HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

º

1605

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

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

The Chair

Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance)

The Chair

Mr. John Manley

º

1610

º

1615

The Chair

º

1620

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Werner Schmidt

º

1625

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. John Manley

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Jacques Saada

º

1630

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ)

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. John Manley

º

1635

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. John Manley

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. John Manley

º

1640

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. John Manley

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Mr. John Manley

º

1645

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Joe Jordan

º

1650

Mr. John Manley

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Manley

º

1655

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Manley

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. John Manley

»

1700

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. John Manley

The Chair

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Walt Lastewka

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Walt Lastewka

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Walt Lastewka

»

1705

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Walt Lastewka

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

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

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Michel Guimond

»

1710

Mr. John Manley

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. John Manley

The Chair

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

Mr. John Manley

»

1715

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 005

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1605)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting to order, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The order of the day is, pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), consideration of matters relating to the inclusion of a code of conduct in the Standing Orders of the House.

    Our first witness I will introduce in a moment. There's a point of order.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, the House has just passed a motion on the election of committee chairs. I realize that this committee is unique and independent of my own personal view on the thing. We survived prorogation because we're the senior committee of the House, and what I want to do today is give verbal notice according to my belief that on Thursday we should actually undertake the exercise of secret ballot election, because we are the senior committee.

    The Chair: I agree, but we have a witness today, and if it's okay with the committee, we should proceed as indicated. It is my intention, though I don't believe I need to, to resign and stand for election, and I propose that for Thursday. Thank you very much. Colleagues, our next meeting is Thursday in the usual room, at 11 o'clock, when we will be having a general briefing on this same matter.

    Today you have a good deal of material provided to us by John Manley and others. You've got at least four items you can look at. My intention is as follows. We will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to make his statement. I will then proceed to questions and answers; they will be four- or five-minute interventions, and I will rotate between the parties. I'll begin on the opposition side with the largest party and proceed to the smallest party, but alternating over to the Liberal side between each intervention. It's my hope that if we move that along, we can get one or two interventions from the opposition side. I have to say to you all that the reason we're starting late is that there's a meeting of the House leaders. I see one person who's come back from it, but we have all five whips and House leaders on our committee, and that's where they are. We appreciate the witness's patience. He has to leave here at 5:15, and it's my intention to adjourn the meeting at that time or earlier.

    Deputy Prime Minister, we're in your hands, and we'd be glad to hear your statement. Would you please introduce your colleagues? Thank you.

    Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance): I would like to say that were I to be a member of this committee, I would publicly vote for you, Mr. Chair. There's no doubt about it.

    The Chair: In a secret vote?

    Mr. John Manley: I'd make it public.

    With me are Kathy O'Hara, deputy secretary, machinery of government, at the Privy Council Office, Linda Gobeil, assistant secretary, also machinery of government, and Oonagh Fitzgerald, who is assistant secretary in the Legislation and House Planning Branch of the Privy Council Office.

    Mr. Chair and committee members, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the package that has been tabled before you including a draft code of conduct for parliamentarians and the draft bill to establish the office of the Ethics Commissioner. Let me begin by providing a brief overview of the bill.

    As outlined in the draft bill, the Ethics Commissioner would be a independent officer of Parliament with responsibility for administering the code of conduct for parliamentarians, as well as the Prime Minister's conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office-holders. On the appointment of the Ethics Commissioner, I would note the following. The process for appointing the commissioner is proposed in the draft bill to be the same as that used for the appointment of the Auditor General. The House would have to approve the nominee by virtue of Standing Order 111(1). The commissioner would only be appointed to a single, non-renewable five-year term and could not be removed except for cause on address of the Senate and the House of Commons.

    In administering the parliamentary code, the commissioner would provide advice on a confidential basis to individual parliamentarians, investigate complaints made about individual parliamentarians, and report to a parliamentary committee on official conduct. In other words, the Ethics Commissioner would be subject to the oversight of the parliamentary committee and to the houses of Parliament themselves.

    In administering the Prime Minister's code for public office-holders, the Ethics Commissioner would provide confidential advice to the Prime Minister on ethical issues and on his code and its application. He would provide confidential advice to public office-holders to assist them in complying with the Prime Minister's code and look into complaints submitted by an MP or a Senator regarding the compliance of a minister or secretary of state with the Prime Minister's code.

º  (1610)  

[Translation]

    With respect to the Code, the Ethics Commissioner would be required to draw up a report in response to a request from a parliamentarian, and at the conclusion of his review as well. The report would be released at the same time to the Prime Minister, to the parliamentarian who requested it, to the person about whom the complaint was made and to the public. Another of the Ethics Commissioner's responsibilities would be to draft an annual report for submission to the speakers, who in turn would table it directly in their respective houses.

    I would now like to turn your attention to the proposed Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians.

    This matter has been examined several times by Parliament, with the most recent study being done by the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct, the Milliken-Oliver Committee, which reported in 1997. However, Parliament was unable to reach a consensus on this report before the June 1997 elections. The report was based on studies conducted previously by both Houses and proposed a code that drew its inspiration from proven provincial practices.

    On May 23 and June 11, the Prime Minister announced the government's support for a Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians, based on the Milliken-Oliver report, as one component of an eight-point ethics plan aimed at strengthening the confidence of Canadians in public institutions.

    Over the summer, the government held meetings with the various provincial ethics commissioners who reported on the success of their provincial codes, noting that they provided an effective framework for settling complaints and for maintaining the public's trust in public office holders.

[English]

    The Milliken-Oliver code would consolidate and update our existing rules, which are spread over many statutes and parliamentary rules, a number of which are antiquated and out of date. For example, the conflict of interest provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act are over a century old and should be updated. Similarly, Standing Orders 21 and 22, dealing with voting on matters of direct pecuniary interest and public registry of members' foreign travel, would be placed in the context of a broader code of conduct for Parliamentarians.

    The Milliken-Oliver report stated that a code for Parliamentarians would:

establish a regime and provide guidance and assistance to Senators and Members of the House of Commons, while assuring the public that allegations will be investigated and breaches dealt with.

The report also noted that a number of the existing conflict of interest provisions are:

rather antiquated and deal only with specific situations. It is generally recognized that more up-to-date and relevant rules are required, both to guide politicians and to assure the Canadian public that high standards of conduct apply.

The government agrees with the Milliken-Oliver report that a code for parliamentarians would have the advantages of more modern rules and greater certainty for parliamentarians regarding their application.

    As part of the ethics package, the draft parliamentary rules for the Milliken-Oliver code are also provided to assist the committees. These draft rules have put the Milliken-Oliver report into a format with numbered paragraphs that could be considered as a basis for changes to the rules of the Senate and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The proposed draft rules are provided to the committee so that its members can develop rules with the assistance of the House and Senate parliamentary officers. These rules are based on the Milliken-Oliver report. In the course of this work, the government found that the Milliken-Oliver report was very well written. However, there were a few minor technical matters that could be addressed, such as duplication, English-French concordance, and consistency with statutory definitions. A list of these changes has been provided to the committees.

    The draft rules, however, include three changes from the Milliken-Oliver report for the consideration of the committees. The first change concerns a disclosure regime. Milliken-Oliver recommended a disclosure regime for parliamentarians, their spouses, and their dependants. I know parliamentarians have concerns about how to balance providing sufficient personal information to assure the public of high standards of conduct with the right of parliamentarians and their families to privacy. The government believes an effective code can be based on a disclosure regime that covers parliamentarians only and not spouses. As a result, the proposed rules I tabled for a code have financial disclosure for the parliamentarian only. Of course, under conflict of interest provisions found in the proposed code, the parliamentarian would be required to disclose to the Ethics Commissioner a spousal interest where he or she felt there was a reasonable issue of conflict. While this would not be addressed in the disclosure regime, it would be found in existing conflict of interest provisions that would be included in the Milliken-Oliver code. These are similar to the provisions we currently have in our House and Senate rules.

    Under the code, parliamentarians would file a confidential statement with the Ethics Commissioner regarding their interests. The Ethics Commissioner would make a summary of this statement public. The public statement would not reveal the value of assets or personal items, such as the family home and automobile. This is similar to disclosure regimes in the provinces, which are supported by provincial legislators and appear to be working well.

º  (1615)  

[Translation]

    The second change would make it clear that only parliamentarians would be able to file complaints with the Commissioner. This change would guarantee that the code was enforced and that the Commissioner performed his job effectively.

    Further to consultations with parliamentarians and a review of the rules followed by the provinces, the proposed rules stipulate that a complaint against a parliamentarian can only be made by a member of the same House. If a member of the public wishes to make a complaint, he or she must request that a parliamentarian do so on his or her behalf.

    The third change concerns the monitoring of the Ethics Commissioner's activities by a joint committee. It would be more in keeping with the tradition whereby each House handles its respective affairs to have the Senate monitor the Ethics Commissioner for matters involving senators, and to have the House monitor him for matters involving MPs. Accordingly, under the proposed rules, the Ethics Commissioner would report to separate House and Senate committees, or to a joint committee, if ultimately that is the option retained by parliamentarians. Such a committee would be well versed in the traditions of each Chamber and would be able to deal in a more timely manner with delicate questions requiring prompt attention.

    Summing up, the 1997 Milliken-Oliver Report described an approach that has worked well in the provinces. With a few revisions, it will serve as a solid base for a code that will inspire the public's trust in the institution of Parliament and in parliamentarians themselves.

    I wish the committee the best of luck in its deliberations. I will be happy to work with you and your officials if you think that would be useful. Finally, I welcome your questions at this time.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Deputy Prime Minister, for your presentation.

º  (1620)  

[English]

    Colleagues, in a moment we'll proceed as we agreed at the beginning. For those who have since come in, we're going to have four- or five-minute interventions, and we're going to proceed through the opposition parties from largest to smallest, interspersing them with members from the government side.

    At the moment I have Werner Schmidt, followed by Jacques Saada, followed by Michel Guimond, followed by Geoff Regan, followed by Yvon Godin, followed by Joe Jordan, followed by Rick Borotsik. Then we'll start again with the Canadian Alliance.

    I also would like to officially welcome the public servants who are here. Thank you for coming. I'd also like to introduce, as we are on television, the representatives of the Teachers' Institute. Colleagues, you should know the people in the audience are here for the week. We greatly appreciate what you do year round across the country, we really hope you enjoy this, and we hope you take back reasonable reflections of what happens here on Parliament Hill.

    I'm going to begin. It's Werner Schmidt, then Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    May I also thank you, Mr. Manley, the Deputy Prime Minister, for appearing here and bringing your key people with you. It's really good to see you again, by the way.

    Mr. John Manley: Just like old times.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes, it's like old times, indeed it is. It's wonderful.

    I want to also echo the welcome to the teachers from across Canada.

    As I see it, as you go through the Ethics Commissioner, there will be, in effect, particularly for office-holders, three codes. There's a potential of three different codes operating, one for the Senate, one for the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister's code of ethics. Also, they will be administered under two different committees. There's a Senate committee that will be enacting the code of conduct for senators, and there will be another committee for the House of Commons, or there is a provision in the act for having a single committee to do both of them. Do you foresee that there could be a divergence now on what is considered to be a conflict of interest or ethical behaviour as between senators and parliamentarians and office-holders?

    Mr. John Manley: Of course, the reason for the additional code for public office-holders is that it requires a higher standard with both disclosure and behaviour, because the issues are more complex, given the responsibilities a public office-holder has. I don't think I foresee a situation where there would be a conflict between the provisions of the code for public office-holders and the provisions for members of the House or Senate. It's simply a more complex set of requirements and a more complex standard reflecting the differences of responsibility.

    My preference, quite frankly, would be for a single code for members of the House and the Senate, but of course, one of the reasons we've tabled a draft is so that both houses have the opportunity to review it and respond to it. I think it was a single code that was anticipated by Milliken-Oliver. I think it's a better way of proceeding, but we'll wait and see what the committees have to say about it.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: How do you anticipate that the government will actually operate here? Will the government set up two committees or one committee?

    Mr. John Manley: Again, this would be something for parliamentarians to decide. The bill provides for either outcome. I think there is something to be said for having a joint committee that deals with all these issues collectively, but there may be some who view the practices and traditions of the House and the Senate as sufficiently different that they would prefer to keep the administration within one of their own committees.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: I appreciate that, but I think, as Deputy Prime Minister, you might anticipate having considerable influence as to how this probably will be done. So will you be making a recommendation to your colleagues that the kind of legislation or regulatory regime or whatever this is going to be proposed to the House of Commons should have a single committee, or will you be proposing two separate committees?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. John Manley: I don't mind saying, Mr. Schmidt, my preference is for a single joint committee.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Can I pin you down and ask whether you will make that recommendation?

    Mr. John Manley: I can tell you that's my preference, but I haven't heard from the committees yet. I think it would be fair to say, let's hear what the House and Senate committees have to say. Perhaps this committee will make a strong recommendation. If it were to be consistent with my view, that would be helpful, but we need to hear what the Senate committee has to say as well.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: What's the rationale for having the appointment of the commissioner really by the Prime Minister and not by the parliamentary committee?

    Mr. John Manley: It's not intended to be an appointment by the Prime Minister, it is intended to be an appointment consistent with the appointment of other officers of Parliament. I've mentioned the Auditor General, but you could also look at the Privacy Commissioner or the Information Commissioner. It's intended to follow that format.

    From my point of view, I think that absolutely crucial to this being successful is the credibility, not to mention the wisdom, of the person selected. So it's in the government's interest, as well as in everybody else's interest, that the best possible person be found. I'm certainly open, as I've said in the House, to suggestions about how to do this. Perhaps a short list of candidates could be identified. What I can't do is allow the appointment of an Ethics Commissioner to become an hostage to fortune, in the light of other issues that might be there.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Jacques Saada, then Pierre Brien, then Geoff Regan, Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, Rick Borotsik.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Deputy Prime Minister, first of all, I'd like to acknowledge the presence of certain individuals seated at the back of the room. They are teachers, as I was, so we share a strong bond. Welcome.

    Deputy Prime Minister, I especially appreciated your openness in presenting these draft proposals to us and your willingness to consider possible future changes. I have a comment as well as several questions for you.

    First, my comment: the public has a very negative opinion of politicians in general. May I remind you, just so that we don't forget, that since 1993, there has not, to my knowledge, been a single allegation or instance of conflict of interest associated with a backbencher. Therefore, the aim of proposed code is not to correct deficiencies associated with Members, but rather to raise the standard to which we must all adhere. In other words, the code is not a corrective measure. It's aim is to promote transparency.

    My question to you is as follows: when a member makes a complaint—the same is true in the case of a senator, but the ramifications are more important in the case of a member—this action can have major political implications, depending on when the complaint is made. Moreover, there is no guarantee of confidentiality until such time as the complaint is reviewed by the Commissioner and found to be justified.

    Putting it another way, suppose an election is looming and in the three weeks leading up to the day, a complaint is filed against an individual. There is no obligation on the part of the person making the complaint not to disclose the facts to the public. While the process unfolds, the election campaign continues. The election takes places, and the results of the investigation are not know until after the fact. In other words, ethics take a back seat to political considerations. Do you not think it would be a good idea if every complaint filed with the Ethics Commissioner were automatically to remain confidential, until a ruling was made? That would also mean the person making the complaint must refrain from publicly disclosing any details of the complaint.

[English]

    The Chair: We're half-way through the member's time. The answers are included in the time.

[Translation]

    Mr. John Manley: I'll try to answer quickly.

    First of all, I would have to say that in the case of the Senate, there have been situations where members have been attacked pursuant to ethical criteria. Therefore, to say that this matter does not affect senators isn't quite accurate.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I was merely alluding to the elections.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. John Manley: However, that happens also.

    During each election campaign, accusations may be made. In the draft code, one of the proposals was that complaints remain confidential. The onus is on the committee to determine whether or not that's a good idea and whether this can be stressed during an election campaign. I don't know what happens in your riding, but in mine, people tend to run off at the mouth during an election campaign. That's unavoidable.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: With your permission, allow me to point out that the obligation mentioned in the proposed text is an obligation on the part of the Ethics Commissioner to abide by the process. However, on reading the text, I did not notice that the person making the complaint was subject to any kind of obligation, unless of course I'm mistaken. The reason I'm asking is that in my view, the complainant should also be obligated in some way.

    Mr. John Manley: If necessary, we can clarify that issue. The intent was to keep the information confidential until the complaint is resolved. That's why this is a draft.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: For your information, when Messrs. Milliken and Oliver drafted their report in 1996, the price of a hockey ticket wasn't was it is today. Yet, the amount has remained the same, namely $250. I think this is one detail that needs to be rectified eventually.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    It's Pierre Brien, Geoff Regan, Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, Rick Borotsik.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As you noted when you tabled the proposed code, better late than never. We now have a tool with some positive components. However, a number of questions also come to mind. My first question concerns the appointment of the Ethics Commissioner.

    Both yourself and the Prime Minister have stated publicly on several occasions that the leaders of the opposition parties and a number of other individuals would be consulted on the choice of Commissioner. Why not include this stipulation in the legislation, to ensure that the nomination process is always conducted in this manner, instead of merely indicating that the Commissioner would be appointed by the Governor in Council?

    Mr. John Manley: I don't see any problem with that.

    Mr. Pierre Brien: Then you're open to suggestions. That's a good sign.

    My second question concerns the existing code of conduct for ministers and public office holders. Wouldn't now be the appropriate time to review this code? Wouldn't some changes be warranted to make that code more stringent? In your opinion, should the committee go so far as to recommend that the existing code be expanded or made more stringent? Or should it take the position that the code does not go far enough in some areas, or that limits should be set in others? In your opinion, should the committee confine itself to commenting on the proposed legislation that has been tabled?

    Mr. John Manley: Are you talking about the proposed Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians?

    Mr. Pierre Brien: No, I'm talking about the existing code of conduct for ministers such as yourself.

    Mr. John Manley: You mean the conflict of interest code?

    Mr. Pierre Brien: That's right. Do you feel the code is just fine as it is, or do you think some provisions need to be reviewed and enhanced?

    Mr. John Manley: No doubt the committee will be making recommendations to the Prime Minister in its report, since the code of conduct for public office holders is the Prime Minister's responsibility. It is not covered in the bill or in the proposed code of conduct for parliamentarians. However, if the committee does recommend that this code be upgraded, we will take note of that suggestion.

    Mr. Pierre Brien: I understand. Now then, the Commissioner would file an annual report. What kind of annual report would you expect him to present? In your opinion, what kind of information would it contain for the public's benefit?

    Mr. John Manley: The information contained in the report would, I believe, be of a rather general nature. Certainly, the Commissioner would not present any confidential information disclosed by parliamentarians.

    Secondly, the proposed legislation calls for a report to be submitted on the status of the complaints made. One report would be filed for each complaint, with the findings and the Commissioner's decision noted. The Commissioner's report, like those reports filed by other officers of Parliament, would contain information on activities in general and methods employed, as well as on the financial situation of the Commissioner's office. The report could also contain other information as requested by parliamentarians.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Pierre Brien: I see. So then, when a complaint is made, the Commissioner would prepare a report and submit a copy of it to the Prime Minister, as well as to the person who made the complaint. What happens next? The Prime Minister is in possession of a report indicating whether or not a particular person, whether a minister or public office holder, has complied with the code's provisions. What happens then? What kind of sanctions might be invoked? Basically, does it boil down to the Prime Minister's discretion?

    Mr. John Manley: Yes, because under our system of government, the Prime Minister is ultimately the person accountable for the conduct of Cabinet members. Furthermore, because the report in question would be made public, it would certainly become a political matter. In each case, the Prime Minister would be called upon to make a decision and the minister in question would perhaps need to decide whether or not to resign from Cabinet. It would all depend on each individual case.

[English]

    The Chair: Geoff Regan, then Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, Rick Borotsik, Dale Johnston, and Walt Lastewka.

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and through you, to the Deputy Prime Minister. Thank you for coming today.

    I want to ask you about clause 6 of the draft code, which provides that nothing in the code precludes the Prime Minister from establishing additional rules for public office-holders, and in the case of conflict, the Prime Minister's rules prevail. What I'm really wondering is how this would work. Can you give us some examples of what you expect? I guess you're waiting to see what the code is going to be, but I'm trying to understand why there would be a need and how it would work between the two of them.

    Mr. John Manley: The Prime Minister's code, if I understand the question correctly, pertains to public office-holders. The risks of conflict are greater, and so a higher standard of conduct and disclosure is required.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Could you not put that in the code? Within the code for all parliamentarians, the one code, couldn't you have the provision that for those who are public office-holders, the additional requirements apply?

    Mr. John Manley: I'm not sure how the provisions exactly interact, but in establishing additional principles for those who are ministers of the Crown, I think it's simply a matter of confirming what we've been saying. The Prime Minister, fundamentally, in the Westminster system of government, has responsibility for ministers in his or her government. Therefore, it should never be interpreted that the code for parliamentarians is complete with respect to ministers. The Prime Minister may at any time impose additional behavioural burdens upon ministers. That is not legislated, it is part of the traditions of our system, and it reflects the Prime Minister's responsibility.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Let me turn now to the question of private interest, with a prohibition on furthering a member of Parliament's own interests or improperly furthering the private interests of anyone else. I'm trying to understand what this means, improperly furthering the private interests of anyone else. Can someone give me an example of what that would include?

    Mr. John Manley: You may recall, for example, that there was something of a scandal in the United Kingdom a few years ago when parliamentarians were found to have been taking payment from private interests for advancing issues in question period. We are here to advance the public interest. Public policy decisions clearly affect the prospects of a lot of private sector interests, but we're not here to advance the private or personal interests of individuals, we're here to do otherwise.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Geoff Regan: That make sense, certainly.

    On the question of insider information, there's reference to information not generally available to the public. This raises the question in my mind--again I'm looking for an example--of the kind of information ordinary MPs would have. Obviously, parliamentary secretaries have access to information the public doesn't have access to. When it comes to other members of Parliament, can you give me an example of when one of them would have information that would raise the question of insider trading, for example?

    Mr. John Manley: What we would want to do there is anticipate the possibility that information may be provided that would affect outside interests. To have such a provision, for example, I believe gives us the freedom to brief parliamentarians on proposed matters of law or regulation in a manner that then protects that information from being disclosed to the public, or at least creates an inhibition, in the parliamentarians' case, against releasing or revealing information that should be kept confidential. It would relate to behaviour and would make it a violation of the code to provide information to individuals who might profit or benefit from it. So I think it frees things up.

    I don't think, in a general course, to be perfectly frank, a lot of that information is discussed or disclosed, but I know from my own experience sitting in committees like the finance committee, where we reviewed in camera proposed changes to the Bank Act or to other sensitive legislation, there may well have been cases in which we discussed things in private that needed to be kept confidential in the interest of the broad public policy, not in the interest of the government or anyone else. For parliamentarians to really engage in debate about public policy, the plans had to be there.

    The Chair: Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, and Rick Borotsik.

[Translation]

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

[English]

    I'd like to welcome the Deputy Prime Minister, and at the same time welcome the teachers, especially from my riding, who are here today to their Parliament.

[Translation]

    As some have said, it's never too late to do the right thing. Judging from the sorry reputation federal politicians have, if we're to believe the surveys, I think it's time we do something to boost our public image. It doesn't matter who is responsible for taking this initiative.

    As you yourself have stated, the provinces, with one exception, all have codes of conduct in place that appear to work well. Since Members of Parliament want more powers and in view of the steps to modernize Parliament, I don't see why spouses would now be excluded from the code's provisions. In so doing, I think we would be opening the door to some new problems down the road. Ministers' spouses are not excluded at this time, and to my mind, that's perfectly acceptable. For someone in the political eye, it is a sign of respect toward the people who elected him or her. Certain rules of conduct must be upheld and there shouldn't be any loopholes which might result in a further loss of confidence. I think it would be a mistake to exclude spouses.

    I'd appreciate hearing your views on the subject. Wouldn't you rather see the committee recommend that the code's provisions extend to MPs as well as to their spouses?

    Mr. John Manley: Admittedly, this requirement is part of the provincial codes, including the Ontario code where this has always been the case. Parliamentarians will have to debate the question. However, our rationale for amending the Milliken-Oliver proposal is that today, many parliamentarians do not look upon their spouses as property. The provisions in place are such that in a conflict of interest situation, the rules respecting conflicts of interest apply to Members of Parliament, even though spouses' assets need not be disclosed. However, in a broader context, all political parties make every effort to find qualified candidates. On occasion, spouses may have professional or business interests that may pose more of an internal problem.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: You've pinpointed the problem, sir. In today's world, spouses may run their own business. However, because they are part of a couple, problems may arise. Upon closer examination, there might be reason to believe that they are not making a full disclosure of their assets or interests.

    I think we would be making a terrible mistake by excluding spouses, that people might be tempted to argue that we are not deserving of their respect. You yourself admitted that these provisions worked well in the other provinces. According to my sources, all provinces, with the exception of Quebec, have such a code in place. Why not, for once, go with something that works well?

    The Chair: We have one minute remaining.

    Mr. John Manley: This is something Members will need to discuss among themselves, but if there is a conflict of interest, in my view, a Member has an obligation to declare that interest publicly, or, at the very least, to discuss it with the Commissioner, pursuant to section 14 of the code. In my case, it's not a problem because we have little in the way of assets, but my spouse feels that I was the one who opted for a career as a parliamentarian, that it was not her decision, and if I'm crazy enough to make this choice, then I should be the one to decide, not her. I think that many...

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, but she made the decision to marry you, after all. I had nothing to do with that.

    The Chair: That's all, Yvon.

[English]

    It's Joe Jordan, Rick Borotsik, Dale Johnston, and Walt Lastewka.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I too want to welcome the teachers here today and point out that there is a growing trend in Parliament to have more teachers and fewer lawyers. Mr. Minister, you are a lawyer, though, are you not?

    Mr. John Manley: Yes, but I've also taught.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I would like to know what this is replacing. This code of conduct is replacing, I think, the Parliament of Canada Act, and I'm maybe not as familiar with that as I should be. Can you give us about a 30-second overview of what we had, what we're getting now, and what the major differences are?

    Mr. John Manley: I can quickly give you a list of things covered in the code that currently exist in different places: in the Parliament of Canada Act part two, which deals with the Senate, sections 14 and 15, part three, which deals with the House of Commons, sections 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40; it also picks up from the the House of Commons Standing Orders 21, 22, and 23 and rule 65(4) and rule 94 of the Senate. So there are quite a few rules that are already out there. I would also point out to you, as I mentioned in my remarks, that some of these are rather arcane provisions and don't really touch the modern reality we need to deal with as parliamentarians.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Maybe, Mr. Chair, in our briefing material we could get copies of the existing rules, so that we can do that comparison.

    Mr. Minister, I want to pick up on the point Mr. Godin raised, because I think he's hit on one of the issues that's going to get a significant amount of debate here. If the argument is that MPs require this code, we're going to have a hard time making the argument that you don't have spousal disclosure. I really have a sense that although it's a very emotional issue, it's going to be an issue we have to come to terms with. If you can simply transfer your assets or give the appearance that you transfer your assets, it's going to take some very detailed debate around this table for us to come to terms with that.

    Whether or not we go that route, we are, in a sense, changing the rules. In fairness, we can't change the rules midstream. I don't know what the coming into force regulations for this are, but I would suspect they're probably after the next election. If that's the case, we're going to end up with an Ethics Commissioner with no code to enforce for about two years. Is that a fair assessment of one of the challenges ahead of us?

º  (1650)  

    Mr. John Manley: Let me tackle a couple of the points you've made.

    First, under the proposed code, section 26 would prohibit a parliamentarian from taking action that has the purpose of circumventing the code. In other words, transferring assets to a spouse in the hope of avoiding disclosure would be a breach of the requirements under the code. As I mentioned to Mr. Godin, section 14 would provide for a parliamentarian to go to the Ethics Commissioner in the event that a family member's assets could provide a conflict for him or her under the code. So there is some protection there, but I agree with you, this is a matter of discussion and debate that needs to be taken on.

    With respect to the coming into force, I think this is also something on which I would find the advice of the committee extremely useful. My own view is that there is a concern about coming into force, given that there is some degree of changing of the rules midstream for people who may have presented themselves to Parliament without being required to make disclosure. In the past it has been the case that some members of Parliament have made a voluntary disclosure of where they had significant interests. I think one of the things we could do is provide for voluntary disclosure for members who choose to do so without the mandatory provision prior to an election, so that it comes into force, essentially, in those provisions after the next election, if that's what the committee thought was the fairest thing to do.

    With respect to the code of conduct itself, I don't think there is anything in it that shouldn't be adhered to today, tomorrow, or in the past. So I wouldn't favour that approach with respect to adherence to the other provisions of the code, but that's something you should take up in your deliberations.

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik, then Dale Johnston, Walt Lastewka, Michel Guimond, and Marlene Catterall.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I too echo thanks for your being here, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister. I also would like to thank the chair for identifying the Teachers' Institute. When I walked in, I thought they were all ministerial staff, and I knew that wasn't going to be the case.

    Mr. John Manley: I don't have that many staff.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Spousal declaration, Mr. Minister, seems to be a very integral part of this whole process. You were very candid when you were asked your opinion. With respect to the Senate's having a separate set of rules from those for the House, you were candid in suggesting that there should be a single set of rules. I agree with you on that one. When this package came forward initially, spousal declaration was part of that. I agree with that, but whether I agree or not doesn't really matter, it depends on how the committee is going to deal with it. When we have our deliberations at this committee, if the experts come forward and convince us that the only way to have an ethics package is to have spousal declaration, we'd bring that forward. Are you prepared at that time to insist that spousal declaration be a part of the package?

    Mr. John Manley: My opinion is that we shouldn't require spousal disclosure, I'll tell you that from the outset. On the other hand, if this committee comes forward and gives us a recommendation saying it should be required, that's why we've tabled a draft code, the government's open to that.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: We'll disagree on that, but I thank you very much again.

    I agree with you, we should all follow the code currently, but there's a draft code of conduct that goes forward. We have a very ambitious timeline set out for us with respect to our own witnesses, who we should listen to and who we should get opinion from. What do you see, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, as the timeline going forward with this package? Is it an urgent thing--tomorrow--or do you see any timeline in your own legislative agenda?

    Mr. John Manley: I would like to see us table the bill as early as possible. I want you to do your work, and I want the Senate to do its work. That's why we've tabled draft legislation and a draft code. I expect that when we table the bill, the fact it has been studied in advance by the Senate and the House should accelerate the adoption of the legislation. One never knows, but if we can build a broad basis of consensus, that would be my hope.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Early next year is not a problem?

    Mr. John Manley: I would hope we can table the bill, if not before the House rises in December, as early as the House resumes after the Christmas break.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

    Confidentiality is sprinkled throughout the report, and I appreciate that. We're dealing with a very sensitive issue here. The Ethics Commissioner reports to the Prime Minister on a circumstance, and then it's reported, but nothing required to be kept confidential must be revealed in the report. Who makes that call? It also says in the commissioner's annual report to the House no information expressly required to be kept confidential can be included. Whose judgment call is it as to what is and what isn't confidential at that point in time?

    Mr. John Manley: Given experience dealing with the current Ethics Counsellor, it's not actually that hard a determination. The Ethics Counsellor meets with ministers, goes through the declaration of assets, and periodically, as required, is consulted. There is a relationship that needs to be there so you can go to the Ethics Counsellor, or in this case the Ethics Commissioner, and say, here's the situation: I want your advice on how I need to conduct myself in order to stay within the guidelines or within the code. That kind of discussion has to be held in a confidential manner, otherwise the basis of trust doesn't exist.

    The Chair: Rick, you have time for a comment, that's all.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: One comment? No, that's fine. I need an answer, not just a comment. I'll talk to the minister.

    The Chair: It's Dale Johnston, Walt Lastewka, then Michel, then Marlene.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister and staff, for coming today to do this presentation.

    I'm wondering what models you looked at in order to arrive at the information you've given us today. Could you tell us what Canadian models you looked at?

    Mr. John Manley: It started with Milliken-Oliver, of course, and then we drew on the examples of the provincial legislatures.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Are you familiar with the practice in the B.C. provincial legislature, where an all-party committee selects a candidate they unanimously recommend to the Premier, then the Premier puts this to a vote of the legislature, and it must be ratified by two-thirds of the assembly?

    Mr. John Manley: I've heard of that procedure.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I personally believe that is a good procedure, because it makes the commissioner answerable to the entire assembly, rather than just to the Prime Minister or the cabinet. It also makes the commissioner, really, the employee of the entire assembly.

    Mr. John Manley: As I said earlier to Mr. Schmidt, I believe the credibility of the person who takes the position is very important to everybody. What we're trying to achieve here is credibility for everyone and public respect. There'll be other governments, so we need to put this together in a way that serves everyone's interest. My problem with the B.C. model, as I understand it, is that in the past it has been used to score other political points, so that a period of time would go by when nobody could be appointed, because you couldn't get everyone's consent--I'm sure this would never happen in our Parliament.

    I believe we need to consult, we need to draw on people's expertise, views, values, and everything else, but at the end of the day, the government has to make sure there is an Ethics Commissioner, and it can't be held up for other, unrelated reasons.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Further to that, there have been some parallels drawn between the Ethics Commissioner, the AG, and the Privacy Commissioner, for instance. I really see them as very different. The Privacy Commissioner is not investigating the transactions and so forth of individual members, he's looking out for the group rights of all the members. The Auditor General, of course, investigates departments, not individuals. So I really think it's not a fair parallel to draw. Do you have a comment?

    Mr. John Manley: Given what I believe, that ultimately, the government must be able to ensure that there is an Ethics Commissioner and we can't allow the appointment to be hostage to other things, give me some suggestions as to how else we should go about it and I'd be happy to consider them.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I think we could go more along the lines of what's done in British Columbia. There may be some problem getting unanimous consent on the committee, but I really do believe it is so important that the commissioner be answerable to the entire Parliament, not just to a cabinet, a caucus, or a person.

    Mr. John Manley: It can't, obviously, just be answerable to a cabinet or a person, but let's hear some ideas about how we come up with it. As I say, the credibility of this person is of fundamental importance to the government as well. It has to be the right person, it has to be a wise person, not just a credible person. Unless you believe five years from now we will still be in the government, you should be, on the opposition side, very concerned about the wisdom and the skills of that person as well. I happen to believe we will be in government, so I'm especially concerned about it.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: We can debate that too, I suppose, but that is an excellent point. It's the point I'm trying to make. As a member of the opposition, I would like someone from our party at least to be able to participate in the selection of this person.

    Mr. John Manley: As I've said in the House, it's anticipated that there will be consultation with opposition parties. As to how that is done, I'm open to your suggestions. My only qualification is that I wouldn't recommend to the government that a situation be created where the appointment could be held hostage.

    The Chair: Colleagues, we're going to finish at 5:15, as I've said. So it's Walt Lastewka, Michel Guimond, Marlene Catterall, Yvon Godin, and Rick Borotsik--if we get there.

    Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): I have two items, Deputy Prime Minister. One concerns the gift statement, where it says $250 in value. Then it also says one source in a 12-month period exceeding $250. As you know, if you went to a hockey game nowadays, before you know it, if you went twice, you'd be creating a lot of paperwork. I'm not sure if that $250 is in line with the times for a 12-month period.

    Mr. John Manley: Quite frankly, we took the number from Milliken-Oliver. That's why it's a draft code. What do you think?

    Mr. Walt Lastewka: I think the 12-month period has to be increased, or we're going to get into a lot of paperwork for nothing.

    Mr. John Manley: You think the 12-month period should be decreased?

    Mr. Walt Lastewka: No, the total for the 12-month period.

    Mr. John Manley: The amount should be increased.

    Mr. Walt Lastewka: Yes.

    The other one I wasn't quite sure about, and I read it both ways, was the statement on sponsored travel. Sometimes we have countries or an association--I'll use the example of the Government of Taiwan--taking members there and so forth, and I can see that having to be recorded. I wasn't sure whether that gets publicized. My concern is not with the government, but say a group of companies wanted to do some marketing or sales somewhere and decided they needed a member of Parliament to be there. That can't be taken out of our MOB, for some reason. They want to pay for the expenses for the MP who's helping them to be there. Does that get publicized? If I'm in an area where I'm selling wine, and all of a sudden, four or five wineries decide to get together and sell wine in an area, it becomes a competitive-edge situation. I'm not sure whether, under clause 17, that statement gets publicized? Businesses would not want to have the places they're trying to do marketing and so forth made public. Is that a publicized statement, or is that strictly for the commissioner?

»  (1705)  

    Mr. John Manley: It is currently public. Nobody buys ads on it, but it does occasionally appear in news reports. For example, what members have travelled--you mentioned Taiwan--is sometimes made an item in a news story. So with the current rules, as well as the proposed rules, it would be publicly available information.

    Mr. Walt Lastewka: I see a concern there. We're always encouraging companies to cluster and so forth and go on the international scene to promote things. I see an item there we need to be careful about, because we're going to be disclosing company strategies, rather than what it was intended for, to show that some member had some travel expenses paid.

    Mr. John Manley: What you might propose to your colleagues is whether there could be a discretion, for example, for the Ethics Commissioner to withhold the names of individual companies where there was some commercial interest that might be compromised, and it could be proposed to the Ethics Commissioner before the trip was undertaken.

    Mr. Walt Lastewka: Thank you.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond, then Marlene Catterall, Yvon Godin, Rick Borotsik, if we have time.

[Translation]

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

    You've already addressed many relevant points, but I would like to come back to the last question raised by Mr. Lastewka concerning gifts. I once was asked to defend a client in a case involving gifts made to an elected official, in this particular instance, a municipal official. I'm wondering if perhaps you could clarify the specific provision in the code pertaining to gifts valued at more than $250. The courts seemed to draw a distinction between consumptible and non consumptible goods. Let me give you an example. If an elected official receives a television as a gift, that television is considered to be a non consumptible good, whereas hockey tickets, or a number of bottles of wine or spirits... Of course, if we're talking about eight cases of cognac or vintage wine...

    Mr. John Manley: Which riding do you represent?

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm talking about criteria. By definition, a bottle of wine or hockey tickets are considered to be consumptible goods. Once the recipient of the gift has attended the hockey game, the good is deemed to have been consumed.

    Here's my question: Do you not agree...? In any event, you can always answer that you will look into it, but could we also include the stipulation that more than a gift's monetary value should be considered? Are you prepared to do that?

»  (1710)  

    Mr. John Manley: That's an interesting suggestion. I'll have to give it some thought, but I'm not prepared to reject the idea at this time. The matter warrants further consideration. Often parliamentarians encounter some difficult situations because it isn't always wise to refuse someone's hospitality. It could lead to some embarrassment. Therefore, I'm prepared to take the suggestion under advisement.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I've a second, short question, Mr. Chairman.

    Section 17 concerns sponsored travel by a parliamentarian. Currently, the House maintains a public registry of Members' foreign travel. It's called a registry, but in reality, we're not talking about a big black ledger. Members simply send a letter to the clerk who files it away, I would imagine. I see here that you are expanding the provision to include travel within Canada. Currently, parliamentarians are issued a VIA Rail pass entitling them to travel within Canada. If Taiwanese businessmen invite us to their country to tour local facilities, there's nothing illegal about it. All a Member has to do is ensure that the trip is registered in the registry. However, you want to extend the scope of this provision to travel within Canada and make it a requirement to register such travel within Canada.

    Would you not agree that the confidentiality of our work as parliamentarians could be...

    The Chair: A very brief response, Deputy Prime Minister.

    Mr. John Manley: Your question is more or less the same as the one put by Mr. Lastewka. I'd have to say that we've adopted the Milliken-Oliver proposal. If the committee agrees that in some cases, it is in the public interest not to disclose all information pertaining to the work of parliamentarians, then it's possible to propose that the Commissioner make this clear before the actual travel is authorized and parliamentarians could then decide whether to go ahead or not, even though the Commissioner had ordered disclosure. It's only a suggestion.

[English]

    The Chair: Marlene, one short question if you wish.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): As there's no time left, I would just ask if the minister could provide some information to the committee.

    The impression is out there that there are no codes, no guidelines, no ethical rules for members of Parliament to follow, and yet I think there are, under the Parliament of Canada Act as it exists now, under the Criminal Code, perhaps under the Financial Administration Act, I'm not sure. I wonder if the minister could provide to the committee a summary of all the rules that already exist for the conduct of parliamentarians. That would be helpful background.

    Mr. John Manley: This is similar to Mr. Jordan's question. We will send to the committee not only a list of the existing conflict of interest and other provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act and the Standing Orders and the rules of the Senate, but copies of the relevant provisions, to make it easier for members to review it.

    I would like to just take one second, though, since I've got some of these here somewhere, to point out just how out of date some of these provisions are. Let me give you this one. I'm speaking personally here. I was elected in 1988 in opposition, and I was a partner in a law firm at the time. I read section 38 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which says this:

    

In every contract, agreement or commission to be made, entered into or accepted by any person with the Government of Canada or with any of the departments or officers of that government for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, there shall be inserted an express condition that no member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to any share or part of the contract agreement or commission or to any benefit arising therefrom.

The penalty provided is a fine and the possibility of loss of seat. In a law firm, it became a question of, what if the firm provides an opinion to CMHC on a mortgage? It's a rather minor matter. It's not a matter of a firm doing something that isn't otherwise done. I think it was caught by the provision, and I resigned as a partner in our firm, even though we were in opposition, because I felt that it was caught.

    I don't think that's the intention, quite frankly, and I think parliamentarians will really benefit if they're able to have a clear code. Some of these provisions are written with the government contractor.

    Here's an even better one. Section 34 specifically provides for:

    

any person alone or with any other person or by the interposition of any trustee or third party...for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, the person is not eligible to be a member of the House of Commons and shall not sit or vote therein.

How would you like to get yourself caught on that particular fence without knowing it was there lurking for you?

    So I think parliamentarians can really benefit from having a clear code that deals with the real issues we need to deal with, can be interpreted by somebody who I believe can be respected by everyone as an Ethics Commissioner, and can, at least from my point of view, alleviate some the uncertainty that lurks out there.

    But we'll make all these provisions available to members of the committee so that you can have a look at them and take them into consideration as you do your work on the proposed code.

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: And, Deputy Prime Minister, you should know that our draft plans for dealing with this matter include a round table, and our colleagues will be able to come and meet with us at considerable length.

    Colleagues, I would like to thank Linda Gobeil, Kathy O'Hara, and Oonagh Fitzgerald, the silent partners in this particular operation. And I'd like to thank our Deputy Prime Minister, John Manley, for his presentation today. We greatly appreciate your being here.

    At our meeting on Thursday there will be two things. One is to consider how we're going to proceed and be briefed on some aspects of this package, and the other will be election of a chair.

    The meeting is adjourned until Thursday at 11 o'clock.