HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

½

1940

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

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

½

1945

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

½

1950

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

½

1955

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

¾

2000

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

¾

2005

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

¾

2010

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

¾

2015

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

¾

2020

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

¾

2025

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

¾

2030

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 029

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

½  (1940)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Perhaps we could begin. As you know, we're here pursuant to the committee's mandate, Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), consideration of matters relating to the inclusion of a code of conduct in the Standing Orders of the House. This meeting is designed as a round table for all members of Parliament so that they can comment on the draft report, deliberate on the draft report, which we circulated.

    I'm in your hands. As we all know, we've just been voting for more than two hours continuously. I know that because members aren't allowed to leave the House no one has eaten. If it looks as though we're going to be here for some time, we can deal with that by ordering out for pizza, but it would take a fair time. So I really am in your hands.

    I see Reg Alcock here. I see John Finlay here. How many members are here who are not here as members of the committee? Three. So you're attending the round table.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I'm replacing Rick Borotsik.

    The Chair: You're a member of the committee, then, in that case. So we have three.

    I would ask those members how they want to proceed. Do you have statements that you'd like to make now? We're in your hands.

    We, by the way, will certainly commit to rescheduling the meeting. There's no doubt about that. We would be glad to have another meeting if that were appropriate. Alexa, John Finlay, Reg Alcock, the committee's here. We're in your hands.

    Alexa, would you like to proceed.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): I'm sorry, Peter, maybe I wasn't listening carefully enough. I have a couple of points I'm interested in raising, but if there is some consensus about rescheduling the meeting because people are both starving and somewhat fried, then I'd be happy to come back on another occasion. What are the wishes of others?

    The Chair: Reg Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): I would support what Alexa said. I'm here as an observer, Peter, as much as anything. I have a couple of minor comments to make.

    The Chair: Gerald.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm actually the same. I realize Rick is our member on this committee, but I do have a few comments I'd like to make. I'm not expecting to take very long, but it's up to the wishes of the committee. I can come back. From what I'm hearing, I don't think it would take over 20 minutes or half an hour to hear what people have to say.

    The Chair: I have Carolyn Parrish, then Geoffrey.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Yes, I was going to suggest if we can do this in half an hour, there's no need not to reschedule another one if we need more people.

    The Chair: We would have another meeting.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: But let's not drag these people back.

    The Chair: Geoffrey, the same?

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): I wanted to say that I think there is a need for rescheduling another one in any case.

    The Chair: So, John Finlay, I'm looking at you again. You're our guest. The idea is that we take 20 or 30 minutes now, but we will plan another meeting.

    Colleagues, given that this is being televised and there are people listening who are not aware of what we're doing, let me explain that every member of Parliament has received this draft report prepared by our committee on the conflict of interest code. I would remind you all that all members of Parliament received a much earlier draft report in December and we had a round table based on that. We have been consulting as widely as we can. All members were advised of this meeting.

    In terms of the people who are watching this, we are considering a draft report, which has a great deal of information in it. It is to help develop a final conflict of interest code for members of Parliament.

    We have here three members who are going to make brief statements on this. We're then going to reschedule and have another meeting to solicit other comments.

    I'd be glad to begin with Alexa McDonough.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thanks very much.

    What I'd like to do is raise several concerns, and then there may or may not be some response from the committee about what consideration was given and why certain recommendations are made rather than others.

    I think there was at some point some discussion about the need for the mandate of the ethics commissioner not only to be independent but to reflect a significant percentage of the House of Commons membership, and I think there was a suggestion that a vote of 75% of the members should constitute a kind of independent mandate of the commissioner, and yet I don't see that reflected in the recommendations. So that is something I think my colleagues and I would want to see included in the proposals.

    Secondly--and this reflects discussion by our caucus, although just once over lightly and we just wanted to give the feedback--it's our feeling that the inclusion of family members should go beyond spouses, for there to be not just minor children but grown children and immediate family members who are covered for purposes of disclosure. And that's disclosure to the ethics commissioner, not disclosure publicly.

½  (1945)  

    The Chair: Alexa, I understand at the moment that it's full private disclosure and summary public disclosure. That's what's in there, yes.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Yes, but at the moment it only refers to spouses and minor children, is that right?

    The Chair: That's correct, you're quite right on that.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: It does not refer to other immediate family members, whether children or parents. It just seems to us that it's a ludicrous notion that there wouldn't be a conflict of interest as it relates to one's own immediate family. I know there's a generic concept about nobody benefiting unduly or whatever, but it seems to me that disclosure to the commissioner is appropriate.

    I'm wondering about the rationale for why some spelling out of penalties and fines is not proposed to be included in the code of conduct. I know that in the bill I and my colleague Gordon Earle, former member for Halifax West, had introduced, we clearly had spelled out the kinds of sanctions that could in fact be recommended by the commissioner and/or joint committee--suspension of all or part of remuneration or benefit paid to the parliamentarian, payment of a fine commensurate to the benefit received in contravention of the act, suspension, and expulsion, depending on the severity of misconduct.

    This is not something we've discussed in detail; it's a bit of a personal hobby horse of mine. I have really serious questions about why a code of conduct should permit parliamentarians to be funded by any lobby group or self-interested organization on trips. They then just turn around and have to acknowledge it. I think it actually should be something that we tackle as parliamentarians in order to rule it out. There should in fact be a prohibition against being sponsored on trips by a lobby group. If that requires that we make the case for more adequate funding to be available in order for people to carry out their responsibilities as critics and as members, then so be it. But I think that's something we should be tackling.

    I'm also wondering about two things. There appears to be no provision for any members of the general public to lay concerns before the commissioner. I know there's this notion that there could be frivolous and vexatious complaints laid, but it seems to me the role of the commissioner would be to deem if a complaint were vexatious or frivolous or meant to be harassing and ruled out on that basis. But to not have any avenue for members of the general public to bring forward concerns seems to me, unfortunately, to reinforce the notion of parliamentarians being a self-governing group who look after each other, and to reinforce the perception of a closed circle of cronies, I think. It seems to me we want to avoid that.

    Finally, there is the question of there not being any provision for appeal of any kind. It seems to me that for there to only be the commissioner who makes a ruling without there being any avenue of appeal would in most cases probably not raise problems, but there could be situations in which there are pretty severe complaints laid or severe penalties imposed and there should be some avenue for appeal.

    I don't know whether there are other bodies that have an appeal to the courts, but it seems to me that having such an appeal mechanism might in fact actively discourage frivolous and vexatious kinds of complaints being laid in the first place. I think it would also avoid the appearance of there being a club effect here--parliamentarians looking after one another.

½  (1950)  

    I have to say there's some considerable feeling on the part of our caucus that there also should be careful consideration of what seems to have worked quite well in the municipal sphere for many years, namely, that there not be an internal kind of mechanism such as the ethics commissioner as is being proposed, but rather that the whole matter of conflict of interest be treated as a legal matter to be dealt with in the courts.

    Personally I don't have a lot of experience with that, but certainly some of our caucus members do and feel that model should at least be actively considered, especially if we're to deal with both the appropriate appeals and some mechanism for ensuring that there is the opportunity for the public to raise concerns, but also a protection against vexatious or frivolous kinds of complaints.

    Yvon, was there anything else? I think those were the major points.

    The Chair: I can comment briefly, and perhaps colleagues might. Everything you've said is on the record, as you know, and we'll certainly take it into account.

    On the 75%, as you know, we left the matter of the appointment of the commissioner in the situation in which the House of Commons will be very heavily involved. You've given an indication of the 75% or some other criterion. We understand that. We left that deliberately open because we wanted feedback to it.

    We note your point about spousal disclosure going beyond dependent children and spouse. We accept that. There's been a good deal of discussion, as you can imagine.

    I'll ask Margie in a moment to comment on the penalties and fines, because it's an interesting point, and we were aware of that idea.

    I will in fact ask Carolyn Parrish to comment on the sponsored trips matter, which you discussed, because again we did actually spend a substantial part of a meeting dealing with a number of proposals on that matter. Again I repeat, this is a draft report. This thing is not closed, so we can make various points.

    On the appeal mechanism, I think the appeal we had envisaged was an appeal to the House of Commons itself. As you know, in this draft we dismissed the idea of a special committee of any sort. This committee, which will include the whips of the parties and House leaders quite commonly, will be it, but the House of Commons itself we saw as the appeal mechanism. But again, we'll make that point.

    On the point about it being an internal mechanism as distinct from the courts, I think I will ask Margie on that.

    Could we go to Carolyn Parrish on the sponsored travel first? Carolyn, not the complete argument but a short comment on it.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'll share with you the fact that I did make a proposal that we ban those trips outright. By even small calculations, it's millions of dollars a year of undeclared benefits.

    Two parties agreed with the proposal that suggested we ban all trips. But to compensate for that so that critics and other people can look at the rest of the world, we talked about taking two of your travel points and using that outside the continent, but very severely restricting the amount of money you spent while outside, keeping it in your travel budget and so forth.

    Only two parties agreed--and one of them was not your party, by the way. So we went to plan B, which was to look at forcing people at least to register them--put in plane tickets, put in hotel bills, and lay them on the table once a year so the public can see which lobby groups are taking which MPs and where they're going and what it's costing. Then there's a self-regulating mechanism. It's one of those things where in politics sometimes you ask for what you think is possible and you get something a little less. This is better than what we have now.

½  (1955)  

    The Chair: Carolyn, if I could add, the report also includes complete disclosure for a companion--

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Companions.

    The Chair: --on the trip.

    Margie, do you want to deal with the...?

    Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): You asked why there were no penalties spelled out in the code. We would have liked to do that. For example, it would have been nice to say that a fine could have been possible or that a member who had been found to be not in compliance with the code under serious circumstances could be ordered to pay costs, for example, or a portion of the costs.

    Alternatively, if a member were to be suspended, it could be either with pay or without pay. However, the advice from the procedural side of the House was that we could not put those things in the Standing Orders. For a monetary penalty, you would have to have a statute. As you know, the structure of this is that the statute appoints the ethics commissioner but the code of conduct itself is to be in the Standing Orders, so that's the trade-off you make.

    The Chair: External things?

    Ms. Margaret Young: Perhaps if you would indulge me for a minute, there's one point she raised that you didn't speak to. It was the question of the member of the public being able to raise complaints.

    One of the things the committee has changed from the original proposal is to permit the ethics commissioner to initiate a complaint on their own initiative when they feel it is in the public interest to do so. This means anybody in the country could write to the ethics commissioner, and if the commissioner felt it was an appropriate thing to inquire into, absent any written complaint from a member of Parliament, under the committee's redraft that would be possible. So although the public itself cannot trigger an inquiry, it is definitely possible for the public to have a direct input and possibly even do that very thing.

    The Chair: The commissioner can trigger an inquiry.

    Ms. Margaret Young: Yes. I suggest you take a look at that.

    The other is that there is no appeal as such. Mr. Adams referred to the idea of the House being the appeal mechanism. One thing the committee has inserted into its revised code is the right of a member, about whom a report has been tabled in the House and is going to be taken up, to speak for up to 20 minutes on that report and their situation.

    The House then, after hearing the member and conducting its own discussion should it wish, may send the report back to the ethics commissioner with or without directions. It could ask them to take another look at their interpretation of a section, take another look at the facts, or whatever the House decided.

    But, you're right, there is no appeal mechanism, because the procedure and House affairs committee decided it would be better not to involve a House of Commons committee as directly as the government originally proposed. They didn't see the committee role as being one to which the member could take an appeal, because that would get you into areas involving partisanship and investigatory work that the committee felt was just perhaps not the best role for a committee to undertake.

    So you're right that the only alternative, if you don't go with a committee situation, is to look outside to the courts. I think a very strong feeling has been prevalent for seven or eight years, beginning with Milliken and Oliver, that the entire structure of the code, or as much as possible absent the question of the ethics commissioner being by statute, should be internal to the House. That way it would all be protected by parliamentary privilege.

    A member who feels aggrieved cannot go to court. The feeling is that the business of the House, how the House disciplines its members, how it conducts its procedures, and how it deals with reports should be internal to the House and protected by privilege.

¾  (2000)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Alexa.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Was the conflict of interest structure that seems to prevail in the municipal arena examined as an alternative model? It really is based on use of the courts.

    Ms. Margaret Young: I think the short answer is no.

    The model that was used by Milliken and Oliver, which of course was the forerunner to the current proposal, looked at most provincial models all across Canada, and to some extent the House of Commons in the U.K. The municipal model was not examined.

    The Chair: Alexa, thank you for that.

    I'll go to Mr. Keddy in a moment.

    I'd like to say, because we're on television and they aren't able to read the report, our real hope, as articulated in the report, is that this will be a preventive thing and something that will help members. We looked more at prevention than punishment, or something of that sort. Virtually all of the evidence we heard suggested that this was the main role of this person. We're not trying to deal with crimes that have already occurred, or things of that type.

    Gerald.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate those comments, Mr. Chair.

    There are a couple of questions I have, and just to pick up on what the member from Halifax said, I think the other thing that should be borne in mind, too, is that most of my colleagues, and most of the colleagues from other parties to whom I've talked, would prefer to have an in-House structure, and I'm pleased to see that it is an in-House structure.

    The other issue at stake here, of course, is that there is a criminal justice system to look after anything that's above and beyond that, or extremely blatant. So there's always recourse for that, which I don't think we have any right to interfere with.

    Again, there are a couple of things I find problematic, the spousal declaration and the declaration of the children. I realize there's been a lot of debate about that, and certainly Rick has passed that on to our caucus. He feels that it's important and that it really won't work without it.

    In the back of my mind I have this thought that while I realize it's family income, people have their own careers and those careers are separate from their spouses'. It would seem to me that we're asking for a spousal declaration here and then we're not going to show the spousal declaration. We're simply going to list what some of their interests are, and I'm not sure if we're not trying to go both ways at once here.

    I have really personal doubts about whether or not my partner should have to declare her assets. I understand why you're doing it, but I hope the committee--and I'm not a full-time member of this committee--would take a second look at that. I know it's problematic for a number of my colleagues.

    I have three other issues that I want to bring up.

    The Chair: Please carry on.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I've read this through...and, as I said, Rick Borotsik is our representative here, our party whip. There is one other piece of information that is in a number of other conflict of interest codes, and that certainly is concerning lobbyists. And there is one other group that probably has more effect on parliamentarians than any other group in the country, and that's the media, and I don't see anything in here affecting the media.

    We have media personnel who cover the debates and the business of Parliament, who write speeches for ministers of the Crown, and who write speeches for members of Parliament. We have media personnel who cover Parliament, who go on parliamentary trips. And I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do that; I'm saying they should have to declare

    If there is one group of people who have been missed here, it's the media. If they are working independently for members of Parliament, whether that's speech writing, or advice, or media training, then those individuals should have to declare that, because I do see that as having the potential to be a very serious conflict of interest. Nobody has more direct effect on how parliamentarians are perceived by Canadians than the media, and I would think they should be included in any code that affects parliamentarians. In Britain they are covered.

¾  (2005)  

    The Chair: I might ask Margaret about that.

    We do understand your comment about in-House, and then also your point that the court is always there. And it is very interesting to consider what parliamentary privilege really means in the era of the charter. And it really hasn't been tested, you're quite right on that.

    On the declaration, I would urge you to look at the real examples we have at the end of our report from the Province of Ontario, where we have--with the names actually attached, because they're public record--the minister and some MPPs and the actual nature of the spousal disclosure, the nature of the summary. But we note the point, Gerald.

    For lobbyists there is a separate code in our system, and we certainly weren't dealing with that.

    Your media point is well taken, and we'll consider it. And as for the speech writers and other people, again, I think we should just consider it. I'm not sure how far the ripples of this thing will go.

    Yes, Jacques Saada, and Reg Alcock on this point. You go ahead, Jacques.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think we're all in favour of being as virtuous as possible. The issue here is determining what is practical and what mandate we were given. I thought we were given a mandate to come up with a code to govern our practices as parliamentarians, not a code designed to regulate members of other professions. Therefore, even though my colleague may have some valid concerns, it is not our duty to regulate conflict of interest issues involving the media. It's up to them, not to us, to resolve those issues.

    As far as disclosure goes...

[English]

    The Chair: Let me follow through. I could have ruled the same thing. The matter was with respect to working with parliamentarians. I think this is a key point. For example, you might have a report or you might take him or her with you, that's the sort of point. I think we will recognize that.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: The second point that I'd like to make very quickly to my colleague concerns the disclosure of spousal assets.

    You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that I long held the view that disclosure in this case was not warranted. My position on the subject has changed, for one very simple reason which is this: The disclosure statement is not actually disclosed in its entirety. Only a summary is made public. Moreover, the party entrusted with this information will be the Ethics Commissioner, the authority responsible for enforcing the code. Therefore, I am completely confident that the information will not be used for the wrong purposes. These two arguments ultimately convinced me that this wasn't a big issue. If it will help to eliminate any perception of a problem, then I don't mind paying the price.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Yes, Gerald.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have two comments on that, Mr. Chairman.

    The first one is that again, within our own party and the discussions that we've had, it was very much felt that the spousal declaration would be absolutely mandatory for ministers of the Crown; it wasn't seen to be absolutely mandatory for members of Parliament. We saw that there was a marked difference between a minister of the Crown or a parliamentary secretary, someone in government, versus your regular members of Parliament in opposition or backbenchers. We thought there was quite a separation, if you will, of those two entities.

    The other issue, again, on the media is not to try to regulate the media at all. But the media who cover Parliament, the media who have parliamentary passes, are a part of this institution. They come in through the doors and they are governed by the rules that we regulate and we set out for them. From my understanding, those rules have been pushed to the limit, much more so than the rules for a regular backbench member of Parliament, quite frankly. We have individuals working for the media who....

    I'm not suggesting they should have to disclose all of their assets at all, the same as a member of Parliament or a minister of the Crown; I'm suggesting they should disclose any work they are doing for this place, for a member of Parliament, anything to do with the Parliament of Canada. I think we would all be quite shocked by the amount of interaction that is going on between the media and members of Parliament.

¾  (2010)  

    The Chair: Gerald, you're getting very close to the point where I would say you certainly are outside of our mandate, but you got back to it. And by the way, we're going to consider next time we meet on this matter every point that is being made today. I assume the media have their own codes of conduct, but we, the committee, will certainly take that into account. That's the best I can say at this point, colleagues.

    Is it on this point, Yvon? Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, are you saying that this falls outside our mandate? I think our mandate...

[English]

    The Chair: No.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I thought you said that it was outside of our mandate.

[English]

    The Chair: I said he was getting very close. He was.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's why I explained it the second time.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: After providing that explanation, he wasn't quite as close.

[English]

    The Chair: I didn't rule him out of order.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I may be clueless about this, but when I hear about reporters working for MPs, it surprises me. I wasn't aware of this. In my opinion, if certain reporters are in fact using their press card and working for MPs, that constitutes a form of conflict of interest. Certain individuals have privileges that others do not have. For instance, it might be good to find out if the British Parliament has a code of conduct in place to regulate such matters. Our mandate also extends to verifying such things.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Gerald, my apologies if I appeared to be argumentative. It's not that type of an evening. Are you okay with that?

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, and just one more point and I would be finished.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: The only other point on the media would be that quite often--not quite often but sometimes--on committee there are media personnel in attendance. Again, that would be a benefit to them that they should be claiming on this same conflict of interest report. They did attend a trip through Parliament and they should absolutely, I would think, claim that as a benefit. That's all.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Reg Alcock.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: I came tonight for a couple of reasons. I have not been here for the last little while, so I was a little bit behind. I had seen the previous draft of the bill that was floating around here a while ago. What I see here, I think, is a significant improvement. Now, I will go through it in a little more detail, but you've dealt with some of the more vexatious parts of that first draft.

    I'm intrigued by what Mr. Keddy's raising in a sense because I don't think staff are covered under this code at all. I'm not certain whether he's suggesting that we start to require staff to disclose. To the best of my knowledge, my House of Commons staff are not covered, are they? If they are, are they going to have to make asset...? Then why would a reporter who's working for a member have to make such a declaration? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. That's one.

    The second thing, though, is on this issue of a private interest. What I don't see in here is any sort of principal declaration around the work that we do advocating on behalf of people. If I read this, I think I'm violating it quite regularly when I write a letter supporting someone's appointment to the Senate, or when I write a letter supporting someone's appointment to a board, or I write a letter supporting Winnipeg over Vancouver. I do it all the time, right? I see that part of what I do is to use information I get here to advance the interests of....

    Now, I understand that it is obvious when it comes to advancing a personal, private interest, or conferring a private benefit on a family member or a relative, or conferring a private benefit on a friend that is specifically a private benefit. If Jacques were a constituent of mine and someone I knew well and thought would make a really good judge, and I wrote a letter in support of him, would I have violated this code?

    I think we understand that it's not the case, but shouldn't this effort clarify that part of the role here too? It strikes me that some of the ethic debates that went on were around this boundary between this role that we have as individuals advocating on behalf of our areas and the people we represent and the improper use of that. I don't think there's anything in the principles I see here that talks about the legitimate side of that promotional activity. I see a negative to it. I don't see anything that balances that or differentiates between it.

    If you like, Peter, I'll just get two or three things on the table and then I'll come back with a different set at a different meeting.

    The second thing is the issues here around the hiring and removing of a commissioner. If I read this thing properly, they're going to be hired on a recommendation of the governor in council and will only be removed after a recommendation from the governor in council. I'm not certain why that's necessary. I understand we do that now with the current officers.

¾  (2015)  

    The Chair: Again, the appointment matter, therefore the removal matter, and the term we deal with here. On the appointment, all we've said so far is that the House of Commons must be heavily involved. That's what we see. We're going to come up with whatever the mechanism is.

    In terms of the term, our comment is that it should be longer than the parliament or, if it were to be the length of the parliament, it should be renewable. I think that's what we say at the moment, don't we, on that?

    Ms. Margaret Young: Or both.

    The Chair: So we're open to any suggestion, Reg, on that particular matter.

    May I comment. I know you're going to put some other points on the table and that's fine with me. You should know it was pointed out to us that we, as members of Parliament, are in potential conflict of interest virtually all the time, because of the general nature of the position. For example, we vote to change something in the Criminal Code and potentially...and so on.

    So we've had that on our minds a lot and it says here that nothing in this code prevents members--

    Mr. Ken Epp: Where's that?

    The Chair: Thank you, Ken Epp. This is in “Application”, appendix 1, Roman iii, page 3 in the English, and it's paragraph 6. It says “Assisting constituents”. And I give this as an example because, again, when we meet we're going to take this transcript and we're going to consider it. For example, we will consider the media point very carefully.

    But it says:

Nothing in this Code prevents Members from carrying out activities in which they ordinarily and properly engage on behalf of constituents, as long as those activities are unlikely to affect the Member's obligation under the Code.

In other words, as long as they're not in obvious conflict for the member himself or herself.

    Please continue.

¾  (2020)  

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Let me respond to that in two ways.

    I think this does address some of the concern I would raise. I would suggest that we put a more fulsome statement in the principles at the front end of the code, in the preamble, simply to underline that--not leave it as an afterthought--and put it up front in the window. We used to have these debates when I was in the provincial house. If a farmer votes for farm legislation, is he in a conflict of interest? The rule of thumb always was, if what you're doing confers a broad public benefit, and you happen to benefit from it because you are a farmer.... Is a lawyer who sits on the justice committee in a conflict of interest if he or she passes laws that create more work for lawyers? With some of that stuff, I think simply acknowledging it and moving on makes some sense.

    I worry about codifying this too much. I do recall--Mr. Wilson is in the room--I was a parliamentary secretary for a period of time.... And I liked your comments, Peter, that this is to be helpful and offering advice, because one of the things that I found even before I became a parliamentary secretary, when I was just a member, is that you wonder when you're doing something where you can go for advice. This issue of trips that Carolyn was talking about came up. I was offered a trip by Canada-Israel, I think it was. This was early on, when I was first here. Where do you go to ask somebody if that is right or wrong? As it happened, I ran into Mitchell Sharp and had a conversation with him about it and never took the trip. But there was no focus for that.

    When I became a parliamentary secretary and I had to formally deal with Mr. Wilson's office, I was advised to withdraw from the board of my son's Montessori school. It's a little private school, only funded by parental fees, that I was on the board of. There was no government involvement, no government regulation, no government money, no government nothing. Yet I was advised to withdraw from the board. I thought, well, this is silly. We've gone so far in trying to dot all the i's and cross all the t's that we're just taking ourselves out of anything that would be defined as normal behaviour. So I think we want to put some language around that.

    On the issue of hiring and removing, I would encourage you, in the drafting of the statute, to look at the current process. I don't think the processes that we have now work well. I don't like the involvement of the governor in council; I think it should be done by the House. I think any removal or disciplining should be done by the House without reference to the executive. I think there's lots of evidence that the current system does not work well.

    I realize after talking to Peter privately--Peter is my seat mate, by the way, so I get free consultation on these things. Peter comments that he only gets a part of the seat. I'll put that on the record for you, Peter. But there is an issue here, because this issue of ethical behaviour and such comes up all over the place. There's more public sector, public service patronage than there is political patronage in this town. The question of the drafting of a code of ethical conduct for public servants, particularly senior public servants, rolls around, and there's work going on within the public service right now to renew those codes.

    I think all of that activity--the public sector, the public service part, as well as the House part--should come through the same ethics commissioner. There should be one ethics commissioner who deals with all of them, because in the end we are all accountable to this House. Now, I realize you're not covering that here, but I would just keep that in mind.

    The Lobbyists Registration Act that we have right now is weak and ineffective. I was on the review committee, and there was virtually no change to it. I think it is under the control of the current ethics commissioner, but it is held and administered by different departmental interests altogether. I think there are some other issues here that we could bring together that would make it a stronger and more accountable process.

    But, by and large, I think you've come a long way with it.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Again, I would repeat that we will use this transcript and we'll take it into account.

    I would like to echo what you said about being a parliamentary secretary. I found the exercise, and so did my wife, very useful in terms of disclosure and thinking through. It didn't actually make us change our behaviour that much, but it made us think more carefully about the way we operated.

    Going back to your point about the principles, we noted that. I would point out to you again in the same appendix under “Principles”, it says:

Given that service in Parliament is a public trust, the House of Commons recognizes and declares that Members are expected

(a) to serve the public interest and represent constituents to the best of their abilities;

    That's very early on. As you know, with regard to the case you described about the school, in the end you could be advised that way, and you could say that it is in the best interests of me and my constituents that I stay on that board.

¾  (2025)  

    Mr. Reg Alcock: You have a personal interest.

    The Chair: Yes.

    I would like to mention here--and I think it has been mentioned twice now--that several members have mentioned to me that they believe the way the commissioner is chosen is extremely important. It determines the quality and the nature of the person, and I would certainly like to put that on the record.

    As to your point about the other code, I know that Treasury Board and others have codes for the public service. Again, as you say and as you realize, this is going a bit beyond it, but we note your point about the idea that conceivably there might be one commissioner for the two.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: There will be eventually.

    The Chair: John Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I came in the listening mode tonight because the committee had the presentation of the Parliamentary Spouses Association. My wife, Mary Anne, was not able to be at this meeting, so I'm really the eyes and ears of the Parliamentary Spouses Association.

    I've taken an interest in the documentation. I've read it, and having been a parliamentary secretary, I have enjoyed your comments, Reg.

    I know that at one point I was a little confused about disclosure. If I understand it correctly, what we're suggesting early on in this document is that we make a reporting of our assets, etc. The ethics commissioner gets the details of that, but he does not disclose the details. He makes, however, something you called a public disclosure with lists, I guess. I would like to have a little more detail. Does he list and say, shares: 800 or 1,000?

    The Chair: John, I'll clarify that again as to what's involved, because people are watching.

    What happens is that you and your spouse disclose everything. Let's say you own a house; you declare it's value, you declare where it is, and so on. Let's say you own a cottage; you say what it is and you declare that. You and your spouse declare that in full detail, but that would appear as a very summary statement. Under “Content of disclosure summary”, it says:

The summary shall...set out the source and nature, but not the value, of the income, assets and liabilities referred to in the Member's statement...list the names and addresses of all persons who have an interest in those assets and liabilities...identify any contracts with the Government of Canada....

which is really a quite specific point, and so on.

    I would urge you both to look at it. But there's one proviso to this, and that is that your spouse is under no obligation to disclose. You, the member of Parliament, are under the obligation, and you're under an obligation to go to all appropriate lengths to have your spouse's assets disclosed. You would need to discuss it with the commissioner if you tried but your spouse said that he or she didn't want to, wouldn't, or whatever it was. That's quite clear in our report; the disclosure obligation is on the member of Parliament, not the spouse.

    Margie, could you explain that further.

    Ms. Margaret Young: With regard to the public summary statement, it's important to note that, yes, the chairman read out the various things that are to be included, but the next section says there are a whole lot of things that do not have to be publicly disclosed. Those are things that just, on their face, are either purely private or completely unlikely to cause any kind of conflict.

    For example, yes, your house is privately disclosed to the ethics commissioner, but it doesn't go on the public summary. Your car, your cottage, any source of income under $10,000 of any description, or Canada Savings Bonds, you don't have to disclose those. With GICs, you could have a million dollars' worth of GICs, and you wouldn't have to disclose them.

¾  (2030)  

    The Chair: You would disclose them to the commissioner.

    Ms. Margaret Young: Oh yes, all of that is privately disclosed. But then when it comes to the public summary, there are a lot of very obvious but important exceptions. When it comes right down to it, many people's public summary statements would be relatively minimal.

    In fact, in appendix 3 of the report we've distributed, we deliberately asked for a public summary statement that had very little in it, and there's one example, and then for one that had a substantial aspect to it, and there's an example of that.

    If you want to look at those exceptions, they are in subsection 25(3) of the proposed code.

    The Chair: I have from our colleague, Judi Longfield, a short statement dated March 24 on this topic. I will pass it to the staff and it will be circulated at a later date.

    Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you.

    I was thinking about Reg's comments, and I'm just reflecting on this question of how you distinguish between assisting a constituent and improperly assisting someone from your riding. I think it poses a problem, but I don't know the answer to it at the moment.

    Clearly, the big concern is where an MP acts and therefore derives a personal benefit to himself or his spouse or children and so forth. But when you're talking about someone from your riding whom you're trying to assist in some way, what I'm wondering is, when is it improper? Maybe you should define that a little more clearly, because if we're going to try to say it's improper in some cases, I'd like to be clear on what those are. We could use some examples is what I am trying to say, so we can think about that differently.

    The Chair: Let me comment first, though. I think the beauty of this is that each of us has thought about that already at different times and we've made decisions. The beauty of this, and I think one of the advantages, is that there will be someone to ask who has had experience with such questions.

    Do you want to comment on that, Margie, or would you sooner leave it hanging so we can deal with it at our next meeting?

    Ms. Margaret Young: Both. I'll comment very, very briefly. All of you help constituents all the time, so the broad outlines of what everybody does are generally pretty well known.

    In the case in question, that's it exactly; you have a person to go to and ask, is it appropriate that we do this or will it put me in a conflict?

    Also, in the annual reports of the commissioners they deal with exactly this kind of question. They put in the sanitized question and answer, and a lot of them deal with what is appropriate to do for constituents. We can have some examples of that for you at the next meeting.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    The clerk has handed me another. This is from our colleague Grant Hill, the member for Macleod, and I'm sure he won't mind; he could not be here this evening. He supports spousal inclusion and disclosure as we have it here. He stresses, as I've mentioned other people have done to me, the appointment of the commissioner. The way it's done is very, very important so that he or she will have all-party confidence and so on. He agrees with us, as we have it in the draft, that the terms should outlive a parliament and be renewable. He stresses that frivolous complaints should be identified as such, and we've tried to deal with that already.

    This too I'll give to the researchers and make part of the record.

    Colleagues, I want to thank the members of the committee who have been here, and I want to thank our colleagues who have come and made presentations.

    I am sorry that this has not been a more substantial meeting, but we did have more than two hours of continuous votes, and we can well understand the situation.

    As I said at the beginning and as the committee in fact said at our last meeting, we will advertise another meeting of this type, encouraging other members of Parliament to come here and deal with this report.

    Thank you.

    The time now is 8:35 p.m. By the way, the next meeting, for the steering committee only, is tomorrow at eleven o'clock.

    This meeting is adjourned.