INST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 13, 2002

0900

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

Mr. Howard R. Wilson (Ethics Counsellor, Office of the Ethics Counsellor)

0905

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance))

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

0910

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. James Rajotte

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)

0915

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Brent St. Denis

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ)

0920

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

0925

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.)

0930

The Chair

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Dan McTeague

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Dan McTeague

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Dan McTeague

Mr. Howard Wilson

0935

Mr. Dan McTeague

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Dan McTeague

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Yvon Godin

0940

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Yvon Godin

0945

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

0950

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Howard Wilson

0955

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC)

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Scott Brison

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison

The Chair

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Howard Wilson

1000

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Brent St. Denis

The Chair

Mr. James Rajotte

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Scott Brison

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Scott Brison

The Chair

1005

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.)

An hon. member

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Andy Savoy

1010

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

1015

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

1020

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Larry Bagnell

1025

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

1030

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

1035

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Howard Wilson

1040

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Howard Wilson

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Howard Wilson

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Howard Wilson

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Howard Wilson

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Howard Wilson

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

1045

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Howard Wilson

1050

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Scott Brison

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Scott Brison

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Joe McGuire

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance)

1055

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

1100

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Howard Wilson

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

1105

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

Mr. Howard Wilson

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

NUMBER 092

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 13, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): Order. I would ask that we now begin the meeting. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is consideration of the guidelines for ministers involved in organizing leadership campaigns, as well as of any other matters concerning the mandate of the ethics counsellor.

Today, I would like to welcome the ethics counsellor, Mr. Howard Wilson, before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Mr. Wilson has testified before this committee several times in the past, in the context of the Lobbyists Registration Act; in a more general manner on main estimates, plans, and priorities; as well as on his mandate, responsibilities, and the expenditures of his office.

Just as a reminder, today's motion and meeting are very straightforward. It was moved that the ethics counsellor be invited to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to discuss the guidelines for ministers involved in organizing leadership campaigns, as well as any other matters concerning his mandate. In formulating your questions, members, I therefore ask you to bear in mind the notion of ministerial responsibility. As in the past, questions regarding ministerial responsibility are under the purview of the Prime Minister.

I will ask the ethics counsellor for his opening remarks, and then we'll go into questions. We'll first deal with the guidelines, and then we'll deal with any other matters.

Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Howard R. Wilson (Ethics Counsellor, Office of the Ethics Counsellor): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to be here.

I have a brief statement that I would like to make before taking the questions of the committee.

[Translation]

I am pleased to appear before you today. Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister tabled in the House new ethical guidelines and, afterwards, held a press conference. The point I wish to emphasize at this time is the annual report on the activities of my office dealing with conflicts of interest which the Prime Minister asked me to present. This task is important to me because I believe it represents an initiative.

[English]

that is very important in terms of the evolution of the responsibilities of the office.

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

I expect to prepare my first report during the summer so that it can be tabled in the House on September 30.

[English]

Following the tabling of that report, I would expect to be called before the committee again for questioning on its contents. In some respects, I therefore view this session as a dry run for what will happen in the fall.

With that, I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

The Chair: We will now begin with questions.

Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance)): Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for appearing before us today. Our chairman is very fond of very short questions and short answers, so I hope you'll help me out with this.

I want to talk about your role in terms of looking at any allegations of potential conflict of interest. Do you, sir, have the legislative power to subpoena witnesses when investigating any of these allegations?

Mr. Howard Wilson: My responsibilities are somewhat complicated. If the chair will indulge me, since we do have two hours, I'd like to explain them.

With respect to the Conflict of Interest Code, I have independent power such that, if allegations are made—by you, for example, or by members of the media—about whether or not a minister is in a conflict of interest, I have the authority to try to verify the facts in order to determine whether or not the allegations have any substance. I do not have any powers to compel witnesses.

On the other hand, I'm also responsible for the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, which I was asked to develop in legislation in 1995-96. It came into force in 1997 and sets out some rules for lobbyists. In those instances, if I come to a belief that one of the rules has been violated, then by virtue of that decision, I acquire all of the powers of a superior court of record, including subpoena powers.

Mr. James Rajotte: That's only with regard to the Lobbyists Registration Act. With regard to allegations against cabinet ministers, do you not have the legislative power to subpoena witnesses?

Mr. Howard Wilson: No, I do not.

Mr. James Rajotte: With regard to allegations against cabinet ministers, do you have the legislative power to compel evidence?

Mr. Howard Wilson: When I have had to look into some of these matters in the past, I have never—and I emphasize “never”—encountered any resistance whatsoever from those public office holders against whom allegations have been made.

Mr. James Rajotte: But the answer to that, though, is no. If someone does not want to produce evidence, you do not have the legislative power?

Mr. Howard Wilson: That is correct.

Mr. James Rajotte: Do you have any legislative mandate in regard to investigations of allegations against cabinet ministers?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think you have to appreciate, sir, that this is a code and not a piece of legislation. It sets up the principles under which ministers conduct themselves, and some rules pertaining to disclosure.

Mr. James Rajotte: In this new package that the Prime Minister has introduced, can you identify what the penalties are when the rules that have been laid out are broken? What are the sanctions that are actually in this package?

¿ (0910)

Mr. Howard Wilson: Guidelines such as the ones that had earlier been issued against ministers and their offices dealing with quasi-judicial tribunals such as the CRTC or the Immigration Refugee Board were issued several years ago. As has been commonly understood, an infraction has meant that a minister would not be able to continue in cabinet. Ultimately, it will be the decision of the Prime Minister as to what would be the penalty for any infraction of these, but my office will be working closely so that ministers and their offices clearly understand them.

Mr. James Rajotte: So if you determined that an infraction was committed by a certain cabinet minister, you would provide that advice to the Prime Minister, but it's basically up to the Prime Minister himself as to whether or not he decides to follow through on that infraction and dismiss that person from cabinet.

Mr. Howard Wilson: That is exactly correct. It's his responsibility.

Mr. James Rajotte: This is going to be a rather blunt question, Mr. Wilson. With respect, with no legislative powers as they pertain to allegations against cabinet ministers, and with no sanctions outlined except an ad hoc or a possible dismissal from cabinet based on the Prime Minister's decision, how do you expect these guidelines to work? How do you expect Canadians and parliamentarians to have faith in the office of any sort of so-called ethics counsellor? With no sanctions and with no legislative mandate, how can we, as parliamentarians or as Canadians, have any faith in this sort of a system at all?

Mr. Howard Wilson: One of the clearest ways is by calling me before a committee and asking me exactly what I do and what reasons led me to certain conclusions. But I think you're confusing two different....

The debate over the past while has been that there should be a parliamentary commissioner. I believe your party has made strong demands for that. I have insisted that my role is that of a counsellor who provides advice to the Prime Minister and administers the Conflict of Interest Code. That's a very important constitutional point.

One of the ideas that the Prime Minister put forward on Tuesday was that Parliament go back to the Milliken–Oliver report on a code of conduct for parliamentarians. One of the key recommendations was that there be a parliamentary officer who would have responsibility for that code, for providing advice, and for carrying out investigations for Parliament.

My role is quite distinct, quite different. There is a public code. One can read it and one can see what the obligations are, and I'm happy at any time to be questioned on those. Ultimately, the answer is transparency.

Mr. James Rajotte: I'd like to bring it back to the issue of cabinet ministers specifically. In the first part of the guidelines, “The Ministry and Activities for Personal Political Purposes”, it speaks of “any leadership campaign, official or unofficial”. In your view, is the Liberal Party of Canada in an official leadership race at this point?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Certainly it's not in an official leadership race.

Mr. James Rajotte: Is it in an unofficial one?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Have people been organizing? My answer to that is a yes, although I'm not sure exactly when that moment began. There may have been a lot of argument last fall, but when I was asked and I decided to make some recommendations to the Prime Minister, it was clear to me that the organization had taken on a degree of at least virtual substance. I therefore thought it timely that there be some guidance in this area.

The reason my office has become engaged in this is that, unlike ordinary political fundraising activities, the fundraising is not for the benefit of a party, nor for the benefit of a riding association. It's for the personal benefit of the minister. That's why the code applies.

Mr. James Rajotte: Since you do admit that the Liberal Party is in an unofficial leadership race, will you address the point that was made by CTV News and in the Globe and Mail that the Prime Minister in effect changed the guidelines you presented to him? Just a simple yes or no will do.

Mr. Howard Wilson: I don't think that's an answer that can be dealt with adequately with a yes or a no. I'm prepared to give an answer, but I'm not prepared to do it on that basis.

Mr. James Rajotte: Okay, then can you give a short answer on whether he changed the guidelines or not?

Mr. Howard Wilson: The guidelines continued to evolve until shortly before they were released.

The Chair: Mr. Rajotte, we'll be back to you.

We'll now go to Mr. St. Denis, for eight minutes.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr. Wilson, I'm not sure if you feel free to render an opinion on the Prime Minister's package. If you feel you can, though, I'm sure we'd all be happy to hear your opinion on whether you're happy with it or not.

I'll go right to the question that is of interest to me at the moment, and probably of interest to many others. Even though we aren't really officially into leadership campaigns as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, we expect that will happen sometime in the future. As you understand them, can you outline how the public filings of donations to campaigns will work? What are the mechanics of that process?

For the record, can you tell those who are here and those who may be watching on television whether or not these rules would apply to other parties that at the time may not be in government? For example, the NDP is into a race, and the Canadian Alliance was recently in a race. Is there any requirement under these rules that applies to parties that aren't in government? Do you feel they should apply, if you are prepared to provide an opinion on that?

¿ (0915)

Mr. Howard Wilson: The package that the Prime Minister outlined on Tuesday is a very substantial package. I am strongly supportive of it. Some very important steps have been taken, but some even more important steps will be taken in the fall, such as the proposals to change election financing.

On the question of these guidelines on personal political purposes, they do not apply to other political parties. They only apply to ministers as public office holders.

I think you have to understand that this represents, in my view and based on my sense of history, a rather remarkable step forward. It has not been the practice in the past for a political party or for ministers to have to make these kinds of disclosures. That is now agreed to, and it had been agreed to by everybody. There is no difference of view from anyone on the importance of disclosure.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: As for the mechanics of the filings themselves, are they still to be determined, or has a process been laid out?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I will be meeting shortly with the offices of three of the ministers, and also with their fundraisers, to set up the mechanics whereby the disclosure of those contributions received to date can be made within the next thirty days. I will also be working with them in setting up and making sure that blind trusts are in place and are robust enough to protect the minister from knowledge of who individually has made a contribution to his or her campaign.

There may not be any fundraising immediately, but one of the values of this is that it leaves no doubt about how you have to organize yourself when you do get engaged in, again, an act of fundraising.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Will this information be available on your website or in the Canada Gazette?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Currently, my thinking is that it should be available on my website.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: My final question is on the notion that Parliament would have something to say about the dismissal of an ethics counsellor in the new regime. Some Parliamentarians would argue that this is insufficient oversight over an ethics counsellor, while others would say it's more than sufficient. I think I'm in the latter camp.

In your view, does that give parliamentarians enough of a say not over the day-by-day functioning of an ethics counsellor's office, but over his or her ability to conduct business in a transparent and open way?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think the Prime Minister was responding to a perception that, because I reported to him as a public servant, I could be dismissed if I happened to have provided him with inconvenient advice. That is not the way our relationship has worked over the past several years. He has not been interested in me merely giving him what I think he wants to hear. There's not much value in that. On the other hand, appointing an ethics counsellor for five years and then saying that person could only be dismissed by a joint reference to Parliament underlines that this individual is not going to be dismissed except under the most compelling of circumstances, such as if the person has ceased to demonstrate any capacity whatsoever to carry out his or her responsibilities.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, please.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank you for your appearance today. I hope that you will be able to provide some clarifications and some answers to questions we may ask you.

The announcement that was made by the Prime Minister this week was presented as a great innovation except that, since then, we have been able to note that most of the measures that the Prime Minister announced are to come later. So, there is really not a lot of meat on the bone. You admitted yourself, a few moments ago, that the guidelines regarding the code of conduct are a work in progress. It is evolving and it will come later. We know that there will be changes to the code of conduct, to the Lobbyist Registration Act and to the Act that regulates the financing of political parties, but everything seems to be being postponed until later.

You came here this morning with a very brief opening statement, in which you said that

[English]

the Prime Minister on Tuesday tabled a substantial package on ethics and, after tabling, had a press conference.

[Translation]

What you consider to be a series of substantial measures seem to me, to say the least, to be rather anemic at this moment.

Here is my first question. A little while ago, I tabled a bill, Bill C-388, which you probably looked at, regarding the code of ethics and an ethics counsellor appointed by the House and reporting to the House. In the framework of the debate around this bill, which could not be put to a vote because the Liberals refused to make it a bill which could be put to a vote, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government stated the following, and I quote:

We gave the job of ethics counsellor real teeth and strong investigative powers and made sure that his reports under the act were tabledin parliament. The ethics counsellor can also be asked to appear before parliamentary committees and has done so.

Mr. Wilson, what is new in what the Prime Minister just announced in relationship to what already existed, according to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government was telling us?

¿ (0920)

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: The first point I would want to make is that the Prime Minister was not making an announcement into the void, as though there was nothing in place. This country has a fairly elaborate system in place in the form of the Conflict of Interest Code. In fact, it's one that is much admired by other countries because of the nature by which it operates. It has a number of strengths that I'd be happy to talk about.

What the Prime Minister was doing, however, was adding some important additional elements. There was the question of how ministers should conduct a leadership campaign if they so chose to become engaged. There were no guidelines for that. There are now guidelines, and they will help in the future.

There has been continuing discussion about crown corporations over the past year and a half in terms of what relationship the Government of Canada wants to have with crown corporations, which are quite distinct from government departments. Those guidelines are now in place.

The Prime Minister speaks of coming back to what he hopes will be an all-party agreement on a code of conduct for parliamentarians. That's a point that I think is very important. This Parliament is one of the few in the Westminster model that does not have such a code.

He talks about a major reform of election financing, and the legislation for that will be tabled.

The Lobbyists Registration Act benefited from this committee's examination last year. The government did respond, and the government will be presenting legislation.

I think this area is one in which evolution is always the best way to approach things. We should all be satisfied that we do actually start from a strong base. That's a point the previous Auditor General made on a number of occasions.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, if you're referring to one of the guideline packages, could you tell us so that the rest of us can be on the same page.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: These are my personal notes, Mr. Chair.

Still regarding the debate around Bill C-388, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader in the House, as concerns the suggestion that the ethics commissioner should be accountable to Parliament, had stated:

However beyond undermining the Prime Minister's personal responsibility for his ministers, the bill would also undermine accountability and our system ofresponsible government in general.

That was a bit much. What was being said was that for the ethics counsellor to be accountable to the House would undermine the credibility of responsible government.

In your opinion, does the fact that you are going to table a report before the Parliament undermine the credibility of our responsible government, to use the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government?

¿ (0925)

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: No, not at all. That is exactly the proper response. There should be a report, there should be a discussion, and I should appear before a committee to answer questions. But the accountability of the Prime Minister for the conduct of the government is absolutely a fundamental point of our Constitution.

It is true that most of the provinces have ethics commissioners who have responsibilities for ministers as well as for members of the legislature. The one major exception, however, is the Province of Quebec, where the jurisconsulte, who has responsibilities, has no responsibility whatsoever for ministers. From at least the time of Bourassa, but more recently under Premier Bernard Landry, ministers have issued directives that give the responsibility to the Premier for the conduct of ministers. He sets out rules, and those rules will be administered by him.

Our system is identical to that, just as it is identical to the system in the U.K. We are consistent with the fundamentals of the Westminster model, but that does not mean I cannot appear in front of and provide advice to these committees, explain myself, and answer any question put on the table. I think that is essential.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister has already stated:

No goal has been more important to this government, or to me personallyas Prime Minister, than restoring the trust of Canadians in their institutions.

However, Mr. Chair, according to a Léger Marketing poll published last February, 69% of people consider the federal political system to be fairly or very corrupt, while a Gallup poll showed that politicians ranked dead last out of 15 professions in terms of the honesty and integrity they inspire in people.

Mr. Wilson, in light of the conclusions of these polls, do you consider that the Prime Minister, through the measures that he has put in place until now, has succeeded in allowing Canadians to have renewed confidence in their institutions?

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: For all members of Parliament, there is a continuing challenge, sir. You cited one poll. Last night, I read a more recent poll produced by Ekos that showed Canadians do have a high regard, but it has declined over the years. I think the bar is continually being raised by the public. This is a welcome development, but it means that all politicians, whether they're in government or in the opposition, have to be mindful of the fact that the trust that was once implicit from all electors is no longer to be taken for granted. You have to take extra steps.

One of the steps that the government took was to put more prominence onto the role of an ethics counsellor. That was a first step a number of years ago. That was a positive step, because there can be transparency.

The Chair: I will now go over to Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr. Wilson, it's a pleasure having you here this morning, sir. You're obviously the man of the day and man of the hour, and a number of us obviously have questions that we hope will provide us with some insight as we look into the events unfolding before us today.

You have been very pronounced and very obvious in some of your statements, particularly with respect to affairs that have happened in the past on the question of solicitations and donations to potential leadership aspirants. I'm interested in one statement that didn't get a lot of attention, but which was nevertheless important for all of us as parliamentarians, and that was one on the Friends of Alfonso Gagliano Inc.

Several months ago, it was reported that this organization had something to do with the current imbroglio we find ourselves in today. I'm wondering if you had an opportunity to provide advice to the then minister, and if you perhaps were able to get a better understanding of the funds that were raised and where those funds are currently, given that it is a registered organization.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Wilson.

Mr. McTeague, I want to remind you that we want to get through the guidelines. If there are no more questions on the guidelines, we'll then go to other matters. I'll allow you this one, but let's stick to the guidelines so that we can get them behind us first, like the previous two speakers did.

Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Howard Wilson: No, I did not. My most recent involvement over the past several months has been on fundraising for people who were pursuing the leadership or had aspirations for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Wilson, I'm also interested in the matters concerning the mandate of your counsel as a result of the guidelines. Under the current proposals that you have before you today, sir, how would you treat a situation in which, for instance, an aspirant to the leadership of our party—or any party, for that matter—could obtain a commitment of several millions dollars from the very portfolio in which they are working? I'm referring to previous ministers in industry who had obtained certain commitments from the business community. Did you have any concerns at the time, particularly when matters dealt with their own portfolios?

Mr. Howard Wilson: As long ago as last fall, I had been asked for advice by a number of people about how they should go about organizing a fundraising campaign. One of the questions, for example, was about donations or contributions that come from organizations that have dealings with a minister's department.

This is an issue that has come up in the past, not respective of leadership, but rather of fundraising more generally. I have taken the position that as long as the fundraising is broadly based and the organizers—it's never the minister who does this personally—ensure that they do not target the minister's department, then I see this as a proper approach to it.

What I also said to ministers at the time was that they should ensure that they have no knowledge of who is making contributions at this point in time. I was arguing that disclosure at the end of the day would be very important, but if disclosure is made as fundraising goes on, the ministers will become progressively more incapacitated because they will have to take preventive steps to avoid benefiting or appearing to benefit those contributors of whom they become aware. That's one of the tasks I will have to deal with in the coming days.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Sir, in that scenario in which you have a minister who may be potentially in a position of conflict, how quickly would you inform the Prime Minister?

Mr. Howard Wilson: As I mentioned earlier, I intend to approach this by meeting with the ministers and their offices, as well as with their fundraisers, about the mechanics for disclosure. If some of those organizations are ones that have close dealings with that minister's department, then that minister and I will need to talk at that point about how his or her office will have to be organized and how the deputy minister is to ensure that the minister personally doesn't take decisions directly benefiting that particular organization. That will happen almost immediately, and the Prime Minister will be informed of the steps taken, of course.

Mr. Dan McTeague: How likely is it, Mr. Wilson, that we will see instances of selective meetings between you and ministers suddenly appearing in the paper while there is the impression that other individuals obviously do not get the same attention when they may be in a similar situation and may very well meet you on the very same grounds, on very serious matters? And I'm not talking of the press, but of the Prime Minister.

I'll give you the example of the story surrounding the Jim Palmer affair. At the same time, we had a minister in another portfolio who was obviously raising money from the Industry portfolio that he was overseeing. Also at the same time, very little was mentioned about the potential for conflict that existed there.

Mr. Howard Wilson: My involvement, became a matter of public knowledge. The cheque from Mr. Palmer had passed on and had gone to Liberal Party headquarters. I was then asked by the Clerk of the Privy Council about what my advice would be on that point. My advice was that there was an issue here because Mr. Palmer also had a contract with the Department of Finance. I spoke to the Minister of Finance at the time, he agreed with me immediately, and the contract that Mr. Palmer had was terminated. That kind of approach is seen explicitly in the guidelines that were issued the other day.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Wilson, will there be consistency in the application of these things? It would appear that this was very selective when it is compared to other controversies that have since erupted.

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think the background to that one was that it was an accident of where the cheque went. In any event, I was asked for advice. It was not my intention that there be a public discussion of it. In my mind, it was important that the Minister of Finance take immediate action to avoid the appearance of a conflict. He agreed with me instantly, and that step was taken.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Did you give the same advice to the former Minister of Industry, who, according to media reports, had raised some $10 million from the business community? What advice did you give the minister at the time, and did you give that advice to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I can say that one of the ministers who sought advice on how best to go about this business last fall was the former Minister of Industry, but he was not the only one.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

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

Mr. WIlson, thank you for appearing before the committee.

When we speak of a code of ethics, I remember that, well before the last election, around 1999, our colleague, Gordon Earle, had tabled a bill in the House of Commons providing for a code of ethics for members and for Parliament. At that time, the Liberal government had completely ignored him and had voted against his bill.

Can we say that, at that time, given your responsibilities, you already knew that improper things were going on? Mr. Chrétien was elected a long time ago, and there are some people, in his party, who would like him to leave. Bickering has broken out among them and many people are trying to be in a position of leadership at the start of an election. There are already some members who are worried about what is going on in Parliament and the way that Canadians are perceiving members. We're down to 18%. For my part, I don't think that the Liberal government, since 1993, has done its share to increase the respect of members in the House of Commons.

What do you think of the bill that Gordon Earle had tabled and of the fact that the Government had ignored it and did not want to take the bull by the horns, as they say?

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: Continuing debate in Parliament on these questions is important. My own personal assessment is that Parliament will have these kinds of debates every now and again. You have to remember the atmosphere of 1993, when the current government put forward a number of propositions that were implemented: strengthening the Lobbyists Registration Act; strengthening the Conflict of Interest Code; and appointing an ethics counsellor.

My view is that parliamentarians can fully expect that there will be a continual evolution of measures to ensure that public confidence in Parliament and its institutions continues to be high. But this is an unceasing responsibility. I don't think a piece of legislation was necessary, but that's not to say the debate that was held around it, both earlier and more recently, was not a positive development.

Mr. Yvon Godin: While you're saying it's a continual evolution, we're down to 18%. Do we have to wait until we are down to 0%? Do we have to wait until Canadians have no more trust in their politicians?

Take the ex-Minister of Industry, Brian Tobin, for example. A same company that was already under investigation was giving him $75,000 for a table for his leadership. When did you know that? Did you advise the Prime Minister at the time?

¿ (0940)

Mr. Howard Wilson: I was not aware of it, Mr. Chair, and I don't think I can comment on something of which I have no personal knowledge.

The Chair: Mr. Godin, I want to remind you again, as I've reminded everybody else, that we're talking about the guidelines. As much as possible, try to put your questions based on the guidelines. We'll then have lots of time for other matters.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair, I appreciate that.

Don't you think the guidelines should look after those ministers who especially will receive money from companies? That's through the guidelines. Don't you think we should have stronger guidelines that will look after the...?

The Chair: Maybe you could refer to a spot in the guidelines that you think should be stronger. Maybe you could recommend to the ethics counsellor where you think we could do that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm referring to the guidelines in general. Should we not put more into it them, especially if money is given? Should that not be going directly to you in order for you to be able to make an assessment right away?

Mr. Howard Wilson: These guidelines for the leadership and fundraising do in fact try to address very directly the point that you have just raised. The fundraising contributions should go into a blind trust.

Let's look forward to what is now going to happen. The moneys will go into a blind trust. It says that there will be a disclosure no later than thirty days before a convention. We don't know when the official campaign will begin, but that means the moneys will be in a blind trust. I consider that to be absolutely essential if the minister is going to be able to carry out his or her responsibilities at the same time without being accused of favouring those companies that have made contributions.

In my view, a blind trust is absolutely essential because the fundraising is being done for a personal political interest. In the absence of a blind trust, the minister, as I had mentioned earlier, will become progressively incapacitated because there will be more and more files that he or she cannot deal with.

If I could make just one last point, Mr. Chair, as I mentioned, I know nothing of this business of Mr. Tobin. But when I have looked into and dealt with these matters in the past, it has always been my practice to ensure that my conclusions are made public. Invariably, they end up on my website. However, I am not prepared to give answers without knowing all of the facts, the circumstances, and what the minister may or may not have known at the time. And I'm speaking in general terms, not about that specifically.

I think I'm agreeing with you.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You're agreeing with me? Good.

Through your responsibilities and powers that you have as the ethics counsellor, how much of an investigation could you undertake? How far could you go?

Mr. Howard Wilson: One of the larger ones that we had to engage in was an investigation of allegations made against the former Minister of Finance that he was in a conflict of interest because he had participated in decisions regarding compensation for those who had suffered from the blood problems. A decade earlier, he had been sitting on the board of the Canada Development Corporation, which owned Connaught Laboratories, the source of these difficulties.

Those allegations were made, and I thought at the beginning that it was going to be a fairly easy matter. It turned out to be very difficult, however, because we had trouble finding the documents, which were not in the government's possession. But we got full cooperation and we produced a very voluminous report, the complete details of which continue to sit on my website.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister has now laid out guidelines. If you had the total responsibility to add some more, which ones would you add for the well-being of Parliament and so that the public could have an improved perception of its members and its ministers? What is missing from these guidelines?

¿ (0945)

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: We're talking about leadership. I think this sets out the guidance that ministers need if they're planning to become leadership candidates. They need to know about those supporters who have contracts with their department. They need to know about those people who are lobbying their department and who are also supporting them in an active way. The organization of their ministerial offices is terribly important. And then there's the fundraising.

As I said, from my point of view and that of the code, the essential point is the need to ensure that these funds go into a blind trust. When they're disclosed—it says “no later than thirty days before a convention”—then I think the public interest has been protected and ministers can carry out their responsibilities without having to continuously worry about who has made contributions.

The Chair: Mr. Marcil.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wilson, you don't have an easy job. It can't be very easy being an ethics counsellor these days. I had the privilege of occupying the position of minister in the Government of Quebec. When I was called upon to sit in the Cabinet, I had to fill out all sorts of forms to declare just about everything I owned and everything my family might own. The series of questions that I had to answer was intended to ensure that I avoided not only a situation of actual conflict but also an appearance of a situation of conflict.

Today, it is almost unbearable for a member of a government, regardless of the political party. It is difficult for such a person to be able to carry out his or her work in peace because he or she can create doubt in all sorts of ways. A minister is also a member. You can carry out a funding campaign in your riding, and there will be people who will buy a ticket for a meal or for a golf tournament. We don't necessarily know these people, but they may have an interest in participating in the activities of a member or a member-minister with the objective of being seen and to become known. We see that in all political groups during funding campaigns and electoral campaigns.

If we analyzed all those who made contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada, we would see that a significant portion of these people also made contributions to the Bloc Québécois, the Alliance and the Conservative Party. Someone in their company made contributions. Therefore, it is pretty well the same groups and the same people in our society who support political groups, and I find that to be perfectly acceptable because they are demonstrating an active democratic sense. We encourage political parties to be active and to form either a worthwhile opposition, or a worthwhile party in power.

So, you don't have an easy task. Clearly, you are an advisor not a commissioner. Your are an advisor to the Prime Minister and not an ethics commissioner.

The Lobbyist Registration Act is particular to the Government of Canada. It did not exist in Quebec until recently because the culture of lobbying did not exist in Quebec, even though it did go on indirectly. However, given the problems they experienced, the Government of Quebec, in its wisdom, decided to create a law on lobbying.

How does our Lobbyist Registration Act work in Quebec? Lobbyists play an important role in leadership races. By definition, a lobbyist must try to establish contacts as often as possible with certain ministers or with all the ministers. He is not trying to obtain privileges but rather to sell his merchandise. Could you enlighten us on how our Lobbyist Registration Act works?

¿ (0950)

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: Let me just make an initial comment that draws from your experience in Quebec, Mr. Marcil. I agree with you that care has to be taken that those coming into public life are not surrounded by so many rules and so many prohibitions that it becomes impossible for them to carry out their tasks. I think we've struck a nice balance. We try to avoid the problems in advance so that ministers can get about their work without having to continuously worry, day to day, about problems.

The Chair: I want to stick to the guidelines. I want to be fair with everybody. I want to make sure we're talking about the guidelines and how things could be put into effect in the guidelines.

Mr. Howard Wilson: What I was trying to do, Mr. Chair, was make a broader point that covers all of these things.

On the Lobbyists Registration Act, to which the Prime Minister announced there would be legislative changes in the fall, this is work that comes as a direct result of what this committee did and the report it prepared last year. The committee felt that the reforms that took place in the mid-1990s worked very well, in the sense that there's much more information on what we have attempted to do and it's readily available on the Internet.

Parliament has never said you need permission to lobby, but Parliament has said that if you are going to lobby, then the public has a right to know who it is you're working for and which government departments you are attempting to influence. I think we have been able to achieve that. The committee's conclusion was that the information is readily available, and I think the system is working very well. But some areas do need improvement. We have a serious enforcement problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I have the privilege of being the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry. When the Prime Minister offered me this position, I had to meet with you, since parliamentary secretaries in Ottawa, must also make declarations. I am a mere member exercising a supplementary function. These days, parliamentarians occupying certain positions must learn to manage their agendas. Their agenda has become almost more important than their work because they have to look at who they will be meeting during the day or during the week. They have to ask themselves if they might be in a conflict of interest when an association which has a direct link to the Industry Department wants to meet the parliamentary secretary. In my case, I have to ask myself questions on anything which touches the area of pharmaceutical products or any other area linked to the Industry Department.

If we applied these rules directly, a parliamentary secretary or even a minister could not meet with a firm which has a link to the department in question or receives services from that department.

As ethics counsellor, you have a team which works with you. How can we do a complete and thorough job? As parliamentary secretaries or ministers, we have to know the people or the companies which do business with the department, to better understand their problems. I am putting myself in the shoes of possible candidates to the supposed leadership race, because they will often be in contact with such people. How should they react?

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: I would hope ministers and parliamentary secretaries would feel free to meet with as many organizations and Canadians as possible as they develop legislative initiatives. Our guidelines have attempted to put a small fence around some areas in which the minister is going to have to take preventive steps, but my view is that this will not limit the capacity of the minister or parliamentary secretaries in terms of them being fully engaged with the public and with organizations in the conduct of their operations.

For example, you and the Minister of Industry have to meet regularly with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry—both those located in Montreal and those located in Toronto. You have to understand the issues. You have to meet with a very wide range of individuals representing a variety of different views. I think the code enables everything to come together so that you can do so without having to worry continuously about whether you're in a conflict and whether you can accept a meeting.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Wilson.

Do you agree with the part of the ethics guidelines that prohibits ministers from lobbying crown agencies or crown corporations?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes, I do.

Mr. Scott Brison: Why didn't you agree with it when you had an opportunity to express judgment against the Prime Minister lobbying the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada? Why did you change your mind?

Mr. Howard Wilson: In fact, I did not change my mind.

Maybe we should understand what happened during the election of 2000, when it became known that the Prime Minister had made some telephone calls to the head of the Business Development Bank in 1996.

In a letter from the then leader of the Canadian Alliance and from your leader during the election campaign, I was asked whether or not the Prime Minister had broken any particular rule by doing that. I responded to both leaders by saying no rule prevented a minister, including the Prime Minister, from speaking to the head of a crown corporation. However, I did say in my letter to Mr. Clark and Mr. Day that there seemed to have been an evolution in recent years—this was while writing in 2000—in regard to how the government wanted to more formally structure the governing structures of the governance of crown corporations. I said in my letter that, in the coming weeks, I was going to examine that issue with a view to possibly making recommendations.

I made those recommendations in February. They were reviewed by a cabinet committee under the chair of Mr. Herb Gray on a couple of occasions, and I put my views to the Prime Minister in a letter dated September 10. Needless to say, the Prime Minister was dealing with much more important issues, beginning the next day.

With the appointment of the new ministry, he asked Mr. Manley to take a look at these. There were meetings, and the product is what you saw tabled on Tuesday. I happen to be in favour of that product.

Mr. Scott Brison: Could you confirm that there was a fairly damning audit of your activities when you were at the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, and that the result of that audit was that you were stripped of your signing authority due to contract irregularities?

The Chair: Mr. Brison, I think you're getting away from the guidelines.

Mr. Scott Brison: It's very important, Mr. Chairman, both in terms of Mr. Wilson's credibility as ethics counsellor and in terms of his credibility as a witness before this committee.

The Chair: I apologize, but I think you're going too far. If Mr. Wilson wants to comment, he may, but I'd ask you to stick to the guidelines and his present position.

Mr. Howard Wilson: Mr. Brison has raised a matter impugning my integrity, and I'd be quite happy to address it.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mr. Howard Wilson: He's referring to a period when I was executive director for competitiveness for a “prosperity initiative” that had been launched by the Conservative government. This was a set of very long consultations, and I was in charge of organizing the final meeting, which took place in Edmonton, Alberta.

The committee that ran this took a long time to decide whether or not they were going to have a final wrap-up meeting, so we had dealings with the Canada West Foundation to organize that on our behalf. It was not competitively tendered, and the Auditor General did make a negative comment.

For reasons that are particular to Industry Canada, of which I was not a member, my signing authority was removed and then quickly restored. The minister of the day said my actions were in total concert. I have information on this that I'm happy to share with the committee, but that's the essence of it. Time did not permit a competitive process.

À (1000)

The Chair: I think we'll go back to the guidelines, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: At the time of your appointment, did you make the Prime Minister aware—

The Chair: Mr. Brison, I would again ask you to go back to the guidelines.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): His appointment was made following consultations with all of the leaders of the opposition parties. Stick to the guidelines.

The Chair: I would ask you to stick to the guidelines. Mr. Wilson is here for two hours. Please ask your questions on any of the guidelines, and then we'll go into any other matters.

Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Chairman, I respect your authority on this, but I would assert that the credibility of Mr. Wilson, both as ethics counsellor and as a witness in front of this committee, is very important and essential. The question of whether or not he informed the Prime Minister of this at the time of his appointment is very important.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: On a point of order, as I understand it, the counsellor was appointed after consultations with all of the leaders of all of the parties. With great respect, I think Mr. Brison is stretching the point beyond reason.

The Chair: That's why I would ask Mr. Brison to go back to asking questions on the guidelines.

Mr. James Rajotte: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we know for a fact that there was no one from the opposition...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...simply an informed decision.

Secondly, in regard to the motion that was passed, I think Mr. Brison is within the motion:

That the Ethics Counsellor be invited to appear before the Committee on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 or at the earliest opportunity after the new guidelines are made public.

That's a fairly broad motion.

The Chair: That's correct, but we're sticking to the guidelines first. We'll then have questions on any other matters. I think I made that perfectly clear. Until this point, we've been doing that.

I would ask Mr. Brison to ask questions on the guidelines. I allowed him one item. When he said guidelines and made a reference, that was answered. I would therefore ask him to go back.

Thank you.

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the issue of blind trusts, the names of the contributors would obviously not be public information.

Mr. Howard Wilson: The idea of a blind trust is to effectively make the minister blind to the identity of the contributors. The funds raised would be put it into a trust account that I would have to verify as being robust enough. Only at the end of the process, the guidelines state, would there be disclosure. At that point in time, there would then be disclosure of all who had made contributions.

Mr. Scott Brison: During a period of fundraising, there would be no disclosure of the contributors to a blind trust. In some ways, isn't that a bit of an ethical black hole? Currently, contributions to political parties become public information annually. At least, I believe it's done annually for contributions to political parties. It's done periodically, in any case. With a blind trust—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Scott Brison: Ms. Torsney, with due respect, I'm not asking you.

With a blind trust, Mr. Wilson, isn't there actually less public disclosure, not more? Isn't that contrary to the public interest?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Let me make two quick points. First, this is not normal fundraising. These are not moneys being raised for the political party, national or provincial, nor for a riding association. They are moneys being raised for the personal interest and benefit of the minister. The minister has to be kept blind to them until such time as there is disclosure. In most occurrences, I think disclosure takes place at the end of the process. In any event, in order to allow ministers to continue with their day-to-day responsibilities, this point is an essential one for me.

Mr. Scott Brison: Under these guidelines, would the Prime Minister be able to hold fundraising events at 24 Sussex Drive?

The Chair: Mr. Brison, that concludes your time.

Mr. Savoy.

À (1005)

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Welcome, Mr. Wilson. Thank you for coming in front of us.

My colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin spoke of the leadership races of non-governing parties, of opposition parties. I think that issue is something deserving more investigation.

I'd like to first establish the influence and potential influence of these potential leaders of opposition parties. In the British parliamentary system, we have a system of committees, and certainly a system with a House question period during which we like to feel we're taken to task by the opposition and influenced by the opposition. Also, the opposition, whichever party it may be, might be a government-in-waiting. I would therefore argue that we can establish that they have an influence on our system. They take us to task and help us to develop policy in the British parliamentary system. They also do so at the committee level.

If they are in fact a government-in-waiting—that has enormous potential influence when you look at it that way, of course—why would we not consider the disclosure of donors to leadership candidates in opposition parties? If they have the present opportunity to have influence in our system and a huge potential opportunity to have influence, why would we not consider the disclosure of their donors in their leadership races?

An hon. member: Excellent question.

Mr. Howard Wilson: Let me say that I would be delighted if every political party in the Canadian Parliament were to decide in a leadership race that they were going to have complete disclosure. However, my jurisdiction is a very specific one, and that is for those public office holders, those ministers, who may have plans to contest the leadership of a party. It is there that there is a problem because of their public responsibilities. These guidelines have been put in place because they are ministers. If they are not ministers, then these guidelines do not have any application. It's not for the office of the ethics counsellor to be establishing rules for political parties in this country.

Mr. Andy Savoy: On another point, who raises conduct issues with you, and how is the process initiated? Who is actually acceptable when it comes to raising issues with you? Can it be anybody within Parliament? Are the media included? Or do individuals have to fall within certain guidelines to initiate issues with you?

Mr. Howard Wilson: There's no particular approach. We get calls from the media, we get calls from opposition parties, and we get calls from the government side. Sometimes they're from people looking for personal advice. Ministers' offices are in touch with us on a continual basis. Every day, we get faxes and telephone calls from ministers' offices, asking about this or that. I have therefore tried to have the office operate in as open a fashion as possible, so we don't try to insist on procedures that would make it more difficult to come to a conclusion.

Mr. Andy Savoy: So no matter who initiates the process, you are bound to investigate and report?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I'm bound to trying to respond to what the person's concerns may be. It may be an area for which we have absolutely no responsibility, but people will get an answer.

Mr. Andy Savoy: In all cases, are they made public?

Mr. Howard Wilson: In most instances, no.

Mr. Andy Savoy: So in your reports, they would just be cases that you had investigated to a certain degree?

Mr. Howard Wilson: That's not how I hope to be able to approach the annual report. I think the annual report is an opportunity to try to give a wide picture of the kinds of issues the office has been dealing with. I would borrow a leaf out of what the provinces do. They try to ensure that when any particular individual has sought advice, that individual is not identified for reasons laid out in the Privacy Act. I would also hope that sufficient information is given to at least allow one to know how my office goes about its work and what kinds of issues we have been dealing with. If a matter is already public, then that would be noted. Quite a bit of this stuff is in fact public information.

Mr. Andy Savoy: A lot of the talk has been about the role of elected representatives as ministers versus their role as members of Parliament, in terms of where that line is and whether they are jeopardized in their ability to do their job as members of Parliament because of their positions as ministers. Do you have any comments on that observation?

À (1010)

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think it's a fundamental point, because members of Parliament do have an obligation to support their constituents. If they are ministers, they also have additional public responsibilities. In certain instances, how do they strike that balance?

When we dealt with quasi-judicial tribunals a few years ago, we took it in a quite sweeping way because of the legal independence that Parliament wanted to bestow on the CRTC or the Immigration and Refugee Board. We said that under no circumstances could ministers intervene with any of these tribunals on behalf of their constituents. That is a limitation. Most constituents would expect that they would get assistance, but there was the balance.

With crown corporations, it was my view—also drawing on some provincial experience—that we should not go so far. We didn't want ministers dealing directly with crown corporations because of the arm's-length nature of the governance, but nothing should prevent a constituency assistant from making representations to Canada Post, the BDC, or any other crown corporation on behalf of a constituent.

I think we've struck the right balance, but representing the interests of a constituent is fundamental. If it's not done well by you folks, you may not be around in the next Parliament. It seems to me that this has to be a constant reminder.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Yes—not that it would not influence us in terms of doing a good job or not, certainly.

I have just one more general question: How many enquiries do you get in a year, and where do you get the majority of your enquiries from? Just provide a broad painting of the picture for us as far as MPs and ministers are concerned.

Mr. Howard Wilson: The majority of our enquiries come from ministers and their offices. That is pretty much a daily occurrence.

But you also have to remember that we deal with the executive branch of government. In addition to ministers and their political staffs, we also deal with Governor-in-Council appointees. I think the population of people who are subject to the code is about 1,500, and then there are an additional 2,000 part-time Governor-in-Council appointees. It's quite a sizable population at the senior levels of the Government of Canada, including deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers.

Our dealings with them can be quite time-consuming, particularly for appointees who have come from outside government and have organized their affairs in a quite natural way. They then encounter the code, which says they can't manage a business any longer and can't directly manage their portfolio. My colleagues therefore spend a lot of time working with these individuals.

The Chair: Ms. Gallant.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Wilson, in your opinion, does any organizing leading up to the Liberal leadership review vote constitute an unofficial leadership race?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think I tried to say at the beginning that it's not for me to make that kind of determination. What I had said was that sometime between last fall and last month, enough was going on that it was incumbent on giving guidance to ministers who had those plans in terms of knowing how they were going to organize themselves.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: So leading up to this part of the evolution, this organizing would be subject to the guidelines that you have now put in place, is that correct?

Mr. Howard Wilson: As of this moment, yes, these are the guidelines that apply.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Do they apply to the organizing that went on up to that point?

Mr. Howard Wilson: There is going to be disclosure of contributions that had been received prior to Tuesday. Insofar as the other matters are concerned, they apply as of Tuesday and I have discussed their application in detail with ministers. They know how the guidelines are going to work, and I expect to continue to work with the ministers.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: You seem to indicate that, yes, there is an unofficial race underway and that the money being raised by the Prime Minister and others for the leadership review is now going to be covered by these guidelines. Have you advised the Prime Minister to set up a blind trust?

À (1015)

Mr. Howard Wilson: The Prime Minister intends to have disclosure of any funds that he may raise with respect to a leadership review. We haven't yet discussed what the modalities might be.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: At this point, then, he has not been advised to set one up.

Mr. Howard Wilson: No, except that he has made the point that the fundraising is going to be disclosed when it's done and that these rules effectively apply to him as well.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Further to the question on blind trusts that Mr. Brison asked, the public can review the present ministerial blind trusts. You've mentioned that the public will not be able to review the blind trusts set up for the fundraising activities.

Mr. Howard Wilson: No, not any more than the public is permitted to look at the blind trusts that we set up practically on a daily basis for public office holders. We have to say that if you want investments—and that's the analogy here— in the stock market, you cannot directly manage those as a minister, as a public office holder. They have to be put at arm's length, through a broker. We have to assure ourselves that it is, in fact, truly blind.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: How will these blind trusts be effective in exposing links between donations and political favours, if there are any such links?

Mr. Howard Wilson: That's the point of the blind trust. As long as the minister is unaware of who has made contributions, then the minister can get on about his or her work without having to deal with those kinds of allegations. In my view, that's why the blind trust is absolutely essential.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: So there's no way by which a minister knows who is contributing to the campaign, official or not?

Mr. Howard Wilson: One of the things the guidelines say is that if the minister does become aware at any time, there is going to have to be a disclosure of that fact.

My view is that the blind trusts can be structured so that they do work properly, because it's in the interest of the minister not to know. In fact, it's awkward for the minister when he or she knows, because certain steps then have to be taken. What happens when a enthusiastic supporter walks up to a minister who is passing through an airport and says to that minister, “Oh, by the way, you should be pleased to know that I gave you $25,000 yesterday”? Well, that's going to create a problem for the minister and is going to have to be revealed.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Is there some sort of mechanism in the guidelines to require the minister—

Mr. Howard Wilson: Once we get this in place in the next thirty days, there will be a mechanism to deal with that.

The Chair: Mrs. Gallant, before you continue, I failed to remind you that because we're on our second round, you can go on to the second phase of the motion if you want. I will allow you extra time.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Okay, thank you.

Just as one last question on the guidelines, I'd like to clarify this evolution of the guidelines that you're talking about. If the guidelines for the ministry and crown corporations had been in place, would the Prime Minister have violated these rules—the first rule, in fact—by making representations to the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada on behalf of the constituent?

Mr. Howard Wilson: If they had been in place? They were not. No rules were in place, but there are now rules. Therefore, as the Prime Minister himself said the other day at his press conference, I will not make such a call.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: If the same incident were to occur today that occurred in the past with this crown corporation, would there be a breach of these guidelines?

Mr. Howard Wilson: There would be, yes. That's correct.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: All right.

Do you give advice to all members of Parliament, or just to ministers or government members of Parliament?

Mr. Howard Wilson: My formal responsibilities only require that I give advice to those members of Parliament who are also public office holders. That means ministers, secretaries of state, and parliamentary secretaries. However, the office frequently does get calls from other members of Parliament—including government members—who are asking about a question that is troubling them.

One of the problems is that in dealing with an issue, two very reasonable people can come to quite opposite conclusions about what the right step is. In the absence of somebody to turn to, people do call us. We get a lot of calls from the senators.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Have any opposition members ever come to you for guidance or advice?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes. As a matter of fact, one opposition member has written me quite a long letter asking for advice on a number of points. I'll be getting back to this person.

À (1020)

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: In terms of confidentiality, when you do have a situation in which a minister is in an official or unofficial leadership race, since you report to the Prime Minister, how can that minister be assured that this information that he is asking about is not going to be reported to the person to whom you're required to report?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Let me be clear on that. The Prime Minister has set the rules, whether they're for the leadership or for the code more generally. He has asked me to administer those rules on his behalf. The Prime Minister has never, ever wanted to know and have any information about the personal financial interests of any of his ministers. That is a matter that is left solely between me, my office, and that minister. The ministers have had confidence that this indeed is the case.

With these blind trusts, my task is to ensure that the trusts are in fact workable, but there will not be reports to the Prime Minister on the contents of those blind trusts. The Prime Minister will become aware at the end of the day, when there is a general disclosure of who made all these contributions, which is the way it should be.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: At the end of the day, if it is later found out that a minister did not give full disclosure on who the campaign contributors were when full disclosure was supposed to be given, what will be the ramifications?

Mr. Howard Wilson: They will be fairly serious, I would guess.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you for coming today, Mr. Wilson.

When you first published your code of conduct, why did you not address the issue of ministers and crown corporations? Was that purposely left out?

Mr. Howard Wilson: No. We dealt with crown corporations because an issue had arisen. There had also been a very important evolution—beginning around 1995, but very prominent in 1996—as to how the Government of Canada wanted crown corporations to be operated. If these things had been around before that change, we would be saying ministers are going to be lesser MPs. They are going to be prevented from doing what they're supposed to be doing on behalf of their constituents.

I think you should put these limitations in place with a very great deal of care, because you're trying to balance two important things. You're not making rules for rules' sake, but are balancing the importance of constituents on the one hand and the other. I think it's an important debate. I think we struck the right balance, and they're now in place.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Do you agree that your role is more to prevent problems before they start than it is to be like a Canadian version of Ken Starr?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think the strength of the position is that we have a code. It doesn't set out a bunch of rules, it sets out a number of rules. What we very much try to do is avoid these problems in advance. When I sit down with a minister, I get a confidential disclosure of all of their assets, liabilities, and outside activities, including those of their spouse or any dependent children. The code says what steps have to be taken, and we take those steps. This means the minister, from that point forward, is generally in a position of not having to worry about whether they can deal with this file or that file. From that point of view, I think the system has a great deal of strength.

Also, the principles upon which the system is based cover more than what is written down. In other words, the guidelines try to provide guidance to ministers about what is expected of them in public life. These rules that we have on personal political activity are a direct consequence of just applying the principles to the situation. From my perspective, then, this is a system that has a lot of strength.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: If any member of Parliament, even someone from the opposition, raised the conduct of a cabinet minister, would you have to look into the matter? Does it matter who raises it?

À (1025)

Mr. Howard Wilson: Any time an allegation has been made about a minister, my practice has been to try to verify just what the facts were. What is interesting is that, because of the way the system works, I know the answer to those questions when they're first raised. In other words, the matter is already one that has been dealt with. But other issues come up, and whether they're raised by the opposition or whether they're raised by the media, I feel my responsibility is to try to verify the facts and whether or not the allegations have any substance.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: And things are made public if they have substance?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes, because you're talking about a public matter by this time.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Can the public make enquiries? If they suggest that this minister is doing this or that, are you obliged to investigate then as well?

Mr. Howard Wilson: We get a lot of e-mails, some parts of which fall within our jurisdiction, other parts of which do not. People often think we're an ombudsman. We try to respond to all of these, but I'm sure your offices receive the same kinds of messages from people.

If any serious allegation is made, I feel that in the office as it has evolved, it is my responsibility is to try to deal with it. If it doesn't deal with the conflict-of-interest code, though, that's a different matter.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Roughly how many enquiries do you get in a year?

Mr. Howard Wilson: That partly turns on what you mean by “enquiry”. We continually get questions posed to us. One of the things I will be attempting to do in my annual report is put a number to this, but I'm not in a position to do so today. We're kept busy and gainfully employed, though.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: What's the approximate breakdown between, say, MPs, the minister, and the media? Do you get a lot more from any one of those groups?

Mr. Howard Wilson: It flows with the debate of the day. If something is happening in question period, that generally means a fair number of media calls. There are also other days when interests move on to other subjects. It has its ups and downs.

The ongoing relationship with ministers' offices tends to be a more continuous one. They're always asking about the appropriateness of accepting this gift, of attending that event, of hiring this person. These are much of the meat of our day-to-day work.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Do you have guidelines on those gifts?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes, we do. What the code says is that, up to $200, my office does not need to be bothered. That was done in 1994. What we were trying to do was allow ministers and other office holders to accept invitations to hockey games, cultural events, and so on. We don't preclude acceptance of a gift over $200, but it has to be related to your public responsibilities. In those instances, there has to be a public declaration.

The ministers who receive gifts over $200 are fairly limited in number. They include the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I think the minister who receives more gifts over $200 is the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell, your time is up.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to tell you, I was nonplussed earlier to hear our colleague, Savoy, suggest that the collectivity of political groups be subjected to rules of disclosure of fundraising for leadership campaigns, since this is a proposition which the Chief Electoral Officer has been making for a number of years.

Thus, when we hurriedly revisited the Electoral Act just before the election call in 2000, the government sharply opposed the integration of these rules of disclosure of fundraising for leadership campaigns into the legislative body of the Electoral Act.

What has changed since the introduction of Bill C-2 so that now, all of a sudden, the government has decided to proceed with the disclosure of fundraising for leadership races, at least where ministers are concerned, other than the fact that the Prime Minister wishes to manage the race for his own succession and more particularly, throw a monkey-wrench in the works of certain candidates who were ministers at the time?

À (1030)

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: I understand that the government is going to be examining the recommendations that have been made in the past by Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and that legislation is to be tabled for parliamentary action sometime in the early fall. That's my understanding of it, but I'm not involved in this. I am involved in this more immediate issue of whether or not ministers are raising funds for a leadership race, and you therefore have these guidelines. I will watch with great interest how Parliament deals with the proposals in the fall.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's interesting how times change, Mr. Chair. The disclosure of certain stories caused the government to act, while only a few months ago, they felt no need to act.

From hereon in, ministers will not be able to intervene directly with Crown Corporations but will be able to do so through the intermediary of their staff. Do you not think that this is a way for ministers to do indirectly what they will no longer be able to do directly, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has already stated that public servants were more frightened when it was Jean Pelletier who made the call than if he were making the call in person?

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: If you go back to the history of the question of Grand-Mère and the loan application to the Business Development Bank, you'll see that the Prime Minister's office was indeed involved. He had a constituent official who participated in the meetings. That was all public knowledge.

My experience with Jean Pelletier is that those were not the kinds of telephone calls that he, as chief of staff, would have been making. I think the Prime Minister was making a more broad point that his chief of staff had a certain influence—a point with which I would agree—and primarily a very positive influence.

What we are trying to do is say that we don't want ministers to do it. Ministers carry with them an aura that no executive assistant in a minister's office has. But we don't want the constituents of a minister to be deprived from being able to have someone in a minister's office deal with their concerns involving Canada Post, for example. So what we're saying—and this is what the provinces thought was the right balance—is that the staff of ministers, when dealing with constituency matters, may make representations to a crown corporation.

We have to make an exclusion for the responsible minister. A minister responsible for a crown corporation has very precise legal and policy dealings. In those instances, we're saying his or her staff also cannot deal directly.

I'm going to have to work with crown corporations and ministers' offices to set up a procedure whereby complaints that you might have about the BDC can be passed to Mr. Rock's office, in order that they can then be passed on to the Business Development Bank. There is a need to ensure that this procedure deals with representations not from the minister but from members of Parliament, the public, or whomever.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: With all due respect, Mr. Wilson, I think that you have skillfully tried to avoid the question when you said that, in any case, this was not the type of call Mr. Pelletier would have made. Basically, we come back to the fundamental problem. Which assistant could eventually make this kind of call on behalf of a minister of the Prime Minister? It could be an assistant relatively close to the minister, relatively influential on the minister, which could have the same impact on the directors of a Crown Corporation.

Which leads me to ask another question. To ensure that there would be no undue influence exercised by ministers, even if it were only through the intermediary of their staff, will you, as ethics counsellor, be informed of these steps undertaken by members of ministers' staffs towards Crown Corporations?

À (1035)

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: There are two points to what we're doing here. If the representation is being made on behalf of a constituent, this is normal, ongoing business, and there's nothing wrong. In fact, it's to be recommended that the constituency staff members in a minister's office feel free to be able to have those day-to-day dealings that they have with crown corporations.

What we're saying is that we don't want ministers doing it, on a couple of grounds. Even the responsible minister is going to be limited in the kinds of representations he or she can make. Ministers are to deal with the broad policy direction of the corporations and with senior personnel questions, but they're not to engage in day-to-day management issues.

The Government of Canada wants crown corporations to be governed by their boards of directors, through the CEOs, and they will have total responsibility for their day-to-day affairs. That's very different from a government department, and it's for this reason that you have these guidelines.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chair, here is a very brief, final question. In your opinion, would the guidelines which were announced by the Prime Minister this week have been sufficient to prevent all this series of scandals surrounding the commandites program? If so, how would the guidelines announced this week have prevented such a mess?

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think it's important to understand that these are dealing with a different set of issues. I think what Mr. Goodale is doing is designed to deal with the fundamentals of the problems of the commandites. These are not directly related. That's just a different matter. I've noticed that Mr. Goodale has been standing up in the House in question period quite frequently to talk about what steps he, as the responsible minister, has been taking in terms of these programs.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, they would not have been able to prevent these things.

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: They don't deal specifically with that issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: First of all, I need to understand more specifically how this reporting mechanism is going to work. I appreciate the blind trust and the thirty days before an actual leadership campaign. I think they're a good strategy. People don't know where the money's coming from or how much money there is. Certainly, the dollar values are what is causing some concern.

I'm not clear on what your annual report is going to be. I certainly have called your office many times for guidance as a parliamentary secretary, and as a regular member of Parliament prior to that: Is this okay? Can I accept this? What's your recommendation?

Those have been near misses. I never got into a conflict because I called you and followed your advice. But how is that reported? That I didn't get into conflict? That five members called? That opposition members called? What exactly is going to be reported?

Secondly, I am concerned that these guidelines relate to ministers. You don't mention parliamentary secretaries. Certainly, in the lead-up to any leadership race, parliamentary secretaries could be running. Frankly, members of Parliament could be running.

We've had experiences in this House in which members argued for amendments to bills on both sides of this table. People filibuster and block the passage of a bill, yet we don't know that they didn't get sizeable donations in between elections from various companies, and that this is why they're putting these forward. Are they advocating certain positions? Are they getting money from organizers in the lead-up to a leadership? That could affect how they would govern following those occurrences, and how they could do the job of a cabinet minister in the future. So I'm a little concerned.

Mr. Howard Wilson: If a parliamentary secretary wanted to establish the makings of a campaign team, then as parliamentary secretary, that person would be subject to the Conflict of Interest Code, of course. We would therefore have exactly the same discussion as the one we're currently having. The code does not apply to—

À (1040)

Ms. Paddy Torsney: —members.

Mr. Howard Wilson: Members, yes. The reason is that members are not public office holders. Remember, this code deals with public office holders. The virtue of the fact that these folks are ministers creates the need for this particular set of recommendations.

My office is not the office to make rules that are going to apply to all members of Parliament on any leadership issue. The only reason we're engaged here is that they are public office holders as ministers. The fundraising and the activities they're pursuing are of private, personal interest. The code talks in terms stating that public office holders

shall arrange their private affairs in a mannerthat will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts ofinterest from arising.

That's why I'm in this game: because they are public office holders. There is a consequence arising from the code, but it only is a consequence for those who are subject to the code. For parliamentary secretaries, it's a yes. For ministers, it's a yes. But for other members of the House of Commons, no matter which side they sit on, it's a no.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You're answering my second question, but are Privy Council members public office holders?

Mr. Howard Wilson: No.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are you concerned that members of Parliament who could be engaged in a leadership campaign...? Frankly, in spite of what the media says, members of Parliament do have influence. Even backbenchers do. Legislation can get held up. Filibusters can occur. Delays do happen. Amendments are made because of the interventions of members of Parliament. If you don't have that kind of disclosure, then how are you confident that they are not exceeding their influence or are not being influenced, or that they are being accountable to the public?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think the government has said that, in the fall, it is going to put in legislation that is going to deal with these matters, including fundraising for riding associations. I think that's where you see it, quite properly, as a piece of legislation.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: So there's that plus this?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Returning to the first question, then, what exactly will you be reporting?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I have to work that out. The Prime Minister wrote me a letter in which he said:

“Your first report should provide background on the Office of the Ethics Counsellor and the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders. The report should provide an outline of the reporting relationship and the advisory role of the Office. While respecting the privacy of those involved, it should include information on reviews and complaints investigated by the Office. Finally, I ask that you also report on parliamentary appearances and the work that has been carried out by the Office with other jurisdictions.”

He wants this by September 30, so I'm going to have a fairly busy summer in terms of getting my mind around this.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: But will you report that Mr. McGuire may have called three times on three different issues to get advice, or that five members of Parliament called to ask for advice? We will be included in that catchment?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes, but only in the sense that a number of members of Parliament or a number of members of the Senate called in respect to the following types of matters. I can say we would receive absolutely no telephone calls if, every time they telephoned, people thought we were going to record their name and have it published in an annual report. They would have every right to be offended by that.

The Chair: You have time for one more question, Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Of course, in some of our cases, it would show that we were never in a conflict of interest because we sought good advice, got good advice, and followed it.

Finally, in terms of this component of what's being introduced, as I came in, you were saying that you are very happy with the new process and that you are confident that it is following the highest standards and will ensure the kind of accountability and confidence in public office holders that all Canadians seek to achieve.

À (1045)

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes, I think this is a good package. It builds on a very strong foundation, and it deals with some current, immediate issues, including the question of leadership campaigns. But it also strengthens the governing system of crown corporations. And then there are some changes. I hope the annual report will turn out to be a useful report to Parliament and the public about what the office does, why it does it, and what the considerations are. I'm going to try to err on the side of completeness, certainly.

The Chair: I have three more people to hear from—Mr. Brison, Mr. McGuire, and Mr. Hill—and I want to make sure they get their questions in. I would therefore ask that they ask their questions quickly and keep them to the point.

Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison: Under these guidelines, would the Prime Minister be permitted to use 24 Sussex Drive for partisan fundraising?

Mr. Howard Wilson: This is a question I really can't answer, because I'm not personally aware of the rules that apply to official residences. That is his official residence and fundraising is an important part of political life, but I'm not the person to pose that question to. I don't know the answer.

Mr. Scott Brison: If you're not the person, then who would be the person? As an ethics counsellor, it would be different if you had the enforcement capacity, but you're like a personal trainer in a way. You provide advice, but your boss doesn't necessarily have to take that advice. Who would I ask that question of in terms of whether or not the guidelines would prohibit the Prime Minister from using his official residence for partisan fundraising?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I don't know the answer, but there obviously is an answer. Why don't I make an enquiry and get back to your office on that?

Mr. Scott Brison: That would be helpful.

Under these guidelines, would a candidate for the position of ethics counsellor be compelled to disclose to the Prime Minister if he had been stripped of signing authorities due to dubious or inappropriate contracting activities in a previous position?

Mr. Howard Wilson: To borrow a phrase from an eminent former Deputy Prime Minister, I reject the premise of the question.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Howard Wilson: I can assure you that the Prime Minister was fully aware of everything in my past when I was considered for this position. He may have consulted Michael Wilson, who, as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce at the time, stood in the House of Commons and said the steps I had taken were ones he approved of.

The Chair: I would just remind the members that we have a vote at 11:10 a.m. We still have some time, though.

Mr. Scott Brison: I have one last question that follows up on Mr. Bergeron's questions relative to ministers' staff members. Why would you believe full disclosure of ministerial staff pressure on crown corporations would not be appropriate? For instance, Jean Carle, as director of operations for the Prime Minister's Office, has made these phone calls in the past. Eddie Goldenberg could do so today. Any staff member could.

These are influential individuals, so what would be wrong with making full disclosure of representations by a minister's office part of these guidelines? You could say nothing is inappropriate about this particular call or representation. Why would you be averse to having full disclosure of any representation from a minister's office to a crown corporation?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I don't think that degree of intrusion by my office is appropriate. What we're talking about are the representations that all MPs are required to make on behalf of their constituents. What we are effectively saying is that we don't want ministers making those kinds of telephone calls on behalf of constituents, but we're perfectly happy that constituency offices will do this.

I'll be sitting down with ministers' offices—those who are responsible for crown corporations—in the coming weeks. I'll also be meeting with each of the forty-odd crown corporations. We will have a procedure in place for how these are all going to flow, the results of which I expect are going to be public, Mr. Brison.

You have an interest in how these things are set up because you have constituents who have an interest in these matters. How effective are your representations going to be?

À (1050)

Mr. Scott Brison: But even as a private member, I would have no difficulty with disclosing any representations that I make to a crown agency. There's nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Howard Wilson: My own experience is that sometimes it's not because the constituent is asking you to do anything inappropriate, but because constituents often have a reasonable desire to keep things somewhat confidential.

Mr. Scott Brison: That's not in dispute at all. I just don't understand the aversion to full disclosure to you, by a minister, about any staff representations made to crown corporations.

Mr. Howard Wilson: If I have an aversion, it is to excessive bureaucracy. There should be a system in which the guidelines are abundantly understood, and in which people can then call us up when they have a legitimate question about whether something is appropriate or not. I think that works better.

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McGuire, I understand you have some questions.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): I just have one question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wilson, my question is on the role, if there is any, of that unique member of Parliament, the Speaker, and on how his position has evolved over the years in his dealings with his constituents. There may be similarities between the way he performs his duties and how a cabinet member will now be performing his or her duties. Is the Speaker at all involved in this, or is he entirely separate? What are the similarities between the two roles now, that of the Speaker and a minister?

Mr. Howard Wilson: The Speaker is not a member of the executive branch of government, which is where our concerns lie. I'm not sure anything should prevent him from representing his constituents in the best way that he can. He has a constituency office that no doubt is heavily engaged in these matters, but I've never discussed it with him or his predecessor.

Mr. Joe McGuire: So your role has nothing to do with the position of the Speaker.

Mr. Howard Wilson: No.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Given the role of a cabinet minister, is the way he deals with his constituents in any way similar to the way a Speaker deals with his or hers?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I wouldn't necessarily come to that conclusion. What we have said to ministers is that, unlike other MPs, they and their staffs cannot deal with quasi-judicial tribunals. We're now saying to ministers that they personally can't deal with crown corporations either. We've always tried to recognize that these limitations are brought about because of their executive responsibilities.

In the case of crown corporations, it's my view that nothing will prevent constituents from being well served. That's why we didn't extend this as far as it goes with quasi-judicial tribunals. For example, no member of the staff can call the CRTC. That was what Parliament wanted. With crown corporations, there's no need to go to that extreme.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Can the Speaker phone up a crown corporation president and ask for favours?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I don't know what he does, but his role is distinct. He has an extremely important role with respect to the Chamber, but he's not a member of the executive branch of government.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Wilson, thank you for your very candid responses.

I'd like to summarize, if I might, what I consider to be three of the important points that you've made. Firstly, you and your office have no legislative or sanctioning authority or power. Secondly, the Prime Minister would have broken these new guidelines if he had contacted the BDC today. Thirdly, these guidelines do not address any of the ethical problems, the morass, that we've been involved in over the last two months or so.

À (1055)

Mr. Howard Wilson: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Grant Hill: I didn't ask for a comment. I was just trying to summarize...unless you disagree with any of the statements I've made, because they were candid.

What would you do if the Prime Minister, heaven forbid, broke the guidelines today?

Mr. Howard Wilson: That's a hypothetical question that—

Mr. Grant Hill: I said “heaven forbid”, of course.

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think the Prime Minister, more so than any member of the cabinet, is aware of the details of these guidelines, so he will not be making those kinds of telephone calls.

Mr. Grant Hill: Finally, there's the issue that you report to the Prime Minister. Of course, you have no sanctioning authority over the Prime Minister. Let me follow that question with this, if I might: In your opinion, would the Solicitor General's intervention with the RCMP on behalf of his brother's institution—an institution that is not in his constituency—have broken these guidelines today?

Mr. Howard Wilson: This is a matter on which certain allegations had been made. I had a conversation with the Solicitor General, and my office will be having some further discussions with some members of his staff. At this time, I just simply don't know enough about the circumstances to make any comment whatsoever.

Mr. Grant Hill: I'll pose a hypothetical question. The Solicitor General contacts the RCMP—

The Chair: Let's get away from hypotheticals. How about asking direct questions? Otherwise, we're going to get into a back-and-forth. Maybe you can rephrase it.

Mr. Grant Hill: Let me ask the question not hypothetically, then.

The Solicitor General contacted the RCMP on behalf of his brother's institution, which is not in his constituency. In your opinion, would that contact break the guidelines today?

Mr. Howard Wilson: What—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think it's the responsibility of all members of Parliament to represent the facts as they are. We're talking about a public educational institution in a province where the minister has responsibility. This person was not calling for dollars on behalf of a private college. It is incumbent on the member to be accurate.

Mr. Grant Hill: Is that being deducted from my time, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: I'm going to ask you to get away from hypothetical this-and-that. Try to be direct in your questions.

I would ask you to do the same in your answers, Mr. Wilson.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And maybe Mr. Hill can present the facts.

Mr. Grant Hill: Indeed, I got such a candid answer to my colleague's question on the Prime Minister that I thought these facts were fairly evident and fairly straightforward.

Let me change subjects. Did the leadership fundraising guidelines comes from you or your office?

Mr. Howard Wilson: My office and I work very closely together on these issues, and we have internal discussions on how the code is going to work. I think everybody in the office agrees with the text and the logic.

I'm not sure what the point that you're making is.

Mr. Grant Hill: Let me ask it in a different way, then. Did the leadership fundraising guidelines come from the Prime Minister?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I was asked to make a report to the Prime Minister on this issue. That was following the affair about the cheque. I said to him that there were several other issues, and I gave him a report upon his return. I also had continuing discussions with some of the more directly affected ministers. At the end of the day, though, as is the case with all matters, these are the Prime Minister's guidelines.

Mr. Grant Hill: All right.

Within these guidelines, would you continue to be involved in the preparation of talking points for the Prime Minister or cabinet ministers when there is a potential ethical problem?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I'm delighted you raised that question, because there has been a misunderstanding about this.

The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have a responsibility to respond to questions posed about my activities because I'm part of the executive branch of government. There's no possible way that the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister are going to have the slightest idea what to say on issues that are within the purview of my office unless I can anticipate what might be a question and then give an answer. It's a knowledge base that neither of them has. But they in turn have a responsibility to respond to your questions in the House of Commons. So this is just me carrying out my responsibilities as part of the executive branch of government.

Á (1100)

Mr. Grant Hill: Will these guidelines specifically apply to Paul Martin retroactively, to the time when he was the Minister of Finance?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I don't believe so. He's no longer a minister.

Mr. Grant Hill: To be specific, then, they do not apply to fundraising activities Paul Martin undertook during the period when he was the finance minister.

Mr. Howard Wilson: These guidelines apply to ministers only and to the Prime Minister.

The Chair: What Paul Martin does, if he wants to do it, is his business.

Mr. Howard Wilson: That's his business, yes.

Mr. Grant Hill: That's very important.

I'm interested in the broad principle of retroactivity. As a recent leadership candidate myself, I was asked if I would be showing the public or giving to the public the list of donors to my campaign. I'm interested in your view on that issue of retroactivity. How far back would it be reasonable to go?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think there was agreement that, at the end of the day, a public interest was to be served by going back, even though the rules were only being changed as of Tuesday. There wasn't a disagreement of principle on that point.

Mr. Grant Hill: I think you missed the point I was making. I have been placed under the same scrutiny now. It has been suggested to me—and I think it would be very nice—that we should have a law in this country that says all leadership campaigns are to divulge campaign contributions. Do you think retroactivity should apply to any law in Canada?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I'm not going to comment more generally on that point. Retroactivity does not normally apply, except for finance ministers when they announce tax changes in the budget that take effect as of that instance. But as these ideas evolved, it was agreed that disclosure of all contributions made to date was appropriate. There was no disagreement on that point.

Mr. Grant Hill: Would your function as an ethics adviser, as you are now, be enhanced by being independent of the Prime Minister and reporting not to him but to Parliament, with your job being that of a commissioner, as was suggested in the red book back in 1993? In your judgment, would that improve your job and your ability to function?

Mr. Howard Wilson: No, and I think it would be an incorrect step for the accountability of the Prime Minister to be fettered in this fashion. I am strongly of the view that, at the end of the day in our constitutional system—which is recognized by the way in the Province of Quebec, and most importantly in Westminster itself—it is the Prime Minister who must stand accountable.

In the House of commons in the U.K. right now, there is a system in which a parliamentary standards officer, a commissioner, has investigative responsibilities. Their code applies to all members of the House of Commons including ministers, but only in their role as MPs. It goes on to state that this person has no jurisdiction with respect to the rule of ministers as ministers. They are subject to the code issued by—

Mr. Grant Hill: You've described that part for us before.

Mr. Howard Wilson: It always bears repeating.

Mr. Grant Hill: Is that the rationale for leaving the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, when he's acting on the Prime Minister's behalf, out of some of the provisions of these guidelines?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Actually, this has been drawn to my attention by some members of the media. I think you're referring to the question of the crown corporations. When I've talked about the Forsey convention, people in the middle have interpreted it to mean that what I'm really saying is that these rules for crown corporations don't apply to ministers. That's not the case. The guidelines make it clear that they apply to the Prime Minister, as well as to the Deputy Prime Minister. When I have some time next week, I'm going to have to make sure the text on my website doesn't lead people to this false conclusion. All of these guidelines apply to both the Prime Minister and all members of his ministry.

The Chair: One more question, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: What provisions of these guidelines do not apply directly to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I don't think any do not.

Mr. Grant Hill: So every single provision applies to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes, and to all members of the cabinet.

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, everybody.

I just want to get one clarification if I may, Mr. Wilson. A number of questions on both sides asked about getting the facts and getting back to the paper trail, and about how you have difficulty doing a proper investigation. I heard you say that, to date, you have not had any problems in moving the questioning back so that you get all the facts. Is that correct?

Á (1105)

Mr. Howard Wilson: I have never encountered the least resistance. I have always received full cooperation.

The Chair: The other thing is that some members of the committee are quite often concerned about legislation, regulations, and the things that follow. The guidelines have been tabled, and you said future items are going to be posted on your website. These are the items that refine the work of the guidelines. Are they available to us as a committee and to the public?

Mr. Howard Wilson: That's correct.

The Chair: Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience, and have a good day. We'll be in touch.

We're adjourned.