The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the honour to present its

 

FIFTY-SECOND REPORT

 

Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), the Committee has considered matters related to the inclusion of a code of conduct in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

 

On June 13, 2003, the Committee tabled in the House of Commons its Fortieth Report. In that report, the Committee set out in detail its approach to a Conflict of Interest Code, and included a draft Code that was complete except for a few matters that required further consideration. The Committee has now completed those deliberations:  the finalized Code is presented to the House in its Fifty-First Report. In this report, the Committee wishes to make some comments that are intended to be supplementary to the Fortieth Report.

 

The process of arriving at, first, the Fortieth Report, and now these two final reports has been a long but rewarding one. It began one year ago when the Government tabled in the House of Commons a proposed parliamentary ethics initiative, of which a Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians was one part. Over the course of the past year, the Committee heard from a number of witnesses, held roundtable discussions to solicit Members’ comments on our work to date, circulated a working document to all Members of the House, held numerous meetings on all aspects of the Code, and tabled the Fortieth Report, which we characterized as “interim.”

 

The result of our consultations and intensive study is, we believe, a document in which all Members of the House can have confidence. We are convinced that it is a very credible step forward in the self-regulation of this House. We realize that any document such as the proposed Code is, in effect, a work in progress. We fully expect that time and experience will indicate where changes need to be made, and we have provided for both ongoing oversight by this Committee, and a comprehensive review of its provisions and operations every five years.

 

The Committee believes that this Code is desirable and should be adopted by the House. Right from the beginning of our study we have been guided by that belief and by the conviction that the Code should have certain components. Thus, we have retained from the original Government proposal a reference to guiding principles, a disclosure regime that has both confidential and public elements, an independent Ethics Commissioner, and general oversight by the House.

 

In many of its details, however, the Code this Committee is recommending for adoption is very different from that originally proposed. We firmly believe that our changes serve to minimize potential loopholes, to simplify and rationalize the system, to enhance the independence of the Ethics Commissioner, and to ensure fairness for Members.

 

We urge all Members of the House to give the Code their most careful consideration, and to adopt it as part of the Standing Orders.

 

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 5, 6, 8 to 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 55, 62 and 63) is tabled.

 

Respectfully submitted,


Peter Adams
Chair

 

 

---

Canadian Alliance Ancillary and Partially Dissenting Opinion to the Fifty-Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Concerning the Adoption of a Conflict of Interest Code for Members

 

 

The Canadian Alliance members of the Committee are not opposed in principle or in any particular detail to the most recent proposed Conflict of Interest Code that the Committee is recommending.

 

However, the adoption of such a Code is predicated on its administration by an officer of Parliament who is truly independent from the executive branch of the government. This is particularly so in terms of the administration and enforcement of a code of conduct for Members because such an officer will have power over individual private members of Parliament in a way that no other current officer of Parliament has. In fact, current officers of Parliament, such as the Auditor General and the Information and Privacy Commissioners, report to Parliament on the actions of the government itself—not private Members of Parliament.

 

In this case, that person will be the Ethics Commissioner provided for in Bill C-34, which has already passed the House. However, the method of recruitment and appointment of that officer is seriously flawed. Bill C-34 simply provides for his or her appointment by the cabinet after consultation with all party leaders and approval by the House. This means that at best the House can only provide a veto over any suggested appointment by the executive and does not allow the House itself to be intricately involved in the recruitment of this officer. Such a veto is, in any case, within the control of the government majority. Since the Ethics Commissioner will be regulating the activities of private Members of Parliament, they should have an active role in his or her recruitment and thereby have full and complete confidence in that person.

 

During debate over Bill C-34 both in the House and in this Committee, Canadian Alliance members called for the bill to be amended to allow for such an active recruitment role by private Members themselves. We suggested that the legislation incorporate the model used in British Columbia for recruitment and appointment of its Conflict of Interest Commissioner. That model involves an all-party committee receiving, short-listing, interviewing and eventually choosing a nominee, with the practice that such nominee be the unanimous choice of the committee. That nominee is then submitted to the Premier, who is obliged to bring the name to the Legislative Assembly for thir ratification. Such ratification requires an extraordinary two-thirds vote of the members. Despite our best efforts, this excellent model, or one similar to it, was rejected by the government.

 

The other serious defect concerning the Ethics Commissioner is that, under Bill C-34, that officer will have a dual statutory role as he or she will continue to administer the current but quite separate Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Officer Holders, which covers Ministers of the Crown. In that capacity he or she will continue to act as the confidential advisor to the Prime Minister on the conduct of Ministers. It will be impossible for such a person to reconcile the inherent conflict between wearing the hat of an independent administrator of the conduct of private Members while at the same time performing the role of a confidential advisor to the executive. We were given no evidence from any other jurisdiction of such a dual role in one officer. In fact, we were not made aware of any jurisdiction (certainly in none of the provinces) in which there were separate conduct codes for Ministers and private Members of Parliament.

 

For these reasons, the Canadian Alliance members of the Committee, although supporting the proposed Conflict of Interest Code for Members in principle, have severe reservations about its administration and enforcement in light of the flawed method of the appointment and dual role of the Ethics Commissioner, who will not be truly independent from the executive and, in particular, the Prime Minister.

---

Bloc Québécois Supplementary Opinion to the

Fifty-Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

Concerning a Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament

 

 

The Bloc Québécois supports the implementation of a code of conduct for Members of the House of Commons.

 

However, we feel obliged to use this supplementary opinion to point out some shortcomings in the application of this code.

 

The code of conduct adopted by the Committee, which is to be included in the Standing Orders of the House, will apply only to Members and to ministers when they are carrying out their duties as Members. We believe that this code of conduct should also apply to ministers when they are acting as ministers, or else a specific section should be added to cover the conduct of ministers. During the debate on Bill C-34 concerning the Ethics Commissioner, the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment, which was adopted, to require that the Prime Minister make public the code of conduct for ministers. However, that code may still be changed at the pleasure of future prime ministers. It would have been preferable to have the Members’ code apply to ministers.

 

Secondly, we also have concerns about the fact that the Ethics Commissioner responsible for the code will continue to advise the Prime Minister on the conduct of ministers. In our opinion, that will have affect the Ethics Commissioner’s independence.

 

 

Michel Guimond

Member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d’Orléans

 

 

---

New Democratic Party Supplementary Opinion to the

Fifty-Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

Concerning a Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament

 

 

The New Democratic Party supports the implementation of a Conflict of Interest Code that applies to all Members of Parliament, including Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.

 

New Democrats believe it is essential that the selection of the Ethics Commissioners be approved by a minimum two-thirds majority of the House. A two-thirds majority vote in the House of Commons would signal that the Ethics Commissioner’s appointment has the approval not only of the governing party but also of the opposition parties. The appointment of the Ethics Commissioner is about giving a trust to an officer of the House who will be in charge of pecuniary and personal information of all Members of Parliament. This individual will also be making decisions on matters of ethics, which must be clearly non-partisan. To gain the trust of the House, this person cannot be a patronage appointment from the Prime Minister’s Office.

 

The New Democratic Members of Parliament were the first to propose a Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians. Former Member of Parliament for Halifax West, Gordon Earle, introduced his Private Member’s Bill C-488 (Parliamentarian’s Code of Conduct) in the 36th Parliament. This bill was re-introduced in this Parliament as Bill C-299 (Parliamentarian’s Code of Conduct) by the Member for Halifax, Alexa McDonough.

 

The New Democratic Party supports the Conflict of Interest Code, but has strong reservations on the selection process of the Ethics Commissioner proposed in Bill C-34.