HAFF 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, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

1540

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

1545

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

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

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rex Barnes

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Ms. Margaret Young

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

1550

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Ms. Margaret Young

1555

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

1600

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

1605

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

1610

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

1615

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

1620

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

1625

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

Ms. Margaret Young

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Ms. Margaret Young

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Ms. Margaret Young

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

1630

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. James Robertson

1635

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

1640

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

1645

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rex Barnes

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

1650

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

The Clerk

Ms. Margaret Young

The Clerk

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Jacques Saada

1655

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

1700

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Jacques Saada

1705

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

1710

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. James Robertson

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. James Robertson

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

1715

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rex Barnes

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

1720

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

1725

The Chair

The Clerk

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Clerk

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 055

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[English]

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

The order of the day for the committee is, pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), consideration of matters related to the inclusion of a code of conduct in the Standing Orders of the House. As you know, colleagues, this is follow-up work to our work on Bill C-34, which was tabled in the House today.

I tried to describe yesterday what I thought was our strategy. It is that this code is necessary for changes in the House of Commons following on Bill C-34. But I think under the circumstances, to do it proper justice we need more time than we have at present.

On the other hand, there would be great value to staff of the House of Commons and I think to our colleagues in the Senate, who you all realize are dealing with their own matter of an ethics commissioner, that they have some idea of where we are.

What's happened at the moment is that we circulated to all members of Parliament, but we didn't table, an earlier version of the interim report. Then we had a round table of members of Parliament and we received our colleagues' comments on the first version of the interim report. Since then, our staff and others, I think Margie, have been working on technical aspects of the previous draft.

The thought today is if we could move this document along to be another, but more advanced, interim report, this would be of value to staff of the House of Commons and to senators who are engaged in a similar exercise. It would mean, though, that the committee would have to revisit it as a full-scale report and as a final version of the report in the fall. So, colleagues, that's the exercise.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): That was my question, Mr. Chair.

We're not binding ourselves to a syllable in this right now, so essentially this represents a compilation of our thinking and our round tables to date. We will go through this with a fine-tooth comb when we finally--

The Chair: Yes, it isn't clause by clause in the literal sense, but in the final paragraph, line by line.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Do you anticipate changes today?

The Chair: I have a strategy for engaging in this exercise, which I'll try to describe now, as long as colleagues are comfortable with this, because I don't see us going through it line by line, but I do see us first of all getting a sense of the sorts of technical amendments our staff might make and may well just make on their own. We can just leave them to do that.

Also, I would like us to have given some attention to the comments of colleagues in the round table.

Margie is here. She has a marked-up copy. My suggestion is that Margie takes us through it and we will stop wherever you wish, wherever you have a question or a comment, or whatever it is. I'm more than glad to do that.

Margie, you will in fact go through this and where you think, for example, if there's an example--not all of them, though, Margie--of the technical changes you might mention those. When you come to a section that is being dealt with, mentioned in the round table, you'll mention that. We'll make some comments on it. And if we can't come to any conclusion, we'll move on, but it will be on the record. If we can come to a conclusion, the changes will be made.

Now, Margie, would you sooner that I say paragraph 1, paragraph 2, or would you like to...?

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): No, I think I can do it. Tell us where.

The Chair: You can tell us.

We're in Margie's hands, then.

Ms. Margaret Young: There was one comment on the narrative part of the report, and that's on page 2, paragraph 4, “The Need for a Code”. Our first sentence--

The Chair: It's better, Margie, to say “paragraph”, because the pages may be different in the two versions.

Ms. Margaret Young: The first sentence in that paragraph says we've “concluded a Code is desirable and should be adopted.” But then we go on to say we conclude that not because there have been scandals in the past or ethical lapses that need addressing or problems in the future.

The comment on that sentence was from Ms. Ablonczy, who said that the report should recognize that there have been some problems in the past. I throw that out. Are you satisfied with the second sentence as it is, or would you like somehow to change it?

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Bearing in mind that we're not changing it finally, Ken, I think in particular, as it's Diane's comment....

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): It's Diane's comment, which puts me into a bit of a dilemma. Certainly in the last ten years we haven't had any that I'm aware of. I would say if you want to you can say there have not been recent scandals. You can say something like that.

The Chair: They've not been recent.

Ms. Margaret Young: Or any recent.

Mr. Ken Epp: No, there haven't been any recent scandals involving private members.

The Chair: Colleagues, anyone else? Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): That seems to imply that there have been in the past, but I don't think any of us are aware of any.

Mr. Ken Epp: I think there have been.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It would suggest that we as a group in the last ten years have been really good, but there were others before us who were not.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I think what I'd do is I'd go “Code is desirable and should be adopted”, and then I'd jump right down to “we feel that as a group Members of the House of Commons have been, and will continue to be, ethical in our public lives. We believe that a Code will provide assistance”.... Just take that sentence out.

The Chair: Now hang on. Which sentence?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: The one that starts “We have come to this conclusion” and rambles on, and on, and on--

An hon member: And you don't need to say “on the contrary”

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: And you don't need to say “on the contrary”.

Why don't we just start from this moment on?

The Chair: Is there anyone else? Jean-Yves, I know this is new for you, but....

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): I agree with the comments that have just been made. It could have been said differently, because this sentence seems very negative to me whereas it should be positive. Why do we want a code of ethics? Perhaps that is the question that should be answered.

[English]

The Chair: Rex, the same to you: I know it's difficult for you, because we've been through this thing so many times.

Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): That's fine. I could almost agree to a certain degree, because why bother to look at the past--we have to look at the future. The thing is, if we're going to set guidelines and ethical requirements for parliamentarians, then of course let's start off from scratch, and whatever happened in the past is in the past. But we have to make sure that what's here in front of us now is going to make everyone in the public life accountable.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Forget looking to the past. What's in the past is gone; we have to look to the future.

The Chair: So, colleagues, we strike it and adjust the other sentences accordingly.

Margie, thank you.

Ms. Margaret Young: Next, I'd like you to turn to the code. It's--

Mr. Rex Barnes: Can you read what it's going to say now, so that we don't lose it?

Ms. Margaret Young: The first sentence ends “and should be adopted”. The next sentence begins “We feel that as a group members”, etc.

The Chair: So you see that “on the contrary” is gone.

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes. So the next sentence begins, “We feel that as a group”, etc.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mine starts, “We have come to this conclusion not because there have been”....

Ms. Margaret Young: I thought all of that was gone.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Sorry.

The Chair: That's gone.

Rex.

Mr. Rex Barnes: So from “contrary” back to “we”?

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes, that's all gone.

Could you turn to code (iii)?

The Chair: It's in the appendix. It's a page number.

Ms. Margaret Young: Unfortunately, it's not paginated.

The Chair: So this is in the appendix.

Ms. Margaret Young: Keep going till you come to the code.

The Chair: So it's in the appendix, Roman numeral (iii).

Ms. Margaret Young: There is a technical point on little (ii). The definition of--

The Chair: Take it slowly so they can find it in both versions.

This is page Roman numeral (ii), and it's an example, colleagues, of the technical point. If Margie gives us these, what I would like us to say at the end is technical points like that we hope the staff will pick up in the version.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But this isn't the final version?

The Chair: No, it's not the final version. So this is Roman numeral (ii), “Interpretation”.

Go ahead.

Ms. Margaret Young: There is a definition of private interests there that actually for technical reasons needs to be redrafted. The content needs to stay the same, but it needs to be clarified that for the purpose of this code a member is not considered to be furthering his or her private interest if the matter is of general application, etc.

If you stared at it for five minutes you'd understand what I mean. And you will have a chance to see the redraft, as we've just said. There was a slip 'twixt Milliken-Oliver and the code that was tabled with you, a drafting change that didn't work. So that's that.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: So this is the phrase immediately below “private interests”.

Ms. Margaret Young: That's right.

The Chair: And it's going to be redrafted.

Ms. Margaret Young: It's going to be just changed to make it clearer. For example, a private interest is still a private interest even if it's shared with a broad class of the public. So you may have a farm; yes, that's shared with a broad class of the public, but it's still a private interest for purpose of disclosure. It just means that it has to be tied to furthering private interests.

As I said, if you stare at it for five minutes, you will see it, but you'll see it clearer when it's worked out in the text.

The Chair: It's a better way of expressing what it means.

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes.

Mr. Rex Barnes: It's going to be reworded, isn't it?

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm wondering here about the concept of somehow stating that it's his or her private interests alone that are being furthered, as opposed to furthering private interests as part of the larger group.

Ms. Margaret Young: When you come to the rules, you're not allowed to further your own private interests, the private interests of your family, as defined, or to further anyone else's private interests improperly. That's the way the rule reads. However, it's not considered to be furthering your private interests if the matter in question, for example your vote, has to do with any of these things. You still have to disclose a farm, but merely because you own a farm doesn't mean you can't vote on farming legislation.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes. And the same thing would be true, for example, if we talked about old age pension.

Ms. Margaret Young: Absolutely. The GST, general application--

Mr. Ken Epp: That's for everybody in the whole country.

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes, absolutely.

The Chair: The point has been made that we're potentially in conflict a remarkably high percentage of the time in this place. It would be simply because we're dealing with very generalized things. The Criminal Code, for example--we may deal with the Criminal Code and have plans in the future to do something.

So now we'll go to--

Ms. Margaret Young: Actually, before we go to the top of the next page, there was a point that was raised by Mr. Williams in regard to 2(a), where it says that furthering private interests would include an increase in the value of the person's assets. He made the point that it should include trusts. My response to that was why would it not? I don't think there's any reason to specify any particular kind of asset, but I bring it to your attention nevertheless.

The Chair: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Should we include there also the concept of net worth? For example, if you're dealing with interests that will reduce your indebtedness, does that--

The Chair: I think the argument would be it's still included.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): I think any asset, which is either your bottom-line assets, your interest in the state or the trust, would be covered by the wording here. The wording is generic enough.

Mr. Ken Epp: I understand that, but somebody could argue that this debt I have of $200,000 is not an asset.

Ms. Margaret Young: No, it's a liability, and it's covered under (b).

Mr. Ken Epp: Of course.

The Chair: Yes, next. Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have a problem with this. I'm not sure if it's an issue we've threshed out before and I lost the argument, but to me, you have a conflict the minute your personal interests are involved outside the general interest. It's not simply a question of increasing your assets; it may be a question of avoiding a decrease in the value of your assets. To me, it's just a totally different approach to conflict. I would say anything that might change the value of your assets is a matter in which you have an interest.

Ms. Margaret Young: In the one we were just talking about, you are considered to be furthering your private interests if your action results in the reduction in the amount of your liabilities. So in the example you gave, if you tried to reduce your indebtedness, you would be furthering your interests.

¹ (1555)

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But if you tried to act as a member of Parliament in a way that avoids reducing the value of your assets--

Mr. Ken Epp: It doesn't change anything.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: --that's also furthering your private interests. It's not just increasing your assets.

The Chair: Marlene was saying there's a risk of it going down and you're able to maintain it.

Ms. Margaret Young: We could say an “increase” or a “maintenance”. We can look at that. This is common language, but your point is certainly well made.

Mr. James Robertson: We'll make a note and we'll try to come up with some appropriate wording.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, let's say environmental legislation that made your car obsolete. I'm stretching here, thinking out loud--

The Chair: Your car is obsolete.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Nice. From this guy I don't have to take that.

So that's the kind of thing you have to capture somehow.

The Chair: You have that?

Next.

Ms. Margaret Young: Application, section 4. I recommend that we reword the initial text to comply to track the wording of Bill C-34 in proposed section 72.05. That wording would change what's there to be:

This Code applies to all Members of the House of Commons when carrying out the duties and functions of their office as Members of the House, including Members who are ministers of the Crown or Parliamentary Secretaries.

The Chair: As Margaret said, when carrying out their duties. Again, for our colleagues, that is what we actually have in the bill now.

Colleagues, you should know there's a great deal of discussion about when, or if ever, a minister is not an MP or whatever, how will you deal with the two together.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Margaret, you didn't pass out a copy of the changes, did you?

Mr. Joe Jordan: No, she has them right there.

The Chair: We only have the annotated copy here, Rex. I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Rex Barnes: We don't take shorthand in Newfoundland, you know.

Ms. Margaret Young: I'll read it again.

The Chair: Read it again, and also there will be the transcript.

Ms. Margaret Young: “This Code applies to all Members of the House of Commons when carrying out the duties and functions of their office as Members of the House”, and the rest is the same.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Including members who are ministers of the crown and parliamentary secretaries.

The Chair: Exactly.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I don't know whether this is the right time to ask the question. When we studied the bill clause by clause and discussed defining the members' duties, I intervened a number of times to say that I found the ethics commissioner's mandate too broad.

I gave the example of potentially reprehensible behaviour that had nothing to do with ethics and which, consequently, should not fall under the commissioner's purview. I was told the matter would be resolved in the code. I would like to know exactly how the question will be resolved in the definition. Is my question clear?

[English]

The Chair: It's clear to me. By the way, I don't recall the point in our discussion, though.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I gave you an example--

The Chair: I'm sure you did.

Mr. Jacques Saada: --and the example I gave was maybe not the best one in town, but I did say let's assume that I refuse to see a constituent who wants to see me. It might not be proper conduct, but it has nothing to do with ethics.

I want to make sure the definition we have is for all circumstances.

The Chair: I got you.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That is an example of why I pushed very strongly for the title to be “conflict of interest”. We're not trying to define or monitor your ethical behaviour. What we're trying to say is that we're in positions of authority that can place us in a point in time when we could further our own interests financially. Jacques, that's exactly why I was adamant about this being a conflict of interest code. That's where it begins and ends.

It doesn't talk about whether we should go into the casino at night or whether we yell at our staff. Those are maybe bad things to some people, but if we get into that we'll never get out of it. So that's why it's conflict of interest.

The Chair: Margaret has a comment here.

Ms. Margaret Young: To complete what Mr. Jordan has said, the jurisdiction of the ethics commissioner over members of Parliament is solely and completely whatever is in this code. If this code doesn't cover casinos or constituency work, except for what's proper, then it is not covered.

º (1600)

The Chair: So the question was, where is it covered in here?

I see, that's the answer.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Can you please read the sentence you just gave us, the modification or amendment?

The Chair: It's “when carrying out the duties and functions of their office as Members of the House”.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's right. So we have the same problem: it doesn't resolve anything.

Mr. James Robertson: Okay. Could we then add: “...and of their office, as members of this House, as contained in this code”, to tie it specifically to this code?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Are you referring to the office in terms of the position, or physically too?

Mr. James Robertson: I refer to the position. We could, though, add some wording to reflect the fact that the nature of the office is as set out in this code.

The Chair: I have a feeling that “office” covers it. On the other hand, I do recall this discussion, and Jacques made a lot of the....

Bearing in mind that it's an interim document, I still have some sense that it's redundant, though the redundancy might be a signal for somebody interpreting it in the future. So it would say “...members of the House, as defined”—

Mr. James Robertson: Or, “as described” or “as contained in this code”.

The other suggestion that Mr. Hall made was “This code applies to conflicts of interest of members of the House of Commons...”, which will tie in the most important—

The Chair: We're still on clause 4, and earlier on we put “This code applies...”.

Thomas, would you read it?

The Clerk of the Committee: “This code applies to conflicts of interest of members of the House of Commons when carrying out their duties as members of the House”.

The Chair: Jacques.

Mr. Jacques Saada: If you add that, I will be perfectly happy.

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, we're going to do that.

Mr. Rex Barnes: I think you're getting wordy for no reason at all. I'm being honest about it: you are just getting too wordy.

You have to have a bit of trust and faith, ladies and gentlemen.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's good to have a fresh—

The Chair: No, no, wait.

I'm sitting here trying to get some sense of the chemistry of the meeting. I'm not here to argue it.

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: This last change makes it sound very awkward. Surely we're saying elsewhere that it's dealing with conflict of interest, and now we're saying that this code applies to members of Parliament while they're doing their duties.

The Chair: I'm in Jacques' hands at the moment, because I remember his discussion of it.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: My answer is simple, Mr. Chairman. I am all alone and we are numerous. I will therefore respect the majority's decision. I would like to be more reassured. I must find the exact formulation. I can explain the gist of it so that you understand my concerns. If we agree, we will find a workable formulation.

The idea of including a reference to conflict of interest in the code is sufficient, in my view.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that will suffice. If the interpretation is correct, it will not change their duties very much.

You are a member of Parliament when you are in your riding and when you are here. Even if you add your bit of sentence, that doesn't really meet my concerns, in my view.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I do not want to delay the entire process, because I know we want to finish this today. I will therefore not take too much time with the formulation. I would just like to find some wording that stipulates that the commissioner will have jurisdiction over potential conflicts of interest only, and not over all of my work.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That's right.

Mr. Jacques Saada: We don't need to find the exact wording. I do not need to read it. I will wait for it to be done. I am sure we will agree on that.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Perhaps we could write it the way you have just expressed it.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have forgotten.

[English]

The Chair: We will certainly bear it in mind. Okay?

º (1605)

Mr. Rex Barnes: Mr. Chairman, you know what he's trying to say. Of course, rather than being hung up on it, they may want to come back with another word, like a reworked script, so that we know what he's meaning. Right?

The Chair: Yes. We certainly know about it. Let's just remember that; I'm going to mark my page here.

Margaret.

Ms. Margaret Young: The next clause is clause 5, “Additional Rules”.

Subclauses 5(1) and 5(2) were developed to clarify the question of the interrelationship between the two codes, this one and the Prime Minister's code, rules, and obligations.

In view of the committee having passed Bill C-34, my suggestion is to remove this clause, because Bill C-34 makes the hierarchy clear and the fact that you are either in one code or in another. It is virtually impossible to think of how you could be in both codes at the same time.

The Chair: Colleagues, again, I realize that there are two new colleagues.

Ken, you obviously know of what we speak. What do you think?

Mr. Ken Epp: Are we going to basically concede that a member of Parliament who is also a cabinet minister is then exempt from the MPs code?

Ms. Margaret Young: My understanding of how the government intends to proceed is that they will have ministers declare their private interests under both codes.

That apart, my interpretation of Bill C-34 will be that in the case of any complaint or any issue that arises, the ethics commissioner will make a determination of the capacity in which the member of Parliament was acting. Was this person acting as a minister or as a private member? In virtually all cases, my feeling is that they will be found to be acting as a minister.

I echo Mr. Boudria's remark. When he testified, he said that a minister is always a minister. In 99.99% of the cases, that will probably be the case.

The Chair: Jamie.

Mr. James Robertson: The testimony yesterday, I believe, was that the British have a similar situation. There are situations involving answering questions in the House and voting in the House where the minister is acting as a member of Parliament. Only members of Parliament do activities in the House.

There may well be situations where, even though the person is a member of cabinet or a parliamentary secretary, the complaint will be pursued under the conflict of interest code for MPs.

Ms. Margaret Young: Thank you, Jamie, because that's important.

The point is that once a ministerial duty is involved, Bill C-34 requires that you move immediately and completely to the Prime Minister's code. It's one or the other, but not both.

The Chair: Therefore, you suggest that we don't need section 5.

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm comfortable with that.

Mr. Rex Barnes: As long as we're saying that there's a higher standard for cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries to ministers. If there's a higher standard for these individuals, and there should be other than for the regular MP, then of course that's needed.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's a public code.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Yes. The standard should be high anyway, but the standard for yourself, as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, should be at a higher level than it is for me. You're under two guidelines, to a certain degree. You have your own personal level, but at the same time, as an MP, you're at a higher level because of the position you hold.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Rex Barnes: As long as we're saying that, I'm fine with it.

The Chair: Colleagues, I appreciate that. We strike section 5.

Margaret.

Ms. Margaret Young: The next one is section 6. Mr. Regan is not here, but he was a participant through all the previous meetings and he raised this issue with me. I bring it forward on his behalf because he did feel quite strongly about it. He didn't like the way section 6 was worded. He's fine with the concept, but he proposes this wording: “A member does not breach this code if the activity is one in which a member normally and properly engages in on behalf of constituents.”

º (1610)

Mr. Rex Barnes: That one is kind of foggy. It worries me to see it there.

The Chair: If he wants some writing, let's write it out. We would need to translate it as well. We could do that.

Mr. Rex Barnes: The thing has totally changed, so that you have to look at it.

The Chair: No, we understand. There is no problem.

While Jamie is doing that part, can Margie move on?

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: What does the part of the sentence after the word “voters” add?

[English]

In English, what do we gain by having the part coming after the beginning that reads “as long as” and so on? What is that?

Ms. Margaret Young: Mind you, nothing substantive has changed. I think he found it vague and possibly negative.

I am not taking a position on this. I'm only presenting it to you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Could I suggest the pure and simple elimination of this last part?

The Chair: By the way, we're already faced with the redrafting of the first part, which does not include that. As I heard it, that is gone in Geoff Regan's version.

Ms. Margaret Young: “A member does not breach this code” is more positive.

The Chair: Yes, but the last part is moot.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Can you give us an example? I don't understand why we're even talking about this.

What could possibly not put me in conflict and involve my constituents, but someone might perceive it as putting me in conflict? What's he talking about? Is this the thing where you accept a free membership in the yacht club?

Mr. James Robertson: No. I think this is where you go to the Department of Industry to try to get a grant or facilitate a grant for a constituent—that is clearly something that we expect members of Parliament to do—or go to the immigration department and try to get them to speed up an application.

Someone outside might argue that it is improperly affecting the private interests of one person, not a class of people, but one company in your riding or one person who's an immigrant in your riding.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Providing that they listen to us.

Mr. Rex Barnes: For section 6, is that going to include what's here now, or is that going to be struck as well?

The Chair: No, hold on a moment. We want to see it. Do we have it in French as well?

[Translation]

Jean-Yves, we have it only in English. Is that all right?

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Could you share it, Rex?

This is only so you can see it. By the way, we're not deciding on it, it's so you can see it. Margaret will read it again.

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: This of course is still going to allow the following situation to slip through the cracks. A member of Parliament or a cabinet minister could help a member get a grant in order to reduce his indebtedness on a business when part of the indebtedness is to his mother-in-law.

Ms. Margaret Young: Was that to be his mother or his wife, not his mother-in-law?

Mr. Ken Epp: I said his mother-in-law. That's exactly what I said, because it's not included in here.

The Chair: Margaret.

Ms. Margaret Young: I think one would have to look to the interpretation of the wording properly.

The Chair: Can I go back to what we're considering here?

I would like Margaret to read that again. Rex has it. It's Geoff's thing, and we should consider it. He's a keen member of this committee.

Go ahead.

“A member does not breach this code if the activity is one in which a member normally and properly engages in on behalf of constituents.”

º (1615)

Mr. Rex Barnes: Will that replace section 6?

The Chair: Yes. Bear in mind that it is certainly not cast in stone. We're going to have to go through this again, folks, line by line, on the whole thing. What we're trying to do is move it up a stage to capture them before we've forgotten them all.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Can we have a guarantee that it's going to be the same team?

The Chair: You're going to be on some other committee by then. You've lost your label.

Rex, please.

Mr. Rex Barnes: I have no problem with the way in which it's worded, but I don't know if there's some underlying cause that I'm not seeing right now. I want to discuss this with Gerald.

There may be an underlying cause, I don't know. It's much simpler in the way it's written, and as a result is clearly understood. I always find that sometimes the clearer it is, the muddier it is when it gets to enforcement.

The Chair: Listen, I'm being absolutely honest with you. You'll have the transcript to this and he will too. We'll come back to it.

We're simply trying to be useful to the people who will be working all summer.

Mr. Rex Barnes: I don't know about switching over, because the other one is still a bit foggy.

Mr. James Robertson: I think the motivation was very clearly to try to make it clearer and simpler so that there aren't misunderstandings or loopholes developed down the road.

The Chair: Okay, Margie is next.

Mr. Rex Barnes: I have a question before you go. It says a “member”, so is a member a cabinet minister, or is it a member like me, who's not a cabinet minister, or like you, Joe--not yet, but you know...?

Ms. Margaret Young: As I mentioned before, you have that threshold question: Is the member of Parliament in question acting as a minister or as a private member? There will be cases where the ethics commissioner, I'm sure, will have to draw lines. I can't answer that question, but the ethics commissioner will have to make that initial determination in each case.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Yes, the one thing that comes to mind when you're talking about that is the John Manley situation where he went to get a loan or tried to help with a loan for the Ottawa Senators. Did he do it within his scope as a cabinet minister, or did he do it as a member for his constituents, because the Senators are within his constituency?

The Chair: If you'd lodged that complaint with the new ethics commissioner, he or she would make that determination and then would proceed.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Okay, but that's a good example.

The Chair: It is a good example.

Ms. Margaret Young: It's an excellent example.

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can I just ask her if she had an extra “in” in what she read to us--“in which the member engages in”?

The Chair: Yes, we'll pick that up. Okay.

Ms. Margaret Young: I'm referring to the note in bold at the top of page v.

The Chair: Okay, well, it may not be the top of page v, so it's the note regarding--

Ms. Margaret Young: In French, it's down a little bit, but it's in bold.

º (1620)

The Chair: Okay, it's the note regarding sections 13 and 14.

Go ahead.

Ms. Margaret Young: Now, both sections 13 and 14 were in Milliken-Oliver, but in a different format. First of all, for some history, section 13 has been in your standing orders since 1867 without change and has been used from time to time. You'll notice it says you can't vote--you can't participate in debate or vote--if you have a direct pecuniary interest.

So we come along to section 14, and we're talking about private interests. Originally, that said you couldn't participate, but it didn't say you couldn't vote. This committee made a number of changes to that provision, and it now says if you have a private interest, as that is defined, in any matter before a committee or the House, you have to declare, you can't participate in debate, and you can't vote. And of course you have to declare in writing and do all these other things.

You can see that now that you've changed section 14, in my view there is no reason to retain section 13, because in either case you are not going to be able to participate in debate, nor are you going to be allowed to vote. To further complicate matters, because it was imported directly from the Standing Orders, this is the only place where the term “direct pecuniary interest” is used, and it is not defined. Any direct pecuniary interest is going to be a private interest.

I think we would really confuse the ethics commissioner if we left both of these in. My suggestion would be that you delete section 13, but that's for you to decide.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The thing I like about section 13 is it just states it, it just says it, whereas with section 14 I may be able to argue that what are reasonable grounds...that I thought I might, I should have, I could have, I would have.

Can we not put a simple statement at the front end of section 14 to say this is the guide and members shall not participate? The other one is a little more on the process, isn't it?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: May suggest that we leave it as it is and just take out the second-last sentence of section 14? In section 13 it says what you shan't do, and 14 says what procedure you have to follow. We can take out that sentence that says the member “shall not participate in any discussion” and “shall not vote”. We've already said that. We say that in section 13, and we don't need to repeat it in 14.

Ms. Margaret Young: Well, section 13 is concerned with something called a “direct pecuniary interest”.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Change it to private interest.

The Chair: Colleagues, you see one of the things we're trying to do here. Surprisingly enough, even though we are thinking about conflict of interest for the first time here, the Standing Orders are full of material about this, and we're trying to capture what's originally there and fit it to the new legislation.

So where we've got to at the moment is that we change section 13 so it doesn't mention direct pecuniary interest, just private interest, and we strike the second-last sentence of section 14 as redundant. Right?

Mr. Rex Barnes: It's the same as in section 13 anyway.

The Chair: Yes, exactly.

Ms. Margaret Young: May I suggest then that you change the order? First of all, members have to understand that they may have this problem. The member declares it, does not participate, and then, finally, doesn't vote.

The Chair: So section 13 should become section 14?

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think section 14 also points out Madame Catterall's observation that this also applies to committee. You can't sit in committee and argue your case, and then in the last minute say “Oh, by the way, I can't vote on this”.

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, I have that.

Margaret, go ahead.

Ms. Margaret Young: At the bottom of that page, in English, paragraph 15(3)--

The Chair: Under the heading “Exception”, paragraph (3). Go ahead.

Ms. Margaret Young: This is the section dealing with a statement. If you have received and accepted a gift of over $500, you have to declare it. The current wording is “If gifts or personal benefits that may be accepted under subsection...” etc.

As Mr. Williams pointed out, why don't we just say what it means: if gifts are accepted, they have to be disclosed. That makes sense to me.

The Chair: So the words “may be accepted” become “are accepted”.

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes.

The Chair: Ken, again, so you know, that's John Williams. Okay.

Ms. Margaret Young: While we're here, I do have a very small point. Somebody has pointed out that gifts are personal benefits, so the idea of having the word “or” maybe doesn't make sense. Can I play around with this a little bit? My suggestion would be to say “gifts or other benefits”.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Because we're at this point, and I certainly don't want to go through this in too much detail, I can think of situations where I have received gifts and have then just turned around and given them to charity for an auction or something like that. There's a flow through, a re-gifting. How would that affect me here? Will there be a lot of paperwork?

Ms. Margaret Young: On its face, yes; if you have accepted the gift, then on the warning here, yes, you have to disclose it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. So I disclose it and then I just dispose of it in any way I want. It's mine and I can do what I want with it.

Ms. Margaret Young: Sure.

The Chair: Okay, so the wording will be “If gifts or other benefits are accepted”, instead of “personal” there.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Mr. Chairman, why set the amount at $500? That is not very much nowadays. Let me give you the example of a gift I received. A seal fur coat is worth $750 nowadays. If a company gives you one, that is worth more than $500.

º (1625)

[English]

The Chair: You have to declare it, that's all.

By the way, though, the answer to your question is that's what the committee decided. We went round and round, and there has to be some threshold. That's your answer.

Mr. Rex Barnes: The other thing too here is, based on his example, if all of a sudden he stands up in the House next month--we'll say he's fighting for a fur company--and he's been given a gift of such a value, then of course he's in conflict of interest right away, because he has received a gift and now he's expected to return something.

Mr. Joe Jordan: He's certainly open to that accusation.

The Chair: Yes, but the important thing here is the transparent declaration of it so that the conflict is apparent.

Ms. Margaret Young: Also on the question of gifts--

The Chair: Is that in the same paragraph?

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes. I just wanted to bring to your attention something I realized after we'd had some distance from the code because we had been away from it. When you look at the statement required for the sponsored travel--

The Chair: Where is that?

Ms. Margaret Young: It's the very next section, but you don't have to look at it right now.

You will remember that we worked on this at great length, increasing the details, and at the end of the day, when you take a sponsored trip there are requirements to disclose the nature and the value of the benefits received.

Now, let me go back to this paragraph on gifts or other benefits. There is no requirement here that you disclose the value or the approximate value of the gift.

I just bring this to your attention. It may be seen as a bit of an anomaly, but only in retrospect, since the section on sponsored travel was so beefed up.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I thought we would tell how much it was worth. I just think it makes sense. Just to say that it's over $500, no one would have any way of knowing what it was worth.

Ms. Margaret Young: There's $501 and there's $7,500--to make your point.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: And it should be laid out on the table once a year.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think you could approximate the value.

The Chair: For example, if I received a diamond ring with seven diamonds in it, you're saying that at the moment I would just need to say I've received this diamond ring.

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes, that's what the section requires now.

The Chair: Can I just ask about this? The cost of travel is automatically known, the air tickets and so on. But what if this is a Ming vase that's been dug up someplace and it cost me $500 to get it valued--do I subtract that from the value?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just watch the Antiques Roadshow a little more and you can come up with your own value.

The Chair: I understand the point. You may not know the value. By the way, you may not even know the ballpark of the value.

Mr. Rex Barnes: It doesn't make any difference, Peter, on the value with regard to the costs you've paid to get it valued; it's the cost of the actual item.

The Chair: By the way, I wouldn't have a Ming vase because it's illegal to bring it in. But again, to go back to my point, this is something somebody's made, someone's carved or whatever.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Do you remember how, when we first started all this, we talked about some regulations that were already in place to govern this? Is there not a regulation in place somewhere--I think there is--that says you can't accept a gift over a certain amount, you can't take it?

Ms. Margaret Young: There are regulations for ministers, but--

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: But not the regular guys?

Ms. Margaret Young: No. You want to be careful not to get into Criminal Code territory, but apart from that I don't know of anything.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: There's a rule right now that ministers can't accept a gift valued at more than I think it was $200.

The Chair: Again, bear in mind that this is interim. It seems to me we have not discussed this big aspect before. Why don't we leave it but come back to it next time?

Ms. Margaret Young: Would you like me to put it in for your consideration, or leave it out?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Peter hit an important point there. Leave it.

The Chair: What's next?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Alexa McDonough commented that section 16 should ban travel and bring in two free trips a year, the original proposal I had. Remember that I said to her, well, we couldn't get agreement at the table, and she said, well, the NDP would have agreed. Do you remember that her particular representative at the time didn't agree? We're not going to replay that one, are we?

º (1630)

Ms. Margaret Young: And that's why I haven't brought this for....

The Chair: Yes, okay, thank you.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: But I think it's important to have this in here, particularly now that we have gotten rid of all the corporate financing of politicians.

The Chair: At the time I wanted it, but you're right on.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Of course, I always am. Watch me.

Ms. Margaret Young: Section 20, subsection (2), has to do with--

The Chair: That's under the heading “Trust”, something that is often lacking around here.

Go on.

Ms. Margaret Young: This has to do with the rare situations where an ordinary member, a private member, might be required to put a private corporation that has a contract with the government into a trust. I stress that it will be rare.

Mr. Lee raised the question of whether there should be reimbursements for the costs of that action if it were ever necessary. I just suggest to you that this might be something for the Board of Internal Economy to examine down the line. It will be rare.

Over to you.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's tricky, because I have to believe the tax treatment of the costs of the trustee is treated a certain way, and if we were to reimburse them, then it's income, and it would be.... I think it probably can be handled under the Income Tax Act.

The Chair: Are there any other comments on this?

Marg, have you any other comments?

Let's leave it.

Ms. Margaret Young: Section 21 deals with disclosure. Some members still find spousal disclosure and family disclosure problematic, but we've made that decision, so I think we can pass over that. On the other hand, Ms. McDonough did raise the point that “family”, for disclosure purposes, should include grown children and parents.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make several comments on that. It could well be impractical, because we're talking about disclosing in detail. One's grown child could mean a forty-year-old. No other codes in Canada have this.

The Chair: To the best of our knowledge.

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes.

Where other family is mentioned, it's very loose. It's a very narrow kind of thing. But that doesn't mean you are free to further the interest of your grown children or your parents, because I again remind you that you are precluded from furthering the interest of anyone improperly. Anyone includes your grown children, your parents, your great-aunt, your neighbour.

Whether that would satisfy Ms. McDonough, I'm not sure, but I think that is the best answer I can come up with.

The Chair: Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: There's a situation here with our next prime minister. He has now divested his assets to his grown children, yet he could hardly ever persuade any Canadian that if under his watch there are some substantial beneficial changes to areas in that industry, he isn't in some way.... The public perception of that would be brutal. I don't know how you could include that. Yet I agree that eventually we want to set our children free.

Mr. James Robertson: I think the answer to the concern is that adult children are independent for purposes of tax law, for the purposes of privacy. They have they own careers, their own lives.

Obviously in the case of some politicians, their families are extremely high-profile. That is probably more likely to be the case with cabinet ministers and prime ministers. I guess that's the responsibility of the media and of opposition parties, rather than a conflict of interest code, because those things will presumably come to public attention in appropriate cases.

º (1635)

Ms. Margaret Young: Where you have high-profile children, there is a clause under paragraph 22(1)(f) that permits the ethics commissioner to require any other information that would be relevant to the member's situation. So that is there, the potential or the possibility for the ethics commissioner to gain a more rounded view, and presumably the member would want to cooperate with that.

That's all I can say.

The Chair: First of all, we don't have quorum to vote here, but we're not voting, so there's no reason we can't continue very comfortably. But because the Board of Internal Economy is meeting, we're having trouble, because obviously we have lots of officials from this committee who are on that. So if and when the time comes to vote on this interim report, it might be necessary to wait a couple of minutes until we have quorum. Okay? We may have enough.

Please continue.

Mr. Ken Epp: I just want to say, regardless of how we cut it, I think we have a dilemma.

For example, it might be very advantageous to Canada to change its tax rules with respect to ships and flags. It could be that Canada would like to become a Bermuda in terms of the kind of taxation we give in order to attract people with shipping interests into our country. But if Paul Martin were the Prime Minister, how could that ever be enacted without it being considered a personal benefit to his family? I don't think there's any way out of the conundrum.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think, Ken, the test might be that it would be an advantage to anyone who is operating a shipping industry in Canada. This wouldn't be specific to his company.

But you're right. I guess the alternative is to do what the Russians used to do, which is to test the kids in kindergarten and pluck them out to be the goalie, based on their reflexes, and maybe castrate them so they don't have kids--or I guess that was the Swiss, to the singers.

So we do want politicians that have experience.

The Chair: I missed the translation of that, but I saw Jean-Yves laugh. Congratulations.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The thing is, if it's a tax change that will help the shipping industry as a unit.... It's a lot like the farmers voting on the new farm plan. In my mind, if the test is if it's helping the entire industry, if it's going to make profit and pay taxes, that's one thing, but it's still going to be under a microscope and a spotlight...as opposed to being specific to that company or chain of companies once they disclose what their assets are.

So you're not wrong, but I think we're just going to have to watch these things, as everyone else will.

The Chair: Since the time of Babylon and before, I think there have been rules set in stone, and people have always broken them, haven't they? What we're really trying to do is to codify better the rules for guidance, for avoidance, and for prevention.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: One of the other issues--and this goes back to what Ken is saying and what Margie said, that the ethics counsellor might want more--if when someone discloses their assets there are bank accounts or maybe trust accounts that get annuities from other accounts that the families hold, if family members put in or draw out of this as a unit, then by all means the ethics counsellor may decide to find out who else has access to that. If you're taking a percentage of a mother-in-law's income to go into a family trust, then by all means that needs to be looked at.

So I think the disclosure portion will lay the groundwork for what the ethics counsellor needs to do under a given situation. But it's tricky; it's rather complicated.

The Chair: Let me repeat what Margie did, so that we know what has been done here.

Some MPs were concerned about spousal disclosure. The committee decided to go with this particular form of spousal disclosure. It's still an interim document, so in theory there's still time for change, but that's where we are at the moment.

Margie is next.

º (1640)

Ms. Margaret Young: Paragraph 22(1)(d)--

The Chair: That's under “Content of disclosure statement”.

Ms. Margaret Young: --begins “If the statement mentions a private corporation,” and then it follows with some details that you have to include. You have to talk about what the corporation does and its sources of income, and you have to state the names of affiliated corporations. What it doesn't say, as Mr. Williams pointed out, is who the other shareholders are in that private corporation.

I direct your attention to paragraph 25(1)(b).

The Chair: We'd better find that.

Who said this?

Ms. Margaret Young: Mr. Williams asked, what about the shareholders?

I was thinking about this back in the office. When I look at the content of the disclosure summary, the public part, and I see in paragraph 25(1)(b) where you have to “list the names and addresses of all persons who have an interest in those assets and liabilities” that are to be disclosed, I think if you aren't required to disclose privately the names of your shareholders, how can you comply with paragraph 25(1)(b)?

I also went to the model on which these provisions are drawn. Ontario was the closest. Ontario is this way. It's the original way. It doesn't talk about listing the shareholders of a corporation.

We can change it or we can leave it, and if it turns out to be a big problem, the ethics commissioner will be coming to the committee with suggestions. Or it would be relatively easy, I think, to add a third item to paragraph 22(1)(d) and just say identify the shareholders.

I'm in your hands.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Or, Mr. Chair, you could say “subject to paragraph 25(1)(b)”.

Subparagraph 22(1)(d)(iii) should say “the above is subject to paragraph 25(1)(b)”, which means it's saying you have to list the names and addresses of all persons who have an interest.

Mr. James Robertson: I would tie it in very similarly to that. Paragraph 25(1)(b) says that the names and addresses are made public unless the ethics commissioner is of the opinion that disclosure is not in the public interest. I think we could repeat the wording that “subject to the request of the ethics commissioner, the names and addresses of all the persons...”, etc.

The Chair: Joe Jordan on the same point, then Ken Epp.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I realize this is a very narrow group involving privately held corporations, but maybe not with just a husband and wife as shareholder. Let's take a look at the Eatons or some example like that, where for generations there's been all this secrecy around who owns what. Are we going to get into trouble? If someone has shares in a private corporation and any other shareholder in that private corporation decides to run for Parliament, they're going to be making information about me public with or without my consent, isn't that right? What if I don't want to be listed there?

Ms. Margaret Young: Well, the section 22 statement is confidential.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, but the summary would list my name.

Ms. Margaret Young: The summary lists the name unless the commissioner is of the opinion that disclosure is not in the private interest. In other words, he has a discretion.

An hon. member: You mean, “in the public interest”.

Mr. James Robertson: It would not be the amount of the shareholding; it would just be the name and address.

The Chair: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm somewhat inclined to cut that part right out.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Take it out of the summary, maybe.

The Chair: Which part?

Mr. Ken Epp: The disclosure of the names of all of the other shareholders.

The Chair: We haven't actually gotten to that yet.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm having a Vulcan mind-meld now with Ken here. I say we take it out of the summary and put it in the statement that's confidential and let the ethics commissioner decide if there's a problem. That makes more sense than listing it in the summary for no reason.

The Chair: Say that very slowly for those who just aren't as intelligent and good-looking as you are.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think it makes sense to put it in the confidential statement. Under my example, if I'm concerned about personal information of mine just because another shareholder in the corporation runs for Parliament, I can be given reasonable assurances that this is going to be held in confidence, and if it isn't, I have recourse. Take it out of the summary disclosure, because that's only going to cause problems. Somebody could have one share in the company.

º (1645)

Mr. Rex Barnes: We could make paragraph 25(1)(b)—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Take what's captured in paragraph 25(1)(b) in terms of listing information and put it in under paragraph 22(1)(d), if the statement mentions a private corporation.

The Chair: Rex, are you okay with that?

Mr. Rex Barnes: Yes. Are you going to make it item 22(1)(d)(iii)? Will it be item (iii)?

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: You have to learn to speak in Roman numerals: it's “i, i, i”.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Aye, aye, sir.

The Chair: We've changed subsection 25(1) here, so that its paragraph (b)—and the letters will all change, but the sense of paragraph (b)—is going to be shifted to a new item (iii) under paragraph 22(1)(d).

Marg, are you okay with that?

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, go on.

Ms. Margaret Young: Next is subsection 29(4).

The Chair: Subsection 29(4), colleagues, is under “Complaints”. I have no complaints at the moment. I feel fine, thank you very much.

Ms. Margaret Young: This provision gives the ethics commissioner the right to begin an inquiry on his or her own initiative. The words that begin this section say he or she may do that when he or she believes it would be in the public interest to do so. Mr. Williams said to take out the public interest criterion.

There is an ethical side to this that might reassure you that he wouldn't do it unless in his or her belief it was in the public interest, but I leave that to you.

Mr. James Robertson: That whole phrase would come out and the paragraph would then read: “The Ethics Commissioner may, on his or her own initiative and on giving the member concerned...”, etc. So it would take out that phrase, “When the Ethics Commissioner believes that it would be in the public interest to do so...”. It does not change anything substantively.

The Chair: Rex.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Are you saying there's no written complaint?

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Does there not have to be a written complaint for the ethics commissioner to move on it?

Ms. Margaret Young: No.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Why would you give the power to the ethics commissioner?

The Chair: Wait a minute, Rex. There is a provision that he or she can act on his own initiative. That's what this says.

Go ahead, Marg.

Ms. Margaret Young: The ethics commissioner will respond to written complaints from parliamentarians. This is an additional provision. Let's say no complaint has been received. If the ethics commissioner believes he should investigate, he or she can do so.

Mr. Rex Barnes: I have no trouble with the ethics commissioner investigating anything. What I firmly believe is that if you have the wrong ethics commissioner and he or she decides, “I don't like so and so; I'm going on a hunt now, because I know something's wrong”.... I don't think we should give that power to them. And I don't care what my former colleague, the colleague who was already around the table, says. I think we can't give too much power, but we have to give the power to the ethics commissioner upon a written complaint to look into an investigation. He or she may say “Rodger really took a shot at me in the House of Commons last month. I heard a rumour about Rodger, so I'm going to check into this.”

Some hon. members: No, no.

The Chair: Joe Jordan, and then Margaret.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It certainly, Rex, is a balance, but I guess the thing here is the ethics commissioner would have access to financial information that the rest of us wouldn't. If the ethics commissioner could pick up on some activity in the stock market, they could go back and check the confidential financial disclosures of a member and maybe put A and B together. Maybe the potential implications of a bill wouldn't be known to the rest of us because we wouldn't know that person has x number of shares in XYZ Corporation.

I think the ethics commissioner needs to be able to pursue things independently. As for witch hunts, I think we have to be very careful how they're handled.

The Chair: Witch or warlock.

Mr. Rex Barnes: I'm just going to voice my concern, then, and I'll pass it on to Gerald to let him know that I'm concerned. When you do the final draft, if you all agree, that's fine with me, because I have nothing to hide anyway.

The Chair: I have Margaret, and then.... Do you want to go now, or after Jacques?

Ms. Margaret Young: I was just going to say that if an ethics commissioner acted for the improper motives you suggest and if there were evidence of that—and there certainly would be if he or she came up with nothing—then that would be cause for dismissal.

º (1650)

Mr. Rex Barnes: Yes, okay.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I will be brief. I do have some reservations regarding Mr. Barnes' position. I am a member of Parliament. I send my documents and reports to the commissioner. He realizes there is a problem. His work is to advise me. He advises me to solve the problem. I do not solve the problem. He knows there is a problem that is not solved. He must have the means to intervene. He cannot wait for someone to discover what has happened. He cannot reveal that in private to anyone for a complaint to be filed. He must be able to act. He must have some leeway to guarantee his authority.

[English]

The Chair: I think Rex is taking it under advisement. I think that's what he's doing.

Mr. Rex Barnes: That's fine.

The Chair: So, colleagues, we leave it as it is.

Margaret, we leave it as it is.

Yes, please, Thomas?

The Clerk: Could I ask a brief question about terminology?

The Chair: I'm sorry, Ken, I didn't see you.

Mr. Ken Epp: This is a twist. At the end you said we'll leave it as it is. Does that mean these words we were going to strike out now in fact are going to stay in?

The Chair: That's the way I thought of it. By the way, I was looking around.

They were “comfort words”—I think that was the expression somebody used—and people felt more comfortable with them.

Yes?

Mr. Ken Epp: I can deal with them.

The Chair: You think about it.

Thomas, you go ahead and say what you will, and I'll get back to it.

The Clerk: I just had a brief question for you on terminology that I noticed when I was comparing the French and the English. This section is entitled “Complaints”, yet the word “complaint” only appears once—in French as well—in subsection 30(1). Everywhere else it deals with “inquiries” and with “requests for inquiries”.

Ms. Margaret Young: Change it.

The Clerk: Would you be more comfortable changing that and not using the word “complaint” at all, since it only appears once in the section?

The Chair: Do you need another title, Margaret, or not?

Ms. Margaret Young: Just change it to “Inquiries”.

The Chair: “Inquiries”, okay.

I'm going to get this straight. Ken, did you have something?

Mr. Ken Epp: I guess, if you'll give me the floor, I actually thought removing that sentence would be good, because in a way it strengthens the function of the ethics commissioner.

My problem, of course, is back. You people all know this: I'd like that person to be more carefully chosen. But given that we're going to have one, I think we need—

The Chair: Okay. I wasn't trying to avoid it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I tend to agree with Mr. Williams' written submission. Let's say that we ended up in a situation where there were about 18 scandals in a row. The ethics commissioner might decide that the last thing we need in the national interest is another scandal, so let's not pursue this.

I'd take it out and just leave it as, “The Ethics Commissioner may, on his or her own initiative...”, as John Williams was saying—or at least put it in brackets so that we revisit it.

[Translation]

The Chair: Jacques, what do you think?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I agree with Joe.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Jamie, read the wording out again.

Mr. James Robertson: The sentence would be, in clause 4, “The Ethics Commissioner may, on his or her own initiative...” and the rest remains the same. And the heading would be....

The Chair: Okay, done.

Next.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, with regard to Mr. Barnes' concern, could we not—

[English]

The Chair: He said he would take it under advisement and discuss it with his colleague.

Mr. Rex Barnes: I'll just mention to Gerald that the changes have been made there. I'll just add a note that there's some concern and basically--

The Chair: He's not concerned.

Mr. Rex Barnes: If he doesn't don't care, well...just another kick at the can.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Rex, you can always get on this committee and go at this full bore, you know.

Ms. Margaret Young: We're on section 30.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, could we go back to clause 29 before moving on to clause 30?

º (1655)

[English]

The Chair: By all means, yes.

Section 29, colleagues.

Yes, Jacques.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Clause 29(5) says:

(5) Once a request for an inquiry has been made to the ethics commissioner, members should respect the process—

That does not really meet the concern I expressed on a number of occasions.

In my view, to prevent any political manipulation of this type of system, it is important that both the complainant and the commissioner be under the obligation to keep the complaint secret as long as a conclusion has not been reached. In our business, it is more difficult to be innocent than guilty. That is why I think it is not strong enough and it should be better defined.

I therefore suggest the following wording: “Once a request for inquiry has been addressed to the commissioner, the complainant and the commissioner must respect the confidential nature of the complaint until such time as the commissioner reaches his conclusions.”

[English]

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't necessarily disagree with that, but if you look at what's happening in Ontario now with Minister Stockwell, he's referred it and he's using that in his argument--“I've referred it to the ethics commissioner”. So you wouldn't want to take away his ability to reference it.

Mr. Jacques Saada: But he's not complaining.

Mr. Joe Jordan: There's no complainant there. He's the one who initiated the thing.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's my point. That's my whole point, and that's the reason, when Mr. Hall mentioned we could have inquiry into--

The Chair: Don't touch the--

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think it's a bit tricky, because it's two different situations here. Inquiry is something that happens whether there is a complaint or not. So I think it's important to refer to that.

And I take your point, Joe. If I want to refer it to the commissioner for my own defence, just because something came up in the paper, I want to be able to do it. But if you argue that I did something wrong, I want to have a chance of confidentiality until the commissioner establishes I was wrong.

The Chair: One comment is can you in fact tell a member of Parliament to do that, or not to do that, as in this case? I really wonder about that. I mean, you're on tricky ground. But on the other hand, there's no reason we shouldn't put it in and see what happens.

Rex.

Mr. Rex Barnes: If all of a sudden the inquiry were about me, by reading that, I take it I'm not allowed to comment on anything until the ethics commissioner makes his findings public. That's what I take from that. I'm sure any MHA or MP wouldn't want to comment on it until he or she has been cleared or found guilty, we'll say, of a breach.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The discussion we had at the time, Rex, was that we don't want this to be used for political purposes.

Mr. Rex Barnes: True.

Mr. Joe Jordan: A lot of times...if I were a political opponent, I could phrase this as “This particular member...”, or “There's been a formal inquiry lodged with the ethics commissioner”. I mean, it sounds like there's something there. So we want to take away the ability of somebody to make political points out of the fact that there's been an inquiry launched, because that has certain connotations in a legal sense--you normally don't go that step unless there's something there.

We're just very nervous, and this is what we discussed. How do we make sure the process is respected by everybody, and the results are respected?

Just because you've had an inquiry shouldn't be a black mark. In fact, in some cases it's a process that can be very useful.

The Chair: Jean-Yves and then Jacques.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: There is a nuance that wasn't made. Perhaps one word should be added. It says:

(5) Once a request for an inquiry has been made to the ethics commissioner, members should respect the process—

I would say instead: “the complainant must respect the process”. If I file a complaint with the commissioner... It seems to me that it is the complainant who should respect the process.

Mr. Jacques Saada: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] —the same problem.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: It seems to me it is the complainant who should respect the confidential nature of the complaint.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, it's Jacques Saada and then Ken Epp.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, you asked earlier whether a member could be prevented from speaking. That is already what we're trying to do here. Either it is valid or it is not.

That is not the purpose of my intervention. At the risk of repeating myself, I would say that politics is different from any other field. We have political interests. Sometimes we get into an election campaign, and all of a sudden, there is a complaint. We have no idea whether the complaint is valid or not, but it is made public and we can lose our election. Then, when we win before the commissioner, it is much too late. It becomes pointless.

I think the complainant himself must have an obligation to keep the matter confidential. In other words, if someone discloses the fact that there is a complaint, the complainant is responsible because the fact that a complaint was filed must be known only to the complainant. He cannot inform others of the fact that he filed a complaint.

[English]

The Chair: Ken Epp and then Joe Jordan.

» (1700)

Mr. Ken Epp: I have a real concern with this, and that is the length of time that can be taken. I compare it to how at present we have some investigations going on under the sponsorship of the RCMP. They're taking three and four years. At some stage, you need the air cleared. We have nothing in here, that I'm aware of, on any time limits or anything like that.

Part of democratic government and the role of the opposition is to hammer these guys when they're wrong. It doesn't matter who's on the government side, that scrutiny by the opposition in the long run is healthy, but of course it also adds to the result that parliamentarians may be held in less esteem, because when that's done in the House, that's what hits the news that night. “Now there's another scandal” is what sticks in people's minds.

There is some advantage to saying these things should all be done internally, but we also need to have time limits on the thing. If someone requests an inquiry and after one year, after two years, or three, or four, nothing has been said, it hasn't come to a conclusion, then surely at that stage it would be appropriate for the opposition members, if that's the case, to ask when they are finally going to get the report.

So we should either do a little bit of tweaking on subsection 29(5), in terms of what other members can say, or we should put in some guidelines, some instructions to the commissioner as to how much time he has for an inquiry.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I have two things. One, nothing prevents me, as a member of Parliament, from standing up in the House the last day of sitting before an election and saying that I understand this member did this, and I intend to.... I still have privileges. This isn't going to take those away. If members still want to do that, they can muddy the waters with an accusation. They always could. There is not a lot of that going on, but we still have to be careful.

The other problem, Ken, is when an investigation starts to border a criminal investigation, a whole new set of rules applies. When it potentially involves criminal activity, when does the ethics commissioner publicly state that the inquiry has now been turned over to the police? Does the ethics commissioner appear before this committee every year to give us an update on the number and the timeline? It's an important point. I don't know how you'd track it.

The Chair: There are a couple of things we should remember. One is that this is an interim report. The other is that if we could design a computer program that would do all this, we wouldn't need the ethics commissioner. What we're trying to do is give this person a strong set of guidelines, and by the way, give the members something they can read so they understand the frame of reference.

What we're discussing right now--I know there are some other things--is whether we should replace “should” with “must” in subsection 29(5). And we've heard Jacques Saada's point on this.

Jacques.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest a sentence? I would like to have my colleagues comments on this. I drafted it in English because I was reading the English text. Would it be inappropriate to include the following sentence?

[English]

“It is not ethical for a member to make a complaint public if the accused doesn't have a reasonable chance to respond while the House is in session”.

The Chair: Just say it once more, please.

Mr. Jacques Saada: “It is not ethical for a member to make a complaint public if the accused”--I want a better word--“does not have a reasonable chance to respond while the House is in session”.

The Chair: Rex, please.

Mr. Rex Barnes: To strengthen it, probably it should say.... Well, just read it again, and I'll stop you where I want to stop you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: “It is not ethical for a member to make the complaint public if the accused does not have a reasonable chance”--

» (1705)

Mr. Rex Barnes: Okay, as far as I'm concerned, there should be no “reasonable chance”. It should say that another MP should not even bring it up in the House while there's an investigation ongoing. That's what it should be. I have no trouble with that. If an investigation is about me, there's no reason you should stand up in the House and tell the Speaker there's an investigation taking place. It should be held in the strictest confidence that there is an investigation going on.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, but you see, the problem with your case is nothing prevents you from leaking it to the media, and then I have no chance to respond. Whereas here--

Mr. Rex Barnes: I'm saying that may not do that, what you want. I know what you want, and I agree with you, but it's the way of getting to it, without making it too cumbersome.

The Chair: I'm still not convinced that in this worst-case scenario you control the players. I mean, there is parliamentary privilege. There is all sorts of stuff rolling against this thing.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Would it be easier to say that any investigation can't be discussed? But then of course it doesn't make any difference, because once you bring it up, it goes on the record, and so on.

The Chair: And in the House in particular, it's virtually impossible, Jacques, to stop a member from standing up in the House. You may say it's totally unethical, but members get up and accuse people of criminal things that they can't substantiate outside the House.

No one on our side does this, of course.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's my whole point, Peter. That's the reason I'm referring to the time the House is in session. If it happens while the House is in session, then there's a reasonable opportunity for the accused to have a chance to rebut. If the House is not in session, you do not have this reasonable chance to rebut.

Mr. Joe Jordan: You've captured an issue.

Mr. Rex Barnes: I do know what you're saying, and I agree with you, but let it stand until we come up with a way it could be worded.

The Chair: Colleagues, we shouldn't try to rewrite the sentences and paragraphs this time. We're just trying to pick up, as I said, on comments from the round table and so on.

I'm suggesting here--although I don't want to do it too often throughout the report--that we just put, in brackets, a note summarizing this little discussion we've had, so that it's absolutely flagged for the final consideration. Is that okay?

Now, could we then proceed to where Margie told us the last time, which was...?

Ms. Margaret Young: Section 30.

There will be technical changes there, because when the dust settled I noticed there was quite a bit of overlap. But you don't have to worry about that.

I would like to draw your attention to the existing subsection 30(2). This doesn't come from a member, it comes from me, but I would like to at least bring this to your attention. It deals with non-meritorious complaints and their dismissal. This does not result in a report to Parliament. These are complaints that are dismissed for various reasons--it's frivolous, it's vexatious, it's not in good faith, or if after a preliminary investigation the ethics commissioner finds there are no valid grounds, or he starts the inquiry and then decides there are no valid grounds.

The way it's structured now, it doesn't call for a report, so it's just dealt with in this section. I draw your attention to the concluding words. If, for whatever reason, it's being dismissed, “the Ethics Commissioner shall so state in dismissing the complaint and shall make the dismissal public if requested by the Member complained about”.

We worked on that section quite a bit, but when I step back from it, I see that essentially the member complained about has a veto power over whether a dismissal of virtually any kind--because they're all covered--is made public or not. I just wonder if that's where you want to go in the interests of transparency.

In a worst-case scenario, let's take a member who is slightly less than ethical: if the member is saying “No, you can't make this public”, that member is then free to say anything about the grounds on which the ethics commissioner dismissed the complaint, and the public has no way of knowing.

So it is not transparent the way it is now.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Margie, my problem with that is if the complaint is dismissed outright, then the public shouldn't be engaged in, well, maybe he got off on a technicality.

If the ethics commissioner says there are no grounds for this complaint or inquiry to go any further, then I think the member who has been complained about should be back to where they started.

I like this because if it wasn't public that the complaint was underway, making it public that it's dismissed does that. I think the member needs to make that call.

» (1710)

Ms. Margaret Young: I think we can safely predict that complaints will be public.

Mr. Joe Jordan: They will all be public?

Ms. Margaret Young: Yes. I think we can conclude that. Then the way it's written now, you're giving members control over whatever the ethics commissioner has written in dismissing the complaint.

The Chair: Jamie.

Mr. James Robertson: I was going to suggest a compromise, which would be “and shall make the dismissal public if requested by the member complained of or if the commissioner believes that it is in the public interest to do so”, which would allow the member to have the decision as to--

Mr. Joe Jordan: So if I go out and start making all kinds of statements that there was nothing to this, and la, la, la--

Mr. James Robertson: And in fact it was on a technicality, then the commissioner could make the report public to make clear what in fact the reason was.

Ms. Margaret Young: I would just add that it might, in your worst-case scenario, put the ethics commissioner in a very difficult position. He would be in the position of appearing to contradict a member, and I think the ethics--

Mr. Joe Jordan: What would your suggestion be?

Ms. Margaret Young: My suggestion would be to take out the last words. I would put a period: “shall so state in dismissing the complaint.”

Mr. James Robertson: And then “and shall make the dismissal public.”

Ms. Margaret Young: Sorry, “and shall make the dismissal public.” Thank you.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Maybe there should be a report, then, to the House. Is there? No?

Ms. Margaret Young: Well, if you're just dismissing, I think you want it to stop there. It would then end with making the dismissal public with a press release related to the parties.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I have a question on that. If I understood correctly, you presume the entire complaint will be made public anyway. Is that really what you said, or nearly?

[English]

Ms. Margaret Young: I am presuming that.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: We always come back to the same problem.

[English]

The Chair: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have a little problem with that.

Believe it or not, I have on occasion a kind streak. So if I think something is going on over there on the government side and it's really serious if there's something to it, I ask the ethics commissioner to inquire. Actually, part of my inquiry is to find out whether it's vexatious, because if it is, if what some constituent has told me, or something, is of no point, then I would like the ethics commissioner to say “Sorry, I've investigated this and there's nothing to it”.

To require him at that stage to make this public, when I in good faith have given it to him to investigate and don't want to make it public, and the person we were wondering about has been exonerated because there's nothing to it, why should we then say that we now must make it public? So I have a little bit of a problem with saying “and shall make the dismissal public”.

I would suggest that maybe we should say “make the dismissal public if the complaint is in the public domain”, or something along that line.

The Chair: Joe tried to capture both by simply adding that the member could request it, the way Joe said, if it was in the public interest. I think that was his remark, which sort of captures the same kind of thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: How can we resolve this problem if we don't first resolve the problem of complaint confidentiality? We haven't settled the basic problem. We are trying to resolve the corollary when we haven't even resolved the basic premise.

[English]

The Chair: Just flag it, okay? We're going to be careful. We're going to flag everything.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's a similar point.

The Chair: Really, colleagues, we know that phrasing a lot of this stuff is virtually impossible. What we have to convey is the sense and spirit in the House of Commons. It's not the Ten Commandments and everybody has to believe in them.

That item is flagged. Next....

By the way, there's one more thing, Margie. “Inquiry” above section 30 is a subheading. Should it become “Commissioner's discretion”, because we've used “Inquiry” earlier on?

Before section 30, “Inquiry” is a subtitle. So we already have “Inquiry”.

A voice: It's a marginal note.

The Chair: It's a subheading, isn't it?

Ms. Margaret Young: I'll take that under advisement, to change that.

The Chair: We could say “Commissioner's discretion”, or something like that.

Okay, next.

» (1715)

Ms. Margaret Young: Could we go to subsection 31(8)?

The Chair: Okay, subsection 31(8), “Right to speak”....

Ms. Margaret Young: This is something I'm bringing to your attention. I believe there is an answer.

What this section states is that five days after the tabling of a report in the House, the member who is the subject of the report has a right to speak for up to 20 minutes. Mr. Williams made the point that because reports have to be made public when they're ready, there could be, if the House were not sitting, quite some time between a report being made public and the member's right to speak.

I think one answer to that would be that there are different purposes. The right to speak in the House is a right to put before members facts that the member wants to place before them, before they make a decision on whatever penalties may be imposed. Nothing prevents the member, as soon as the report is made public, from going public in whatever way he or she wants. So there is an interesting transparency in having reports out there as soon as possible and not holding them until the House is sitting. At least that's the decision you've made. So I'll leave it in your hands, but I think there really are different purposes.

This has a specific purpose. It's a right to speak in the House, but of course a member can speak anywhere.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Rex Barnes: Just as a question, why would you want to tie up the House of Commons with a member after the report of the ethics commissioner is made public? Most likely that member will discuss it in the public forum anyway. But why would you allow a person to get up and speak for 20 minutes in the House?

Mr. Jacques Saada: As a defence, because the House will make the ultimate decision as to--

The Chair: You don't have to; you just have the right to.

Ms. Margaret Young: With regard to the subsections continuing on right after that, subsections 31(9), 31(10), and 31(11), how the House proceeds when a report has been tabled has been the subject of extensive revisions by the procedural people, our clerk in consultation with others, and they have given it their best shot. I won't go into the details, but you will see that as it is in the final form and you'll have a close look at it. In my view, what they've come up with makes eminent sense.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Margaret Young: Section 32 requires the ethics commissioner to suspend the inquiry if certain things happen--if an offence appears or if there's an investigation or a charge, all obvious things.

Mr. Williams raised the point, what if a member of Parliament resigns in the course of an inquiry? He suggested that maybe that should be a paragraph 31(1)(c).

The other side of that might be that you would lose any precedential value of a report. Of course, an ethics commissioner can always do an opinion.

I'll leave that to you.

Mr. Joe Jordan: You're still subject to criminal charges.

The Chair: That's exactly the point.

Ms. Margaret Young: But if the person resigns, so an inquiry is in process and the person says “I've had enough of this, I'm resigning as a member of Parliament”, does the inquiry continue or not?

Mr. Rex Barnes: Oh, absolutely.

Ms. Margaret Young: It does?

Mr. Rex Barnes: I think it should.

Mr. Jacques Saada: If only to come to the point that he feels the need to refer it to the proper authorities.

Ms. Margaret Young: All right, that's good.

The Chair: Okay, go on.

Ms. Margaret Young: Under “Miscellaneous”, “Rules”, section 33, currently this provision says “The Ethics Commissioner may, with the approval of the Standing Committee...make rules for the administration of the Code.” The rules are tabled in the House, and they come into effect automatically unless there's a negative resolution.

Several members made the point that in their view, the House should have a positive duty to approve these rules. These will be administrative rules. These will be forms, minor matters, perhaps timing questions, that kind of thing.

The procedural people have done two models for you. In each case, instead of the ethics commissioner making the rules with the approval of the committee, the ethics commissioner proposes rules to the procedure and House affairs committee--

» (1720)

The Chair: Listen, if we go where I think, I think it's better to put the two models in the document so that the full committee can consider it in the appropriate place.

Ms. Margaret Young: This is the final point.

The Chair: That's the final point, colleagues.

A voice: Do we have quorum?

The Chair: I believe we do have quorum.

Thomas?

The Clerk: Yes, we do.

A voice: Do we need a motion?

The Chair: The motion I would like, just so you understand clearly what we're doing here, is that the draft report as amended be the interim report of the committee and that the chair present the report to the House. Okay? So it's an interim report, still a draft. I'm making this clear. But I'm going to report it to the House.

Will someone so move?

Mr. Joe Jordan: So moved.

The Chair: Moved by Joe Jordan.

(Motion agreed to)

A voice: Is that a coup?

The Chair: No, it's not a coup.

If my name were Rex, it wouldn't be a coup but regicide that I would be concerned about. Your laugh was pretty good, eh?

The Chair Colleagues, referring to the matter of the referral to us on the question of parliamentary privilege from the House of Commons, we have circulated the material we've gathered that is already in both official languages. We have other documents that are to be translated, and it is a very complicated issue. So it seems to me we simply can't meet on this matter tomorrow, even though we are very cognizant of the fact that the House of Commons has referred it to us. It's my suggestion we come back to this matter next week, perhaps at 11 o'clock, our regular time, on Tuesday.

Do I have agreement on this?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

» (1725)

The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues.

This means there won't be a meeting of this committee tomorrow.

The motion is.... We have the motion.

A voice: There's a motion on electoral boundaries.

The Chair: You have to listen to this, please.

Thomas, explain the motion.

The Clerk: We need to have a motion put in the House, just to cover ourselves, to allow us to extend the time period for consideration of electoral boundaries reports for Ontario and Quebec.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Only if you do what I want.

The Clerk: Well, because--

The Chair: Don't get caught in that.

The Clerk: --the deadline is Monday. If the House suspends--

The Chair: We understand.

The Clerk: --we'll have a problem, and even meeting the Monday deadline might be hard.

The Chair: If you give us a sense of this motion, can approval of the committee now--

The Clerk: I'll write it out. I'm going to suggest we extend it for at least 15 sitting days.

The Chair: Colleagues, given the sense of that motion....

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Does that mean the electoral boundaries for Quebec and Ontario ridings could not officially be recommended once we resume sitting?

[English]

The Clerk: We have two possibilities.

[Translation]

If the House adjourns at the end of this week, we will have a little problem. However, if the House continues to sit next week, that will give us a few extra days to table everything there is to table.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, but if we don't--let's assume that.

The Clerk: But if we don't--

The Chair: This motion allows the committee to present.... I need approval here. You've given us the sense of this motion. If someone moves the motion along those lines now and we vote on it, we've got it.

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, repeat it again, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I just want to ensure I understood. I did not follow.

[English]

The Chair: No, he's going to repeat the motion. Listen carefully.

Colleagues, listen to this motion, please.

The Clerk: The recommendation to the House would be that we extend the period for consideration of the Ontario and Quebec reports by a further 15 sitting days. This would allow us to get it in, and it would cover us also if we don't get it in next week, and you adjourn. We'd come back in September and finalize everything. That would be the worst-case scenario, because that would delay the election.

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Before I vote, I ask what I'm voting on.

Does that mean if it isn't finalized till next September, when the House resumes, then you go a year to the following September for the election?

The Clerk: Yes.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Okay.

The Chair: That's not moved. The motion is on the 15-day extension.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, the committee is adjourned at the call of the chair.