Yvon Godin, Claude Duplain, Chuck Strahl, Judi Longfield, Michel Guimond, if he wishes, and John Harvard.

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Welcome Mr. Shapiro. I would like to ask you a question that has already been put to you, but in a different way.

    You stated that you have done a lot of work in different areas over the course of the last few years for the City of Montreal and for other groups. Are you presently working under contract for the Government of Canada, the Liberal government, and have you worked under such a contract over the last 12 months?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: No.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Have you over the course of the last 24 months?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I do not believe I have.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: How do you feel, given the fact that the government has chosen only one candidate, in the context of this hiring process for an ethics commissioner as opposed to one with several candidates? How do you feel?

    There is in fact a link with ethics. You are aware that Canadians are at present disgusted with the political system. No matter where they are from or who they are, Canadians are saying that politicians are all the same. I believe that politicians have lost the respect of Canadians and that Canadians have every reason in the world to no longer feel respect for them.

    How do you see yourself in all of this? Do you believe you will be able to change things through your decisions, in order that people not see you as always leaning on the side of the Prime Minister?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I cannot say why the government chose just one person. I do not know why and I have no information to give you on that. I believe I will act in a way such that everyone will understand that I am truly independent.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Will you act in the same way whether you are dealing with a minister or with a simple MP?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Yes, it is the same thing. For me, there are different codes; there are the code, the system, the rules, the obligations and the principles. There are perhaps differences between the code of this committee and that of the Prime Minister but for me, it is the same thing. An MP is an MP and a minister is a minister. It is simply a different person.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: How do you think you would act if a member of the public called or sent you a letter asking you to carry out an investigation about a member of Parliament or a minister?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I would act in the same way every time someone sent me a letter. If it is a matter of importance, we will have to look into it and perhaps produce a report.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: We are aware that proposals have been made. In reality, you will belong to Parliament because you will be an officer of Parliament. Would you have preferred having the support of two thirds of Parliament for your appointment rather than simply getting a phone call from the office of the Prime Minister, who is just one person?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: It would have been preferable to have unanimous support. That is always preferable in situations such as this. Parliament decided to hire someone and we have Bill C-4. What can I tell you? It is a matter of Parliament's wisdom.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shapiro. The next questioners will be Claude Duplain, Chuck Strahl, Judi Longfield and Michel.

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have but one question to ask and if I have any time left over I will share it with Mr. Marcel Proulx.

    Mr. Shapiro, I would like to know one thing. Will you be there solely to ensure that the rules are respected or do you plan on being proactive in the performance of your duties? I would like to hear what you have to say in this regard. One thing is important to me. We are talking about the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons. The purpose of this code is, and I quote:

To maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of Members as well as the respect and confidence that society places in the House of Commons as an institution.

    Do you feel like being proactive to see how that might be accomplished? For me, it is important that we finally have a code of ethics in order that citizens trust their members of Parliament and their institutions.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I have always, in all of the positions I have held over the decades, striven to be proactive. A reactive position holds no interest for me because there would be no value added for Canadians or for the Parliament of Canada. I am not yet sure of the way in which I will be able to be proactive. We shall see after a few months or a few years of experience. It is nevertheless absolutely essential to be proactive, because otherwise there will be no confidence in the legislation.

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Thank you.

    The Chair: Marcel Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Doctor Shapiro.

    Doctor Shapiro, I see in your resume that you were involved in the restaurant business, as my colleague was saying. You answered that you were involved in a restaurant in Montreal. The rest of your career was much more theory than practice-based. You will be called upon to study situations involving ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the exercise of their duties, in their role within government, but you will also be responsible for examining or watching over members of Parliament. The role and duties of MPs are very very different from those of a minister or of a parliamentary secretary.

    I know that you have sufficient judgment and experience to know which allowances to make, but should all of this come under the same person in your view? What might be very acceptable on the part of a member may not be at all acceptable on the part of a parliamentary secretary or of a minister.

    Do you believe that you will be able to simultaneously carry out these dual duties without creating problems for yourself or for us?

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Yes I do. One might imagine another system with two, three or four officers, because there are always other ways of doing things. But for my part, I am convinced that I will be able to do it. We shall see in the coming years.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Very well. I presume that in your work as a civil servant you have acquired tremendous experience with the media, with media people.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Yes, that is correct.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Having to deal with the media does therefore not worry you in any way.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: No.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: It is not a problem for you.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Marcel.

    Chuck Strahl, Judi Longfield, Michel Guimond, John Harvard, Yvon Godin, and then Ken Epp.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again, Mr. Shapiro.

    One of the problems we've had with the legislation is that we would have preferred to have seen a recruiting or approval process similar to that in B.C, where the person in charge of the conflict of interest legislation is chosen by an all-party committee, and then the decision is approved through the legislature.

    One of the questions I have is, what if this appointment comes before the House, comes to a vote, and it breaks down along partisan lines? Does that worry you? Are you concerned about your ability to do the job if there are several political parties—or even one party—that say they don't like the process, don't like the appointee, whatever it is? Does that affect your ability to do the job?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I think it's certainly something I would not like to see happen. On the other hand, I think I could do the job one way or the other. One has to respect democratic traditions and then proceed on that basis. It certainly wouldn't change the way I behaved in the job.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. One of the complaints we've had with Mr. Wilson in times past.... He tried, I think, to make the best of a bad situation. He has ended up answering, as you know, to the Prime Minister primarily, and over the last many years we could never find a case where there was anything but a squeaky clean bill of health given to whatever inquiry might come along.

    One of the things that's clear here is that the confidential advice you're going to give to the Prime Minister remains confidential, but your report on backbencher MPs, ordinary members of Parliament, is quite public.

    It seems to me that you possibly could end up with the same dilemma. You could end up by saying you gave advice to the Prime Minister and that's where it sits. The Prime Minister could say, I got advice and it looks good to me. Nobody really knows for sure whether you thought the guy should be hung out to dry or whether or not he got a clean bill.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I don't want to put myself in the place of the House. The House discussed this issue, adopted the legislation, and it's my job to make it as real and as valuable as possible. I'm in no position to say how the legislation should be changed. I think perhaps a year from now I'll be more forthcoming on that matter, simply because I'll have had experience and I'll understand to what extent it works and it doesn't.

    In a position like this you also have to always ask yourself whether you're continuing to add value for the country at large. If I felt, for example, that no matter how hard I worked, no one ever felt I had the right answer to anything, I would have to seek another thing to do in my life.

    The Chair: Chuck, my understanding is that the confidential advice remains private in both cases, but if a report is delivered, the report is public in both cases.

    That's my understanding, Dr. Shapiro.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: That is correct.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm just reading from the report I was given here, which is that confidential advice given to the Prime Minister remains confidential.

    The Chair: Yes, and the confidential advice given to a member of Parliament remains confidential.

    And, Dr. Shapiro, you should know that when we consulted with all the provinces, they stressed that a great deal of the value-added was preventative.

    Sorry, Chuck, I didn't want to interrupt, but it's....

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Have you talked to Howard Wilson?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Yes.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: What kind of advice did he give you?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I wouldn't characterize our conversation as advice-giving. I've met him twice—once at the end of last week and once today—in which I was really asking questions to get more informed about the nature of the organization he was running, what some of the issues might be as we went to the new regime. So I haven't asked for or received advice from him in the sense that you've asked the question.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: One other question I had here is that the ethics commissioner is responsible for four different sets of public office holders—the ministers and secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries—so it's a good number of people in the House of Commons. But he is also responsible for political staff and the governor in council appointees and ministerial appointees.

    But only the ministers of the crown are really covered as far as if I have a concern about somebody and want to get hold of you and file a complaint or a concern with you. It only really covers the ministers of the crown.

    Maybe you can't comment on the legislation, but it does seem to me that sometimes people may have concerns about what's going on in an office, for example. They are covered. The ethics commissioner is expected to administer the code for all those groups. But it is my understanding that you will only report back on the ministers themselves. What happens to the others you administer the code for? Do we never see any reports on those folks?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I'm not sure about the answer to the question, but I'll tell you the response I have at hand at the moment, which is that I would expect that my opportunity to make an annual report to Parliament itself will give me more than enough opportunity, not to deal with individual cases, but to be able to say what the nature of this experience is, what the kinds of problems are that are arising, and therefore what changes, for example, might be appropriate as we move forward into the future.

    In that sense I think there is a great deal of value-added that can be gained just by reflecting on that experience, and not simply in a sense reporting on the number of this, that, or the next thing that happened. What this tells us is about the issues that are of concern to people and therefore what we might think about in terms of future developments.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: That may well be, and we look forward, if you're going to get this job, to your annual reports. Annual reports from officers of Parliament have been very interesting lately, and I look forward to yours, perhaps a year from now.

    Just so I'm clear on it, your annual report will be a summary of some of your activities, your observations, and the ways perhaps to improve the system. When someone makes a complaint against the minister, for example—I guess they make an accusation to you and it will remain confidential, perhaps, and it will be investigated—in your annual report, will you list the complaints of the people who have had complaints raised against them and/or the people who have raised the complaints?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I'm not sure. I'd like to know the answer to the question. I ought to know the answer to the question, but I don't because I'm not sure how the legislation lays this out. But you want the annual report to be as concrete as possible relative to the other constraints of both the legislation, privacy issues, and confidentiality issues that have of course to be respected. So I haven't a good answer to your question, but I will have sooner or later.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a short one.

    I'm not sure exactly how the legislation reads. I was trying to get that from you, but we'll both find out, I guess. It does seem to me, as has been mentioned by others in times past, that if it were to be public you might get the best of both worlds. You may get fewer frivolous complaints, but also more action from ministers who need to make a change in their ways. In other words, from opposition members, for example, you'd get serious inquiries with serious concerns, and hopefully, with serious judgments and verdicts.

    The reverse is also true. People who made continuous, frivolous accusations would be seen as that, as frivolous and not to be taken seriously. So there may be some value in it both ways.

    The Chair: Very briefly, Dr. Shapiro.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I think that's correct, because I think there's a huge value in information sharing in an open society such as ours.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, thank you.

    The Chair: I have Judi Longfield, Michel Guimond, and John Harvard.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Dr. Shapiro, in your role as the deputy minister of education and later as deputy minister and secretary of the management board, did you ever have an occasion where you felt it necessary to make recommendations to government on changes to pieces of legislation to facilitate the job you had to do as deputy minister, where you found that perhaps there were provisions in the legislation that made it very difficult to do the job of administering?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: This is now quite some time ago, but it seems to me, as I recall it, I was constantly finding things that could be improved by changes in the legislation or the regulations, because we don't live in a perfect world. There are always changes.

[Translation]

Improvements can be made.

[English]

    So this happened very frequently. Sometimes it worked and I was able to get the changes in the legislation and regulations. Sometimes there was no interest in it and I had to wait for another time.

    One thing I did find out is that you never forget. I always had them ready in my back pocket for when the moment was right and the legislation could be changed.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, I've heard that about bureaucrats who have it ready.

    I guess I really wanted to ascertain whether you would feel constrained as ethics commissioner if six months from now or a year from now you found that the legislation, as it is, is totally unworkable. Would you be prepared to come back very quickly, even before the annual review if necessary, to point out where you thought there were some problems that needed addressing?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I think that's one of the most important issues for the annual report. It's not simply what happened, but what should we be able to do more effectively in the future.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Through you, Mr. Chair, just having read the legislation, do you see any area that you think might be problematic? Specifically, you're going to have to be all things to all people, and in many ways you'll be the sounding board, the person who a member of Parliament would call to try to anticipate whether they were treading on thin ice, and then in the next instance you may also be the person having to pass judgment on whether their actions were appropriate or not.

    Do you see this as a potential conflict for you?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I don't see it as a potential conflict. It certainly is a potential difficulty in the sense that these things aren't easy to balance, but there's not supposed to be anything easy about this.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Particularly when in some cases they may not have taken your advice precisely as you had directed them.

    You alluded to the members' conflict of interest, and I'm sure you know that while this committee actually tabled that 51st report, it wasn't concurred with. I guess I'm wondering how difficult it would be for you to assume the role of ethics commissioner if we did not have a code of conduct for members available to you.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: It would be easier, but awful. It would obviously be easier--there'd be less to do. But it would be awful. I think it would betray the whole sense of the legislation itself. That's without comment on the particular Standing Orders that were recommended. Those, presumably, people will debate about and have views about. But there must be something. It's absolutely essential.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you.

    I think my other questions were answered prior to this, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Judi.

    Michel Guimond, John Harvard, and Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

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

    I will begin by making a comment that my friends opposite will not like. At the end of 2003 there was a change in prime minister. We for several years said that Harold Wilson was a political advisor to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien rather than an a true Ethics Commissioner. The Liberal members opposite always responded by shouting out in uproar. Now, when we say the same thing they are in agreement with us: there is no longer anything good in the Chrétien regime. I simply wanted to underscore for you this change in attitude.

    Mr. Chairman, I have a question for our researcher. I would like to know how we are going to go about ratifying the appointment of the Ethics Commissioner. Will this be accomplished through a motion of the House of Commons, a resolution or a motion? I would like you to refresh my memory, and that will lead me to my second comment.

º  (1630)  

[English]

    The Chair: Colleagues, my suggestion would be that there would be a motion from this committee to the House.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: How will the motion be ratified in the House?

[English]

    The Chair: A motion in the House itself--

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Will it be a motion presented by the leader of the government?

[English]

    The Chair: We recommend something to the House of Commons.

    Would you like me to read it?

    I'm supposed to read this, Michel, if you'll give me a minute.

    This is a prior review, so we have to bear that in mind, because we're not faced with someone who has been appointed. But under the act, it does not envisage prior review, which we're having.

    It says:

The Governor in Council shall, by commission under the Great Seal, appoint an Ethics Commissioner after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the House of Commons and after approval of the appointment by resolution of that House.

    And that is your question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: If I understand correctly, Bill C-4 as such has been passed and is in force.

    I will conclude by making two comments. Mr. Shapiro, in a release dated April 21, here, in summary, is what Mr. Saada, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, says about you, and I quote:

His experience and credibility at the highest levels of academia and government make Dr.Shapiro an exceptional candidate for the position of Ethics Commissioner.

    I would like to tell you, on behalf of the Bloc Québecois, that we are in full agreement with that statement. We are not always in agreement with what the government says, but in this case we do agree with the government's evaluation. We consider you to be a Montrealer and a Quebecker who is very involved in the community and we would be in favour of your appointment.

    I will now make a final comment through which I somewhat dissociate myself from my colleagues. There is something for everyone today; you are lucky. I dissociate myself from my colleagues from the Conservative Party. Clearly, the process could be different, but the process is there. I do not like the idea of people voting against a candidate as prestigious as Mr. Shapiro. We know that the so-called democratic reform project is just a smoke screen and that electioneering is the only thing pushing the government to call an election and I agree with my colleagues of the Conservative Party on that. It nevertheless remains that we have the opportunity here to give our approval for the appointment of a candidate such as Mr. Shapiro. I wish to tell you that we of the Bloc Québecois will be speaking in favour of it.

[English]

    The Chair: John Harvard.

    Hon. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Welcome to the committee, Dr. Shapiro. I wish you well and I hope you are supported unanimously whenever the resolution is brought before the House.

    You said earlier that you had difficulty talking about yourself, so perhaps I could ask you to talk about the men and women who will be the focus of your work, in other words, the members of Parliament. I gather from your resumé that you have known a good many politicians over the years. What do you think of politicians? Do you have many as friends?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I don't have many as friends. I have a few but I don't have many, so I can't say I have many.

    My view of politicians is that there's a kind of disjunction in the public perception. There's this incredible cynicism about politicians, which seems to me quite undeserved when you actually look at the individuals one by one by one. This isn't to say politicians are saints any more than university professors are; it's just to say that most politicians I've met are seriously concerned with the public good and how the government can contribute to that. They differ as to how this should be done, about what's first, what's second, and what's third.

    That's what makes me comfortable in accepting this job. It would be crazy to accept a job if you believed the people with whom you'd be working were criminals; it would make no sense whatsoever. This is, after all, what the government adopted for itself.

    So my experience has been relatively positive.

º  (1635)  

    Hon. John Harvard: Well, as a practising politician, I'm glad to hear that. I'm glad you don't come to your work with a jaundiced view of us.

    How would you answer this question, Dr. Shapiro? Do you think our job as politicians is a difficult one when it comes to these issues of ethics? I'm sure there are some Canadians who find it rather difficult to understand why politicians, we MPs, would need an ethics commissioner to sort of watch over us. They would think something called “ethics” would just be a very fundamental part of our lives. If we know what is right and what is wrong, we should be able to tell the difference and conduct our lives accordingly. What would you say to Canadians who have that particular view?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I would say a couple of things. First of all, it isn't always clear what is right and what is wrong. That is not an easy question to answer, however much it may seem easy in the day-to-day life we lead.

    Second, if we're going to maintain and grow the faith people have in our democratic institutions, if we're going to avoid what's been called le déficit démocratique, if we're going to avoid all that, we have to demand a higher level for people in public office than we do for ordinary people. This is a way of illustrating that we're serious about that.

    Hon. John Harvard: I think you've already answered my next question, which was, do you believe that members of Parliament, given the kind of work they do, should be expected to adhere to a higher standard of ethics than just the ordinary Canadian, if there is such a thing as an ordinary Canadian?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: The answer is yes.

    Hon. John Harvard: When it comes to allegations of one kind or another--and I'm just generalizing here, Dr. Shapiro--would you say that, at least in your initial approach, you will be setting the bar rather low, in other words, letting through what some people would consider rather frivolous complaints? Or do you have a sort of fixed idea of where you're going to set that bar, and if the complaint doesn't measure up to it, you're going to just chuck it, punt it?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I don't have a fixed idea of where I'm going to set that bar because I just haven't had enough experience to be able to know that, but I do think you shouldn't hesitate to dismiss allegations you regard as frivolous, because it demeans the entire process if you don't.

    Hon. John Harvard: Does that mean you will have to, at least in the initial instances, give the public the benefit of the doubt, as it were?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I'm not sure about that; I'm really not sure. It's a fine question of judgment, and I'll have to see how that works out. I'll be able to tell you next year whether that seems to be the case. I don't know; I'll have to have the experience.

    Hon. John Harvard: I just have two more questions, and I'll ask both of them together.

    You've spoken to Mr. Wilson and you know the legislation. Do you think you'll be running quite a different shop from Mr. Wilson's?

    The second question is, how much time do you expect to devote to this job? Are you going to be working 40 hours a week?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I don't remember the last time I worked as little as 40 hours a week, so I don't suppose it'll be any different in this particular case. It's a full-time job and you spend the time you need to do it, however much time that turns out to be.

    I don't know yet. I don't really know Mr. Wilson well enough. I certainly don't know the office at all and whether my shop will be different. It's bound to be different in certain respects, because I'm a different person with a different background. How different remains to be seen.

    Hon. John Harvard: Do you want to strike fear in us?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Not for its own sake.

    Hon. John Harvard: I think this guy's going to work out all right.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Contrary to my colleague, Michel Guimond, who says he will vote for you because you are a good Montrealer, a person of integrity and all the rest... As you know, there is a Parliament and it belongs to the opposition, as I have heard it said, in the sense that the government usually makes its decisions within Cabinet, whereas the existence of a Parliament allows the opposition to question the government and to have public debate. We all know that when bills are presented in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister tells government members to vote this way or that way and to follow what is called the party line. It is all fine and dandy that Bill C-4 has been passed, but there remain concerns, such as having two thirds of Parliament vote in favour of the appointment of the ethics commissioner or even the possibility of there being several candidates in order for us to have a choice.

    Now if a political party—and I believe the question was asked earlier—was not in agreement with the process, which has nothing to do with the person appointed, and wanted to send a message to the government, how would you view that? I know that you stated earlier that you would like there to be 100% support.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I will act in the same way whether it is 100% or 60%. I would prefer unanimous support, but that is just my preference. Even without it, we will do the job.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: You therefore accept the role of the opposition?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Naturally.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

    With regard to gifts, I am perhaps mistaken, Mr. Chairman, but it is my impression that ministers must declare any gift worth $200 or more which they receive and that members have the same obligation for gifts worth $500 or more. If you had to make a decision in the case of a minister, what would it be if someone told you that he received such and such a gift as a member and that he is therefore entitled to a $500 gift as a member rather than to a gift worth only $200 as a minister? You would have to make a choice given that the same person comes under both codes.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I believe that I would choose the highest standard. If we have to choose between $200 and $500, we would always choose $200.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

    Ken Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Shapiro, I'm going to be a little brutal with you right now because I have a very serious question.

    One of the charges that was often laid--and I believe in some cases at least justifiably--against Mr. Wilson was that he became part of the government's damage control team. To a degree, your participation here today is already part of that agenda, since this meeting, to my understanding, is not required in legislation. It just happens that because we're coming up to an election, the Liberals want to be able to say they had a meeting of all parties and the candidate was interviewed, so it looks really good. Now you're actually participating in that.

    How does it make you feel to know you're already being drawn into this web?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I have thought about that. I do read the newspapers and I can see what kinds of comments people make. However, I was willing to come today without feeling compromised because I thought it was a good idea, irrespective of the motives of the people who put it together.

    That's the kind of choice I would make. Does this seem to move the markers forward? Is this a process that would be preferable to not having it? My answer to that is yes; therefore I'm quite willing to participate in it.

    To say that one can exist in this milieu without ever being touched by what other people do, for whatever motives they have, would of course be unrealistic. But I always ask myself whether it makes sense for me in this role. I think it does; therefore I am glad to be here.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. I have another question that is rather all encompassing. We've had cases of civil servants who have, shall we say, misused the appropriations that were available to them. I would like to ask you how your personal commitment is in this regard. I understand you live in Montreal. Are you going to move to Ottawa? Are you going to commute? Is that going to be at taxpayers' expense? How about your personal expenses for participating in your job and so on? How are you going to handle all of that?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Well, I'm not going to move to Ottawa. My residence will remain in Montreal. I will spend most of the working week here. I'm not going to go back and forth each day, but I'll spend most of the working week here. The moving back and forth to Montreal and Ottawa will be at my own expense, not at the government's expense, because I think that's a choice I made and not a choice the government should have to absorb in any kind of way.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Ken Epp: That's a very fine answer. I appreciate that.

    The next question I have for you goes back to the role of dealing with members of Parliament. You've been an educator and so have I, so we have one thing in common, and that is that almost certainly we have been subject to the direction of supervisors who have given us jobs that were mostly make-work. In my view, the role of the ethics commissioner in playing school principal over a whole bunch of backbench MPs—

    The Chair: Vice-principal might be a better acknowledgment.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Well, perhaps the vice-principal. You know that too, Peter.

    Really what you're doing is you're on hall duty for a bunch of backbench MPs who have a very clean record in this place, but there are very many of them, so you have a lot of busy work to administer the details of the code, take all the registrations, all the statements and all of that. That will keep you very busy, you and your staff. Meanwhile, there will be some problems with letting of government contracts or perhaps conflict of interest between ministers and some of the people who get jobs with whom they do business, and that is also going to demand some attention. You are really not enabled to deal with that to the same degree as you can with backbench MPs, where I predict you will have very little real activity.

    So how do you think you're going to handle that in your position?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I think you are probably right, relative to the amount of substantive conflict that will emerge relative to the backbench MPs. I think doing hall duty is not at all difficult work if the students are all behaving, so it wouldn't be too burdensome. You are right, there will be a lot of, in a sense, bureaucratic work to do--as you say, filling out forms, keeping records, things of that sort--but I don't think that in particular ought to take up much of my attention, because I think you are right about the likelihood of coming across serious difficulty. But we'll see.

    Mr. Ken Epp: My last question in this round concerns this. I would like to have your opinion about the whole process in dealing with cabinet ministers. Now, in view of some of the issues that have come up with this present government in the last two or three years, where cabinet ministers have been shuffled out of cabinet, shuffled out of Parliament, shuffled right out of the country because of perceived wrongdoing, yet there was never an inquiry and we never got into the real nitty-gritty of it at the time, do you feel that the legislation and the Prime Minister's present code are adequate for dealing with this?

    Here I must also express some ignorance, Mr. Chairman. I'm not even aware of whether the new Prime Minister has complied with the act that says that within 30 days of assuming office he is to table his code. Has he done that? I don't even know whether the code is in existence.

    The Chair: Yes, I'm advised he did it immediately on appointment.

    Mr. Ken Epp: So he just reintroduced the code that the previous Prime Minister had?

    The Chair: He modified it somewhat, I'm advised.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, we'll have to check into that. As I said, I expressed my ignorance on that. I wasn't aware of that having been done.

    In any case, we have a code for backbench members of Parliament, which at this stage has not yet been adopted in the House, as far as I know. So here you are administering a code for MPs that has not yet come into effect. I'm not sure that it will be prior to the election call. So do you feel adequately backed up by the codes that are there in terms of being able to do your job adequately and with great honour?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I think I'm adequately backed up relative to the ministers, because that code is in place, and I think the capacity, the new kind of independence the legislation provides--once it's proclaimed--to the office should enable me to do the work, as you say, with honour.

    I think the question of the code for MPs depends on the MPs. Are they going to adopt one, and if so, which kind? As I said before, that would be a first priority for me, because otherwise half the job remains undone.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ken.

    Next it's Roger, and then Chuck Strahl and Claude Duplain--very briefly.

    Roger Gallaway.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Shapiro, in response to a question posed by Mr. Epp, you made a very interesting observation, and that is with respect to you paying for your own expenses here. You said you didn't expect the government to pay for that. Is that correct?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: That's correct.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: All right.

    But I'd point out to you that you don't work for the government.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I understand that.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: You work for the House of Commons. So you don't expect the House of Commons to pay for that.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: That's fair enough. Thank you for the correction.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: All right.

    Secondly, in 1992, when you were the Deputy Minister of Colleges and Universities, you wrote a memo that I guess was interpreted in various ways. I've found an article by a Professor Shallit, from the University of Waterloo, who stated that you failed to understand the Internet, that you were in favour of banning what you termed obscene materials and he thought that was wrong in an academic setting.

    That raises the question--and I'm not saying he's correct; I'm just saying it's an observation--what do you know about Parliament, specifically the House of Commons?

    Within the legislation you are vested with enormous powers. You in fact have all the privileges and immunities not only of a member of Parliament, but of the whole House of Commons. You're the most powerful person on this Hill, if you are confirmed. Can you tell me what your understanding is of those privileges and immunities?

    You have powers greater than the group of us here. In fact, you have all of the powers of the House and of individual members.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I can't answer that question. I don't know what the particular privileges are of the House of Commons. It is something I will learn a lot about as I move into this position.

    I hesitate to think of this job as the most powerful on the Hill. I do understand that the legislation is specifically designed to give strength to the position, and I hope I'll be able to use that responsibly. But it's not a power gain; it's an education gain. The power may be necessary in order to make that take place, but it's important to remember that distinction.

    The Chair: Thank you, Roger.

    Chuck Strahl, and then Claude Duplain.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

    Again, Mr. Shapiro, I appreciate your answers today. I think you're doing a fine job, given that there are quite a few unknowns coming up for you and for us.

    Most specifically, I still maintain my concern about passing a bill without an accompanying code, that I know what's going to be in it so I know whether....

    And this is just opposition members. There is, as you know, the 51st report, for example, that recommended that a member shall disclose or “file with the Ethics Commissioner a full statement disclosing the Member’s private interests and the private interests of the members of the Member’s family”. That was hugely controversial on all sides of the House at the time, but that's just an example of work half completed. I am not questioning so much whether you're the right guy for the job; I am still questioning the job.

    By the way, whether I think it's going to be approved or not will have nothing to do with the fact of whether you come from Montreal, Quebec, or from Vancouver Island. I think that's immaterial to this discussion. Your qualifications, I hope, are not based on residency so much as the rest of it.

    But I do have to ask again, how can you have confidence in the administration of your duties when you don't yet know what the code is going to look like? You say a year from now you can perhaps table a report and say, “Here's how to improve things”, but we don't even have enough to give you to even know how to start day one. I think you'd be shuffling around here with an aimless look on your face until you got the code given to you.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I doubt that I'll be shuffling around with an aimless look on my face. Nevertheless, I think it's perhaps a question of personality. I've often been asked what the definition of a professional is. I've often said, in response, it's someone who has enough faith in himself, and whom others have faith in, to leap over the available data to make a judgment and make an act.

    I think the unknowns are part of the fascination of all this. It doesn't mean there won't be roadblocks. It doesn't mean there won't be real difficulties encountered, because there may well be. It doesn't deter me from believing that I can value-add to the House.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think you're going to have an impossible job until there's a code of conduct on the members.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I agree with that.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: As you say, it would be an awful omission. Whether it's going to be the 51st report, which I hope it isn't because I disagree with large parts of it, we do seem to have the cart in front of the horse. As my colleague from Elk Island has mentioned, there's a bit of a political statement going on here.

    I like what I'm hearing from you personally, sir. I think you're answering the questions well, and I see no red flags in that sense. As for the legislation itself, and especially the lack of a code of conduct, it's making it very difficult for me to say I want you to administer something when I have no idea what it's going to be.

    I hope you understand my reticence. It's not to your candidacy, but to the fact that you're going to start, and literally on day one, if you get the job next week, and someone will say he'd like to file a concern or a complaint against the member from Elk Island, for example, and that he should be doing the following.

    Of course, I have no idea, because there's no code of conduct. I know you say you can jump over this little obstacle and use common sense, but you really have nothing to administer until you have a code given to you. The code is not there.

    How can you take the job until you see what it is we're all going to be tasked to do or we want to do?

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I understand the difficulty. Perhaps I'm over confident in my own capacity to deal with the issue. I also feel confident in something else. I feel the House will adopt a code, whether it's this one or some revised version of it.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. As I say, I repeat that without knowing what the code is, it's pretty hard for some of us to get excited in saying we can hardly wait for you to administer something that is not yet approved.

    I pointed it out because it's like regulations in bills, as a rule. You can say this sounds okay. Some bills are like that; they sound okay. Now the minister has complete carte blanche to develop regulations and see what it looks like.

    In this case, it's not that; it's not the minister. But sometime, at some unknown date, you will get a code of some kind that we will all be bound by. Again, sir, it's no reflection on you.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I accept that.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: It is a real concern of mine to approve your appointment in advance of an adoption of a code of ethics.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: Fair enough. I understand the point.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Chuck.

    Claude Duplain.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Mr. Shapiro, if you allow me, I would like to make a suggestion to you.

    I had the good fortune within the Chrétien government to hold the position of parliamentary secretary. As soon as I was appointed, I got a phone call from Mr. Wilson's office. I had to fill out countless forms and disclose absolutely all of my property and interests. During the course of my mandate, I believe I was the subject of a comprehensive investigation; I was required to meet with someone from Mr. Wilson's office and to speak several times to Mr. Wilson.

    I am telling you this because of the statement Mr. Guimond made earlier, namely that Mr. Wilson was but a political advisor. Members of the opposition do not do what we do. They have no decisions to make and all they can do is complain. They are often disconnected from reality.

    My suggestion would be that you work a lot with members of the opposition and that you inform them of what you do so that they do not have the same opinion of you six months down the road. I believe it is simply a matter of information. You could inform them about what they will never have the opportunity to do.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: That is a good idea. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Shapiro, I'd like to make some comments. First of all, I want to repeat what we heard in our hearings on this legislation. We heard from people in the provinces, people you will become familiar with, I'm sure. We heard of similar positions in other jurisdictions. They stressed that the preventive side was very important. I assume that meant the advice people received. So a member of Parliament or a cabinet member can approach the ethics commissioner in advance of problems arising. Our impression was that was very helpful. It's one of the reasons I supported this legislation.

    As you know, no legislation is perfect. I liked your comment that you would be able to upgrade the legislation as it unfolded.

    This is not something I would normally say, given the nature of our hearings, but if you are appointed, I would urge you to look at the record of this committee and also at the documents that were lodged with this committee by various witnesses. If you have trouble sleeping, various parts may put you to sleep. Nevertheless, I think you will find that most of the things that have been raised today were flagged by members on both sides and by witnesses. In terms of getting your head around the position, if you are appointed, I would strongly recommend that material to you.

    On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank you for coming here today to respond to our questions in public.

    Do you have anything to add before we finish?

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I'd like to make a brief statement. First of all, I want to say thank you for making the time available to me. I know you must be busy.

    Secondly, when I was first approached, I was surprised. I don't know why. That surprise then led me to feel flattered, or perhaps “honoured” is a more sophisticated or elegant way of putting it. In the weeks between then and now, I've become what I would call delighted. When I think of the possibility of doing something, maybe not a lot, to add value to how we look at democratic institutions, how

[Translation]

citizens

[English]

feel about

[Translation]

not only the elected members but also Parliament as a whole.

[English]

it is incredibly stimulating. In that sense, I really look forward to the possibility should the appointment be approved.

    The Chair: Dr. Shapiro, thank you.

    I would ask you to withdraw from the table. This is a public meeting, so you're quite free to stay if you wish.

    Mr. Bernard Shapiro: I have to give a speech in Montreal tonight, so I will withdraw not only from the table but from the room.

    Thank you very much for this opportunity.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Colleagues, we can proceed in various ways. One way is to have somebody move that this committee report to the House recommending that the appointment of Bernard Shapiro to the position of ethics commissioner be ratified by the House.

    Hon. John Harvard: I so move.

    The Chair: Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's different from the motion we have in front of us.

    The Chair: It is. I said it's one way we can proceed.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I was expecting this motion. I don't have a strong opinion on it. I had just noticed that it was different.

    The Chair: The motion to report this would in a sense be our report.

    Ken Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp: When this report is tabled in the House, you will say, “Mr. Speaker, if given consent, I will move the adoption of this report.” Would that then complete the appointment process?

    The Chair: Ken, I'm advised that the answer to that is no. For the information of members, some reports we just table. With some reports there's concurrence and this triggers a debate. I'm told that in the case of offices of this type, we simply table the report and the House receives the report. Then someone moves the motion and the debate follows from the motion.

    Mr. Ken Epp: So the report doesn't even have to be adopted by the House.

    The Chair: It does not have to be concurred in as it's tabled.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Right.

    The Chair: Colleagues, is there any further discussion?

    On John Harvard's motion, those in favour, please show.

    Wait just a minute; there's a point of order.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Point of order. I request a recorded vote.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. I would ask the clerk to call the names.

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Ken Epp: I'm going to abstain because of the process.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'll abstain as well.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 8, nays 0)

    The Chair: The motion has carried, colleagues, and I thank you for that.

    Judi Longfield, do you have a point of order?

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, Mr. Chair. I would like to make a motion. There is no notice period in this committee, is that correct?

    The Chair: For a motion? No, we have no notice of motion.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'd like to make the motion that the 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that was passed in the second session of the 37th Parliament be adopted by this committee in the present session and reported to the House.

    If I could speak to that motion—

    The Chair: Yes, you can speak to it.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Given that there's a likelihood we will have an ethics commissioner in a short period of time, and given, in talking with Dr. Shapiro, that he was of the view that to have a code would be of great assistance to him, and also—I understand Mr. Strahl is not entirely happy with the code as it is—that Dr. Shapiro certainly indicated he would have no reluctance to make comments for improvement, I think we need something to start with. It's incumbent upon us to ensure that any person who is preparing to seek elected office have some sense of what it is he or she will have to comply with, and if we don't have anything, we've done an injustice to those who aren't currently here and who might want to review this prior to the election process. I think it is important that we have something on the table, so I would like to move, as I said, that we adopt this 51st report and report it to the House.

    The Chair: So what is the motion?

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: It's that the 51st report that was tabled in the second session be adopted now and reported to the House.

    The Chair: So it should be retabled?

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Retabled, but I think it would have to be renumbered.

    The Chair: Is there discussion?

    Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I don't think any of us is prepared, really, for the big debate today. I'm willing to let this go if you want to resubmit it, Judi. I don't think it's a bad idea, except of course I don't like the report per se. Something is needed for the ethics commissioner; on the other hand, I don't think this should be it.

    What will happen, I guess, is we could submit it, and if somebody tries to concur in it, there will likely be a debate. Maybe that's the best way to do it.

    I certainly don't have an alternative to it, so we could resubmit it, if that's the wish of the committee. I'll vote against it, but I think the goal.... On a technicality, I guess we could deal with it that way in the House, rather than have a long debate here. I don't want to get into a clause-by-clause debate here.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I am in full agreement with Mr. Strahl. I must admit that I did not think that that was the purpose of our meeting today. I believe we should take a closer look at it. I do not thing we are ready. Of course, with the majority you have, you will win if that is your desire, but I do not think it is a good idea to discuss this here right away.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. And in this case, Ken, the report would have to be concurred in, as Chuck said.

    Is there any other discussion?

    You've heard Judi Longfield's motion. Those in favour, please show.

    Hon. John Harvard: Could you repeat it, please?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Judi, would you repeat it, please?

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: That the 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in the second session of the 37th Parliament, be adopted by the committee in the present session and reported to the House.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: And John, just so you know, I said “retabled”, but the wording is perfectly correct, I'm told. It's the same report being readopted and then tabled.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I have a point of order.

    The Chair: Yes, Ken Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, I think I would like to express just a mild displeasure at the fact that this motion, which has obviously been thought about, I believe, in advance, has not been discussed...we weren't given notice of it in advance.

    That's just a mild expression of displeasure on this process.

    The Chair: I appreciate it. Thank you, Ken.

    Is there further discussion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to adjourn this meeting at the call of the chair, but the next meeting will be an in camera meeting at our regular time, regular place, room 112 north. It will be a discussion of future business with respect to security on the Hill and future business with respect to how we handle appointments that are the responsibility of this committee.

    The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.