EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, August 31, 1995

.0935

[English]

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Armitage): Pursuant to its order of reference adopted June 19 and 28, 1995, the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct is to undertake its study.

The first order of business is the election of the two joint chairs. I am prepared to receive nominations for the election of the joint chair from the Senate.

Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): I move that Senator Oliver be nominated as joint chair.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Armitage): Are there any other motions? It has been moved by Mr. Milliken that the honourable Senator Donald Oliver be elected as joint chair from the Senate.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Armitage): Senator Oliver, would you please take the joint chair.

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms Savage): The next order of business is the nominations for the election of the joint chair from the House of Commons.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I move that the honourable Peter Milliken be elected as the House of Commons' Co-Chair.

The Joint Clerk (Ms Savage): It is moved by Mr. Langlois that Mr. Peter Milliken be elected Co-Chair of this committee.

[English]

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Joint Clerk (Ms Savage): I hear unanimity, I think. Mr. Milliken is duly elected, and I invite him to take his place.

The Joint Chair (Senator Oliver): On behalf of the two co-chairs, I would like to say thank you very much for the confidence you've placed in Mr. Peter Milliken and me to co-chair this very important committee.

We both have looked at some of the ramifications that are involved in this study, and we feel that it's important for Parliament to have a very careful look at this. We would like to be the group, the committee, that finally will be able to come up with a code of conduct and conflict that will pass and that will receive public acceptance, because it's something we feel the public has been waiting for for some time and it's something that will help the parliamentary institution.

Thank you for the trust you've placed in us. We look forward to working with you and for you in the weeks ahead.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): I want to echo Senator Oliver's words and thank all our colleagues in the House and in the Senate for their support.

Today I look forward to working with each of the members of the committee in trying to resolve the issues before us.

May I turn to our order of business? We've completed the election of the co-chairs, but there are a few routine motions the committee will want to consider, first concerning research officers from the library.

[Translation]

Is it your pleasure to pass a motion regarding this?

.0940

[English]

Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I move that this committee avail itself of the necessary help from the library.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Boudria moves

[Translation]

that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work.

[English]

Motion agreed to

Mr. Bodnar (Saskatoon - Dundurn): Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt and simply ask if we have a copy of the items on the agenda?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Sorry, I thought that had been distributed. I apologize. I just assumed that since I had one, you had one too.

There is a second motion on the sheet, if any member is disposed to move such a motion.

Senator Gauthier (Ontario): I will.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Senator Gauthier moves that the joint clerks of the committee be authorized to receive documents and that such documents be translated before being distributed.

Motion agreed to

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Keyes moves that reasonable travelling expenses, as per the regulations established by the Committee on Internal Economy of the Senate and the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons, be paid to witnesses before the committee and that such payment of expenses be limited to one representative per organization.

Motion agreed to

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Is it the wish of the committee to have a steering committee?

An hon. member: Yes.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Is this agreed?

Motion agreed to

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Senator Gauthier moves that the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of six members: the Senate Co-Chair and another Liberal senator, and the House Co-Chair and one more member from each of the three parties of the House.

[English]

Mr. Epp (Elk Island): I would like to know the rationales for specifying that the Senate must send a Liberal senator. It seems to me we're encroaching on the autonomy of the Senate and that they should be able to send here whomever they will, whether that be a Liberal, a Conservative, or a neutral.

I therefore move an amendment that the words ``Liberal Senator'' be deleted from this motion.

Mr. Boudria: It is unfortunate and borders on the preposterous.

The joint chair from the Senate represents the present majority in the Senate, being of course a Conservative senator. Of all people, I would have thought that the member across would have tried to protect the wishes of the minority. For him to be against opposition representation on the steering committee is a little bit odd, to say the least.

If he thinks the opposition in the House has a right to be represented on the steering committee, then one wonders where the logic comes that the opposition, the minority in the Senate as it were, should be denied a similar opportunity. If members from the minority in the Senate aren't going to be on the steering committee, then why not extend that illogic to the House as well?

.0945

Mr. Epp: It seems to me I am not in any way saying that they are not permitted to send a Liberal. They can send whomever they wish. I would hope that the Senate, in its wisdom, would choose to have a balance, as the honourable parliamentarians from the House of Commons would choose to have a balance.

Quite obviously, the majority of the Liberals in the House of Commons could set this committee up in such a way that there are no opposition members here, but they are too wise to do that. All I'm saying is that we ought not, in this committee, to mandate whom the Senate will send here. I'm sure they have the wisdom to balance their membership.

The Joint Chair (Senator Oliver): The purpose was to ensure that the parties represented in the Senate of Canada were equally represented on the important steering committee. Rather than taking any chances whatsoever, it was decided to put it in. It was not intended to exclude anyone, but to make sure that all parties were included in this important committee. It was no more than that. It was not intended to be exclusive but, rather, inclusive.

Mr. Epp: Fine.

Mr. Chairman, I have made a motion to amend this, and my argument stands. I certainly agree with the principle that there should be balance, but I don't think we should be telling them. They should make that decision of their own accord.

Therefore my amendment stands.

An hon. member: Question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Is the committee ready for the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Yes. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my honourable colleague if, for the same reasons, we should strike out the part that says that the three parties represented in the House do not necessarily need to be represented on the committee. If we are to follow the same argument, the House can decide if the three parties will be represented.

[English]

Mr. Epp: I can respond to that. I would have no objection to that because I get the intent from the House of Commons that this balance is to be achieved here.

I think the Liberals in the House of Commons would be very ill-advised to stack this meeting with Liberals, because it would totally discredit the work of this committee if, by mandate, they excluded the opposition parties. That is not what I'm talking about. You have missed the point. The point is that we ought not to be saying here that the Senate has to send a Liberal senator. That's all I'm saying, and that's what my amendment says.

An hon. member: Question.

Amendment negatived

Motion agreed to

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): The next motion?

[English]

Senator Gauthier: Why do we need this?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): I don't know that we do, but we might. I guess it's just one of those routine things. If we have a dinner sometime, we can do it. I guess we can wait and do it later.

Shall we scrap that one? Okay. Agreed.

Senator Gauthier: I'll buy my own lunch.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois: I don't have any objection about paying my own meals since I have to eat anyway, but I at least would like to know if we're going to eat and what we're going to eat. Instead of seeing a plate of sandwiches arrive at 11h50 am, I would prefer that the committee adjourn and give itself a reasonable lunch hour so that we can work efficiently afterwards.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): We can adjourn and come back after.

.0950

[English]

Is it agreed that the meeting schedule, the work plan, and the work of the committee will be referred now to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure so that the work can be done there?

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, point of Order.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Yes.

Senator Gauthier: A committee chairman's primary responsibilty is to maintain order during proceedings. In order to do so, the Chairman or Chairmen must follow and enforce the relevant Standing Order that has been agreed to by all Committee members.

As far as I know, there is no special Standing Order for joint committees, in other words committees with members from the Senate and the House of Commons. We have two chairman, two clerks, two messengers, two researchers, two everything, but if the two Houses are equal,then something will have to be done to establish some common practice.

If we want to follow the tradition of alternating Chairmen, that would be an easy way to solve the problem. If we want to follow the Senate Standing Order when the meeting is chaired by the Senate Joint Chairman, and follow the House of Commons Standing Order when the meeting is chaired by the Joint Chairman from the House, that may be the most practical solution, but I would like to committee to make a decision on that.

On the other hand, it is unacceptable that one of the Standing Orders, be it from the House of Commons or the Senate, override the other, which has happened before. At an External Affairs Committee meeting that I recently co-chaired, there was a slight problem determining whcih Standing Order prevailed and the matter has yet to be solved.

To save time and to avoid getting into too much detail, which would be too boring and pointless since a fact-finding committee made up of senators and members of Parliament are currently studying the issue - there has already been one meeting and there will be another in September - I move that we follow the Standing Orders that are used in the Chamber represented by the chairman of the meeting who will alternate, namely between the House of Commons and the Senate.

If there is any conflict - there could be - or disagreement on Parliamentary procedure, the committee will report to the two respective Chambers asking for clear and specific instructions. The committee might want to vote on a pro-tempore solution, if it so desires. But I want us to be clear that no Standing Order will prevail here and I do not want people to keep thinking there is a Standing Order from the two Houses, since there is none.

I therefore move - in due form - that the Standing Orders of the presiding chairman, that is, either from the House of Commons or Senate, prevail during our proceedings.

That is all I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Senator Gauthier, you had a chance to review the two Chambers' Standing Orders. Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to do so; I am not familiar with the Senate rules and I wonder if it is really necessary to look into the matter at this time.

As you said, a fact-finding committee comprised of members of both Houses is currently reviewing the matter and I am sure you are aware that this fact-finding committee is co-chaired by a senator. We will continue to work on improving the rules on committees that prevail in both houses.

We do not know whether there are contradictory rules on committee business. We have just started our work and I hope we can proceed without any problem, especially for the witnesses who will appear before the committe over the coming weeks.

However, as a preventive measure, I hope the fact-finding committee will provide us with a resolution to this problem.

.0955

Let me rephrase the question. Must we adopt a Standing Order that may not be well understood by all members of the Committee, who are not as familiar as you are with the rules followed in both House?

Senator Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, I do not want to start a tiresome argument nor dwell on this, but there are major differences and I think it would be prudent of a committee dealing with such important issues as conflicts of interest to ensure there isn't any conflict of interest between the House of Commons and the Senate on the rules to be followed.

To be very honest with you, I am moving the motions so that if a problem arises, we will know that the Standing Orders or the rules of the presiding Chairman will prevail. If there is major disagreement, we will report to our respective houses, but we will adopt a pro tempore measure, which is part of the democratic process, in other words, members of the Committee will vote on the matter.

If you want examples, Mr. Chairman, I can give you plenty. I can give you examples of so-called minority reports that don't exist in the Standing Order or a report... There are hundreds of examples and I could list them ad nauseam.

I think this is an intelligent way to proceed. I am suggesting a perfectly reasonable solution: that the Committe simply agree that the Chairman of the meeting, be it from the Senate or the House of Commons, follow his or her rules - it will be his since there are two male joint chairmen - because I think we should take precautionary measures to avoid any conflict or trouble. It is not very complicated!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois: Mr Chairman, I do not know the rules of the Senate except the excerps I read during the GST debate. In fact, I noticed that Senator Charbonneau had nor really enforced those rules.

Perhaps our researchers could find out what the major differences are; then we can see if we really need something more official.

Perhaps I have not gotten as far as Senator Gauthier, but then again, he has a great deal of parliamentary experience in the House and now he is learning something new.

Perhaps then we would all be at more or less the same level and we could head toward that, but I would very much like our researchers to tell us about the major differences, since they have also had experience working for both houses.

Senator Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I see you are about to give the floor to Mr. Robertson, but I think a list of those differences has been prepared, or at least requested, but I do not want to get into details. All I am asking is that you exercise a little caution, just a little!

This is about conflicts of interest. This committee may be dealing with very important issues that are not as important for the Senate as they are for the house, and I would just like to warn you to be careful. We musn't be hamstrung by procedures trying to invent a four-hole button or a new mouse trap. All I am saying is: ``Take a few precautions!'', that is all. If you do not want to, fine! I don't mind.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Robertson has a list of the differences in the rules. It was prepared for the task force, and there's nothing secret about it. He would be happy to make this available to members.

Could I suggest that we refer the matter to the steering committee. The steering committee can look at the rules and see if there's going to be a problem. We might want to adopt a specific rule for this committee. Some of the things are governed in the resolution of the joint houses that establishes the committee. So the steering committee could work out a modus vivendi that will at least take us through the witness part of the committee's work, if that's agreeable. Then we can come back to the full committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): So you're willing to withdraw your motion, Senator Gauthier?

Senator Gauthier: Suspend it, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. I will not withdraw it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): We'll put it in abeyance.

Motion allowed to stand

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Is it agreed, then, that the remaining issues be referred to the steering committee?

.1000

Senator Gauthier: Which House is administering this committee?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Both Houses are administering the committee.

Senator Gauthier: Come on!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): I'm advised that officially the House of Commons is, since the motion originated in that House.

Senator Gauthier: Thank you. That's what I wanted to hear.

An hon. member: Did you know that?

Senator Gauthier: Yes. I never ask a question if I don't know the answer.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Your joint chairs, in anticipation of their election, had a preliminary meeting some time ago with officers of the Library of Parliament with a view to providing members with some briefing material in respect of the work of the committee. Members have already received a briefing book, and we invited members of the staff of the Library of Parliament to appear this morning to give a summary of their work for members of the committee. I wonder if members are disposed to deal with that now and hear that. What is the wish?

I know that some members of the committee who are here today are filling in. Some of the permanent members are away.

What is the wish of members? Do you wish to conclude our meeting at this point, or would you prefer to have the briefing from the staff of the Library of Parliament?

Senator Gauthier, I see that you have views on this.

Senator Gauthier: Most of us have read this material. We've had it in our offices for at least a month.

An hon. member: No way. Not a month.

Senator Gauthier: Well, the House may be slow, but the Senate has had it for at least a month.

Anyway, most of the information is reports that were done in previous committees and research papers presented by the Library of Parliament or other documents. I don't see any purpose in having them explain to me again what happened to Bill C-43, or what happened to the previous committee, or what happened to previous documents that were prepared, unless they have something new to offer.

[Translation]

Senator Bacon (De la Durantaye, Québec): I would not like you to believe that all members of the Senate have a negative outlook and this is why I would like to hear the people who have prepared these documents. Even if they quickly go over them, it would be good to hear this morning those who have put them together since they may help us in our work.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Okay.

[Translation]

Agreed?

Margaret Young and James Robertson from the Library of Parliament are here today to share with us their ideas and their opinions on the subject.

[English]

Mr. Robertson, do you wish to start?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Following the decisions taken by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I would like to know if the proceedings of this committee will be transcribed and published.

And if it comes under your purview, I would like you to order that there be daily transcription of our proceedings and that we hear witnesses.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): The transcript will be made as usual. There will be a taping of this committee hearing.

.1005

What I'm suggesting is that the steering committee would deal with the issue of printing and we'll get an agreement in the steering committee as to how we proceed, whether it's printed in accordance with the Senate rules or the House rules. Since it's a joint committee, I strongly expect it's going to be printed in accordance with Senate rules because they are of a higher standard than the House of Commons rules.

Senator Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, the Senate prints all its proceedings whether you like it or not. That's one of the things we're going to have to do, and it's not for the steering committee to decide that. The Senate has decided that it's not going to go along with the House of Commons and not print proceedings of committees. So the decision is not for us to take. Again, that's an example of things we'll have to address.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Unless the steering committee came back and the whole committee agreed to a recommendation to the Senate that it not print, and then the Senate might well agree to that.

Senator Gauthier: No, no, I beg to differ, sir.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): When I say ``might'', I don't know. But can't we deal with that at the -

Senator Gauthier: The importance of the subject requires that we print, and we will, unless you want to change the Senate rules.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): The matter can be resolved in the steering committee. There will be a transcription made today. How it is printed and all that will be resolved, I presume, by others.

Senator Gauthier: All transcription says or does is.... The clerk will have a copy in his or her office of what went on today, and if you want access to it you have to ask for it, right?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): No.

Senator Gauthier: Then explain to me how it works, because that's the way I understand it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Even if it were on that basis, it would still be available on PubNet under the House rules.

Senator Gauthier: Never mind, we're not plugged into PubNet, or whatever you call it now, in the Senate.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): No, it's going to be there so members can get it printed off.

Senator Gauthier: Members of the House but not the Senate.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): No, it could be printed off by anybody and photocopied and distributed.

Senator Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, do you know what that means? It means that every time we have a meeting and some member from the Senate wants a transcript of what went on, he will have to ask the clerk to get a House of Commons copy so we can get access to the information. I think it's wrong. I've said this before. I will not go along with that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): I'm not asking you to. I am saying we will resolve the matter in the subcommittee.

Senator Gauthier: No, resolve it here in the whole committee. To hell with the subcommittee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): I don't think it needs to be resolved at the moment. This is clearly a matter of budget, because the committee has proposed a budget that has to be approved by the Senate and by the Board of Internal Economy of the House. The printing of the report is going to have budgetary implications for the House and we're going to have to get clearance from the Board of Internal Economy in respect of that. We're going to have to get our budget approved by the whole Senate, which I understand approves committee budgets.

So again, I respectfully suggest we leave this to the subcommittee. I can adjourn the meeting if you wish and we'll have our briefing later after we've resolved the matter. But I don't consider that hearing this material today is in any way going to prejudice the subcommittee in its decision as to how it's going to have the material printed and distributed later.

Mr. Boudria.

Mr. Boudria: To get us in gear, because I think we're stalled, why don't we agree to print today's deliberations so we can go on having deliberations today, and we'll deal with the future at the steering committee. Meanwhile, at least it'll get us moving for the purpose of having the committee record of today's deliberations, which I understand is what Senator Gauthier is looking for. Then we will in fact be moving as opposed to doing nothing.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Senator Gauthier.

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier: Usually, a committee like this one adopts a motion allowing the printing of its proceedings, as the Joint Clerk told you, but it takes money to print, and as far as I know, you don't have any.

Therefore, Mr. Boudria's proposal is sensible and I accept it. But there is no money in the budget for that. At the next meeting, you are going to tell us that there's no money available. We have to anticipate that problem.

.1010

I realize that you have not proposed a motion allowing the printing of the proceedings, the number of copies to be printed and the proceedure to follow for the distribution. In my opinion, it's an unusual procedure and I would like a study to be made, so we can have a clear proposal about printing, the number of issues to be printed and the procedure to be followed for the distribution -

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): We have a budget, Senator Gauthier. The House gives each committee a $10,000 start-up budget, which we are operating on and which will look after the costs of printing today's proceedings.

As I have already indicated, all the other matters have been referred to the steering committee. I asked the committee's approval for that a short time ago and got it, so the matter can be resolved there in respect of future issues. I hope that's satisfactory.

Is the committee agreeable to Mr. Boudria's suggestion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Can we proceed, then, with Mr. Robertson's presentation?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): Thank you, Mr. Milliken. I will speak for the first part of our presentation and then my colleague Margaret Young will speak for the second part.

Briefly, we're going to go through the present rules regarding conflict of interest, both the rules in the Standing Orders and the rules of the Senate as well as a few statutory provisions. We are going to give a brief historical overview of the main developments in the last fifteen to twenty years regarding conflict of interest, briefly look at developments in other jurisdictions, and then deal with a number of selected issues that have arisen in the past and that may be relevant to the committee's consideration in the future.

As was mentioned, a briefing binder of materials has been circulated to members, and we will be highlighting and summarizing a number of the documents that are contained in that.

The starting point, of course, is the order of reference for the joint committee, which is to develop a code of conduct to guide senators and members of the House of Commons in reconciling their official responsibilities with their personal interests, including their dealings with lobbyists.

I guess the important thing at the beginning is to note that this committee has a mandate to develop a code of conduct, which is a somewhat different approach from that in the past, where task forces and the previous joint committee were concerned exclusively with conflict of interest. Code of conduct certainly includes conflict of interest, but it may go further. It may involve other matters such as the use of materials and services, resources that are made available to a member or a senator, conduct unbecoming, and so forth.

The other point is that it is not clear from the mandate whether a code of conduct needs to be a statutory document - that is, something that is enshrined in legislation - or whether it could be just a statement of principles, a set of guidelines or a code that doesn't have a statutory basis. That is one of the things the committee may wish to deal with. It could go for a full statute, a full non-statutory regime, or some combination of the two.

The other issues that come up involve things such as whether you want to deal with members and senators the same or separately, whether you deal with members of Parliament all the same with additional responsibilities for cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries, or whether you just deal with members of Parliament who are not members of cabinet.

These are some of the issues that Ms Young will be discussing.

The basic purpose of a conflict of interest rule or, for that matter, a code of conduct is to restore or enhance public confidence in public institutions and to address public cynicism. Conflict of interest has been around for a number of years at the federal level. It has bedevilled successive federal governments. It is part of the larger question of political morality and it involves things like campaigns, finance, patronage and related matters.

Members are approaching it and they want some clarity. They want to have some way of knowing what they can do and what they can't do and have some way of looking to a document or an individual for guidance and advice.

This committee, unlike the previous joint committee, has nothing before it. There is no bill, there is no formal government position at this point, which creates opportunities for the committee but of course also makes life a bit more difficult because we're starting from scratch.

.1015

The other point that is worth making and is probably self-evident is that no conflict of interest or code of conduct regime is ever going to be perfect, because you can't legislate political or personal morality or codify personal ethics.

Briefly, the current rules regarding conflict of interest - and I stress that we're dealing primarily with conflict of interest, rather than with other conduct - are found in a number of statutes, primarily the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Canada Act. They are also found to some extent in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the Rules of the Senate.

In the Criminal Code the most serious breaches of ethical behaviour are dealt with primarily by making offences of bribery, influence-peddling, and breach of trust. These are general offences that apply to all Canadians, but in certain cases also to members of Parliament.

There is some difficulty with the current provisions of the Criminal Code because they refer to ``officials'', and there is debate and some confusion about whether an ``official'' includes an elected member of Parliament or an appointed senator. The courts have had to get into a lot of machinations to find that these sections include politicians. They've generally found that they do, but you end up having to get into some gymnastics.

The other provision in the Criminal Code says that if you are convicted of an indictable offence and sentenced to more than five years of imprisonment, then you are barred from being a member of Parliament.

The various provisions of the Criminal Code could be amended altogether and cleared up or some fairly minor amendments could be made that would clarify that they are applicable to elected and appointed politicians. That was the approach of the special joint committee in the last Parliament, and certainly it's worth considering.

Whatever is done about conflict of interest or code of conduct, the Criminal Code provisions are sort of over and above the other things.

The Parliament of Canada Act also contains some provisions regarding conflict of interest. They deal separately with senators and members of the House of Commons. The differences are not terribly important, but they have separate sections, which again can lead to some confusion.

Basically, as an individual, an elected or appointed member of the House of Commons or the Senate cannot contract directly with the Government of Canada or receive any benefit under a contract with the Government of Canada.

There seems to be a case that if you incorporate a company and you're the shareholder or a shareholder, then you can contract with the government. The corporation can contract with the Government of Canada as long as it doesn't involve the construction of a public work, which is where the problem comes from. These sections were devised many years ago and are very antiquated. They were devised in the days when governments did not do nearly as much as they do today and the major activity of government was building things.

The special joint committee made a number of recommendations, which would have repealed the existing provisions regarding conflict of interest in the Parliament of Canada Act, replacing them by new provisions. That certainly provides a starting-point for looking at those changes.

There is currently in place for cabinet ministers and for parliamentary secretaries the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders. This is administered by the ethics counsellor, Mr. Howard Wilson. He is a public servant and reports directly to the Prime Minister. He advises, investigates, and does other things, but he remains part of the bureaucracy, part of the Public Service of Canada.

That applies only to public office holders, people appointed by the Prime Minister, and it is not legally enforceable. If somebody breaches it, then the only thing that can be done is to seek the person's resignation or fire the individual.

The code of conduct is a complete code in itself and it's found at the very back of the briefing binder under tab 13.

The Standing Orders of the House and the Rules of the Senate also contain a few provisions that are relevant in terms of conflict of interest. They prohibit members from voting on questions in which you have a pecuniary interest, and if you vote, then your vote can be disallowed if you have a pecuniary interest. This seems to restrict it clearly to financial interests.

.1020

I was looking today in the annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and I understand that no vote has ever been disallowed on the basis of this particular Standing Order in the House. Although people have on occasion questioned whether members had pecuniary interests, usually it was because the person was a director or a shareholder in a company such as Canadian Pacific, Canadian National, or the Canadian Development Corporation.

The Senate has a similar rule. The Senate goes further and says that you cannot sit on a committee that is discussing or considering a matter in which you have a pecuniary interest. That rule does not appear in the Standing Orders of the House. It does appear in the Senate.

The House also has a register of foreign travel. If you go abroad and it is paid for by somebody else who is not with a parliamentary association, then you must register your travel and who is paying for it with the Clerk of the House.

The House also has Standing Orders regarding the offer of money to members and bribery in elections, which again somewhat duplicate provisions elsewhere.

The only other provisions worth noting are that the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act prohibit certain people from running for office or, having been elected to the House of Commons, if they hold certain other offices or have certain other interests.... Again, this is somewhat related to conflict of interest, being designed to ensure that people aren't elected who would be in a position of conflict.

That's it, essentially, as far as the current provisions are concerned. As I noted, this issue has been around for a number of years and has been studied for some time.

The first major study at the federal level involved the Starr-Sharp inquiry. This was a task force that was appointed in 1983 and chaired by the Hon. Michael Starr, a former Ontario cabinet minister, and the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, who was then a former federal cabinet minister.

It seems to have arisen partly because there were some scandals at that time about post-employment activities of ministers, ones who had been defeated or who had not run for re-election and who were lobbying or were somehow involved with government contracts.

This inquiry issued a report that basically proposed a code of conduct, which is relevant for this committee. It went beyond conflict of interest to propose a code of conduct. However, it would have applied only to senior public servants, cabinet ministers, and parliamentary secretaries. It would not have applied to ordinary or private members and senators who were not members of cabinet.

They also recommended an office of public sector ethnics that would provide advice to ministers. It would have an advisory, administrative, investigative, and educational role.

That task force reported just before the 1984 federal general election. It was never really acted upon, although its recommendations formed a large part of the basis for the conflict of interest code for cabinet ministers.

Subsequently Mr. Sinclair Stevens got into some difficulty with various allegations. In 1986 the government appointed Justice William Parker to have a royal commission to look into the allegations involving Mr. Stevens. He came out with a very lengthy and detailed report, which looked at the code for cabinet ministers and made comments on it, pointing out that there were some difficulties with it, particularly with things such as the blind trust, which was one of the ways of avoiding conflict of interest situations.

He advocated public disclosure of all assets, except for a few personal ones, of all cabinet ministers.

Again, his recommendations were quite important. They formed the basis for the legislation that was introduced by the previous government, to which my colleague can refer more.

Ms Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): As Jamie noted, I'm going to give you a brief summary of what the previous bills were. I'm going to allude very briefly to other jurisdictions, and then I'm going to try to highlight what might be some of the issues that will arise in the course of your deliberations.

.1025

As some of you know, there were four bills to regulate conflict of interest in the last two Parliaments, all of which ultimately died on the Order Paper. With the exception of the final one, they were basically the same bill.

The government approach in those bills was to create a three-person conflict of interest commission to oversee both ministers and parliamentarians, to evaluate their confidential disclosure of private interests and those of their spouses, to provide advice, and to investigate when necessary.

Public disclosure was an essential element of this. As Jamie said, it came on the heels of the Parker report. This public disclosure summary document would have been prepared by another official, called the registrar of interests, and any disputes would have been settled by the commission itself.

Those bills also contained rules that are found typically in all of the Canadian jurisdictions against using confidential information to further your own private interests, against trying to influence others' decisions for your own private interests, on gifts, and on post-employment conduct, and also special rules for ministers regarding their outside activities.

In 1992 the third of those bills, Bill C-43, the one to which Senator Gauthier referred, was referred after first reading to the forerunner committee of this committee, a special joint committee of the House and Senate. The general understanding at the time was that it was referred after first reading because there was significant opposition to the content of the bill and it wouldn't have passed second reading.

Essentially, the committee was free to look at the subject-matter of the bill, and it did so. In essence, it rejected the government's bill and a number of its analytical approaches. In particular, it rejected a three-person commission approach. As a model, it selected from a number of the different models that were in existence and took the name of the independent body who would oversee this, the jurisconsult, from the Quebec model, which actually is quite separate from what most of the other provinces do. The jurisconsult would have been an officer of Parliament.

The committee took a number of approaches different from those of the government, but it also took many of the same provisions, including the standard ones on the use of confidential information, influence, etc.

The government response came nine months later in yet a fourth bill, which was also rejected by the committee. This led to an impasse and the demise of both bills.

In the fourth bill the government essentially grafted its own bill for ministers and parliamentary secretaries onto the committee's bill, which the government proposed to retain just for members and senators. The committee felt that this was going to be a cumbersome, unnecessary, and very unwieldy structure.

The committee also relied on certain techniques for dealing with conflicts as they arose, such as declaring your interest and withdrawing from making a decision or participating. The government rejected that as being completely inappropriate for ministers, particularly in view of the fact that a lot of their deliberations take place in secret.

Essentially, there were a number of reasons why that bill didn't go anywhere, and the two members of this committee who were members of that committee no doubt have their own recollections and viewpoints. I'm sure their expertise will be very helpful.

Very briefly, conflict of interest and code of conduct issues are very relevant in other jurisdictions as well. In Canada, Ontario has just recently passed an updated Integrity Act. They don't call it a conflict of interest act any more. Most of the other jurisdictions have fairly recent statutes. All of the modern statutes date from the mid- to late 1980s and onward.

Again, most of them have followed the model of confidential disclosure, followed by public disclosure, to an independent body that has the power to provide advice and conduct independent inquiries. They also have the rules I mentioned before regarding the use of confidential information, trying to influence for your own private benefit, and so on.

.1030

The most visible of these provincial bodies is the one in B.C. You might have heard of the work of Commissioner Ted Hughes. His most recent report was in a very high-profile case of Premier Harcourt. This was a decision that was released just in the spring.

We have included in the briefing binder at tab 12 an overview of the provincial legislation that was prepared by the office of the ethics counsellor. That is a very handy introduction to it. Some of it now is a little bit out of date, particularly with regard to Ontario. At the library we have prepared a more comprehensive and more detailed chart of all Canadian jurisdictions, which we will be distributing later to members.

Events in Britain are also relevant, given the parliamentary antecedents and structures. In Britain a committee was established last year to make recommendations on standards in public life. Under the chairmanship of Lord Nolan, the committee released its first report in May. You will be getting shortly a summary of that report as it is specifically relevant to parliamentarians.

Lord Nolan recommended that members should develop a code of conduct for themselves. I should stress that he was dealing just with the House of Commons, not with the lords. He also recommended a tightening up of the current register of members' interests that has been in place for some time for British parliamentarians. He recommended putting an independent officer of Parliament in charge of it.

He also recommended, in a refrain that will start to sound familiar, that this independent officer should have the power to investigate allegations of non-compliance and report his findings to a subcommittee of the House.

The United States is a quite different situation. It has a very highly developed disclosure system. Issues continue to recur, of course. Particularly of current controversy are issues such as gifts and honoraria, particularly with regard to lobbyists. These continue to be an ethics issue for them.

I'd like to move now to some of the important issues you might want to deal with. Obviously the agenda of the committee is for the agenda, but these issues are drawn from the provincial statutes, the previous legislative efforts, and the issues that have intrigued members in the past.

As Jamie mentioned, an overriding issue, something you might want to keep in mind, is whether the code should be statutory or non-statutory. A statute might carry more weight. On the other hand, it would be less flexible than a code passed by a motion of each chamber. Lord Nolan in Britain recommended the resolution approach so that at the beginning of each new Parliament the members would refresh their memories of their obligations. That was the approach he took. However, as I have noted, all the provinces in Canada have taken a statutory approach.

What should the code contain? Again, from some in the past, one of your overriding considerations will be who should be included and to what extent. In particular, you will want to make a decision as to the place of ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and ministers of state in the code.

You could take a number of different approaches. In past federal bills, all of them were included in the same statute. Jurisdiction was given to the independent body.

Alternatively, all parliamentarians could be required to be subject to the minimal requirements of the code and additional requirements could be left to a separate code established by the Prime Minister, which would no doubt be similar to the current code. Alternatively, I suppose you could have one code for ministers and a separate one for other parliamentarians.

In connection with coverage, as your predecessors have done, you will no doubt have to address the issue of the coverage of spouses - dependants as well, but spouses in particular.

That continues to be a controversial issue, but it is generally thought to be difficult to maintain the position that if the financial interests of members are required to be disclosed - and I make no presumptions about that - then the spousal interests also are relevant.

.1035

The scope of the code of conduct definitely could well be broader than conflict of interest. But I point out to you in this context that the Parliament of Canada specifies that the Board of Internal Economy on the House side and the Senate committee and indeed the Senate on the Senate side have exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the proper use of the funds, premises, expenses, and goods and services that are provided to parliamentarians for their use in their official duties. So, for example, there might well be ethical questions with regard to franking privileges or whether certain office expenditures are legitimate, but that comes within the jurisdiction of these other bodies, so it would not be appropriate for your code of conduct.

Some of the major elements of a code of conduct that you might want to consider - and there are many models to go on once you start making decisions - are as follows.

You might want to consider a purpose clause or a principles clause to guide the interpretation of it. For example, the previous committee suggested that there were a number of purposes of a statute, including the desirability of attracting individuals with broad experience who could, not for ministers but for other parliamentarians, continue their outside interests. There was a principle, which you'll find in other jurisdictions as well, that members are under an obligation to perform their duties in a way that will maintain public confidence and so on. As I say, there are a number of models there.

You might want to define conflict of interest or you might want to leave it implicit in various rules that you propose. But one key decision would be whether you want to focus on decision-making or a broader approach that focuses on opportunities to advance personal interests.

There were a number of common rules, which I've mentioned before. There are a number of models for these. They include a general prohibition on furthering your private interests, a prohibition on using your influence or trying to influence decisions of others, a prohibition on using insider information to further your own private interests, gifts, personal benefits, and so on.

I've mentioned public disclosure in several contexts. This is because it is generally accepted by most commentators that public disclosure is a cornerstone - it's not the whole building, but it is a cornerstone - of a modern regime dealing particularly with conflicts of interest but also with the broader code of conduct. It is a typical feature of most systems. Even in Great Britain, which has no statutory guidance, they have a register of members' interests.

The public disclosure typically is preceded by confidential disclosure to the independent person, or whomever you will decide on, who advises and assists in the preparation of the public information.

Under this rubric one issue that occurs is what interests do not have to be disclosed at all because there is very little potential for conflict of interest. These are the kinds of interests that are your house, your cottage, your car - things like that.

I'm going over it very quickly. If you'll look through the previous committee report and the previous bill, then you will notice that the disclosure requirements and the disclosure details form a very significant part of the regime you'll be looking at.

There are compliance techniques besides the prohibitions and the disclosure. These were particularly emphasized in the previous committee's work.

They include the technique of declaration of an interest and withdrawal.

This is a procedure that answers the question, what if, following my best efforts, I find that I have a conflict? This approach would say that you may deal with that by declaring the interest and withdrawing from the situation, or, alternatively, by being required to seek the advice of the independent officer.

.1040

As we mentioned, this committee's mandate is broader than that of prior committees in that it includes lobbying. This is new ground. There is no guidance in the previous work of the committees. There is no guidance in the main provincial legislation.

Suffice it to note that the Parliament of Canada Act prohibits parliamentarians from receiving compensation for services with regard to any parliamentary proceeding or committee or from attempting to influence a parliamentarian. So that might be a basis on which you could start.

You will notice that the prohibition does not extend to receiving compensation for lobbying with regard to government activities. So a contractor, for example.... No doubt it's a grey area, but it would not appear to prohibit payments for lobbying a government official if that were desired.

That I leave open to you. This is new ground.

As Jamie mentioned, you might also want to consider government contracting. Excellent precedents are available for that.

In connection with your code of conduct, if you should go by this route, you might well decide that, yes, there should be a responsible authority to have the role that has been described before that would deal with the confidential disclosures, public disclosures, that would provide advice. I think advice is the essence of all of the independent bodies that are established elsewhere, and in this it might be prudent again to emphasize the importance of the independence.

The office of the ethics counsellor currently is part of the civil service; it's part of the executive. This committee, as is obvious, deals also with opposition members, as do the House and the Senate. So whatever you do, you need to keep that in mind: we're not talking about just the executive members of Parliament.

I could go on. There's much more to say. Both of us have given an overview. If you have any questions, that will be fine. Otherwise, that concludes what we have to say.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): I thank both of you for a very thorough presentation of the principal issues, which I think is going to be very helpful to the committee members.

Mr. Boudria, do you have a question?

Mr. Boudria: I have a few, just to refresh my memory. Maybe I even knew the answer to some of these things before, but if I did, then I've forgotten.

On the British example, is it not true that the present system they have is that whatever rules they have in regard to conflict of interest - and I think they have to do only with registering - it's a resolution of the House that supports a committee report and then a committee of the House administers what's in that report, and that's basically how the thing is governed? Is that correct about the present system?

Ms Young: Yes, that's essentially it. The oversight is by House committee. The registrar is merely an official, who has no independent decision-making in the sense that he does not require members to register. If a member says that he doesn't think an interest is registrable, then the matter goes to committee, and ultimately to the House, I presume. But it is all done by resolution and by committee oversight.

Mr. Boudria: I have a question on this business of contracting by an MP on a public work. I recognize that it's a difficult one under the present rules because the language is antiquated.

If I were to ask you a hypothetical question - for instance, if I as an MP or one of my colleagues owned shares in or owned outright a company that produces computer programs, then I suppose the old-fashioned view would be to say that's not a public work.

Yet some of these things are as expensive as building bridges. Some people who design these things are a lot richer than people who build bridges. The richest guy in the world designs computer programs.

.1045

So the question I'm asking is this: under any kind of definition we have, or even under the jurisprudence to date, would that kind of stuff be a public work right now?

Mr. Robertson: I don't believe it would be considered to be a public work. I don't know when these sections were last invoked, though. That's part of the problem: whether, if somebody were to launch an action in the exact situation you gave rise to, the courts would try to find a way to interpret ``public work'' very broadly to ensure that somebody doesn't get away with something. They might.

Mr. Boudria: Is what you're talking about part of the Criminal Code, or is it part of the Parliament of Canada Act?

Mr. Robertson: That's part of the Parliament of Canada Act.

Mr. Boudria: Is it still true that the Parliament of Canada Act activates some of these sections? Do you have to launch a private action, which is a curious legal instrument that isn't used much, except in that statute and perhaps a few others? Could you explain to us how that works?

Ms Young: Everything about those provisions is, in your words, antiquated. I think the special joint committee in the past called them antiquated as well, including the method of enforcement. Also, the sanction is accumulated day by day, which also is not a method that is used any more.

In terms of how that would happen, you talked about jurisprudence. I don't believe there is anything, and partly it's because these provisions are basically dead. They guide action, but in terms of enforcement I'd be very surprised.

Mr. Boudria: What about the legal instrument that is used? Let's say, for the purposes of the argument, that Mr. Langlois suspected me of being in breach of that. Is the method that he would use to cause this kind of investigation a private action? Is that how it's referred to?

Ms Young: Yes.

Mr. Boudria: How does that work?

Ms Young: These sums are recoverable by people who sue for them in the courts, which makes very little sense in 1995.

Mr. Boudria: So it's almost like a private criminal suit.

Mr. Robertson: It's more a private civil suit. Basically, there's a penalty provided for in the statute, but it is recoverable only by an individual taking action as opposed to -

Mr. Boudria: It's a private civil suit about an offence that occurred against the Crown, not against the individual.

Mr. Robertson: That's right.

Mr. Boudria: At some point I'd love to have some of you legal experts explain to me how this works. I'm not a lawyer. I'd be curious to see if that is still used. Was it used by anyone recently?

Mr. Robertson: I suspect it was used in the very early years of this century, when there were a lot of private bills and members were not full-time politicians. We can go back and see if it has ever been used, but to our knowledge, it certainly hasn't been used in the last 20 or 30 years.

Mr. Boudria: You touched on the issue of MPs as lobbyists. Would I be correct in saying that in Britain that is in fact possible, that an MP can be a lobbyist or something close to it? In other words, MPs receive stipends from corporations and various groups and that is in conformity with their rules.

Ms Young: In Britain what are called paid parliamentary consultancies are common.

Mr. Boudria: Consultancies?

Ms Young: Yes. They're called parliamentary consultancies.

An MP may accept a retainer from an outside party - for example, a company or an industry association - to represent or to.... What they can actually do is very interesting. In theory, what they may give is parliamentary advice.

.1050

What they may not do is advocate or be required to advocate, by the nature of their contract in Parliament, for that body. But the difference between advocating in Parliament for a given position and providing advice to a person or trying to influence something is very difficult to draw.

These paid consultancies have increased in recent years and have been the cause for some concern, but not to the degree that we, from this side of the Atlantic, perhaps would think. It comes from a long history of the part-time member. Members weren't even paid for much of the British parliamentary history, and there is a lot of resistance to limiting the ability of members to have these kinds of contracts.

Lord Nolan dealt with it in his report. He was prepared to go only as far as saying that consultancies should not be allowed where they were for a general...for example, public relations firm, so that you couldn't tell who the client was. He was prepared to say only that the issue should be studied where the client was known and disclosed. In other words, if a member was a paid consultant for a pharmaceutical company, then that would be disclosed and that at least would be known. If he was a lobbyist or a paid consultant for a public relations firm that had 50 companies as clients, then he did not like that, because you can't know who the clients are.

In Britain there is a feeling that if these things are disclosed, then perhaps they are not so bad. However, the political climate is quite different from what I think would be accepted in Canada.

Mr. Boudria: Not that I'm advocating it - quite the contrary, as a matter of fact - but under our rules, as you understand them, would this be even...? Never mind legally; I don't think it would be morally acceptable, because you would have the same way of looking at it. Would that practice be legal in Canada under the present Parliament of Canada Act?

Ms Young: My view of the Parliament of Canada Act would be that a member cannot take money or any compensation with regard to anything that is before Parliament or a committee.

Mr. Boudria: So the answer would be no.

Ms Young: I think it would be no. Note, however, that if the person were wanting representations made to government officials, then perhaps that would not be covered.

Mr. Boudria: That's under the Standing Orders, though.

Ms Young: The Standing Orders merely require that you not vote if you have a direct pecuniary interest. I might read you the section, and this will also remind you that it has some antiquated language:

The offer of any money or other advantage to any Member of this House for the promoting of any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament,

- I'm sorry; it's just in Parliament, not in committees -

is a high crime and misdemeanour, and tends to the subversion of the Constitution.

Mr. Boudria: So what you're reading about now would be lobbying.

Ms Young: The offer of any money or other advantage. I thought there was something else as well. I think there is.

The Parliament of Canada Act says it's Parliament and a committee in connection with any business transacted there. So, yes, if you were to be paid to advocate a position in a committee, then that would clearly be against the Parliament of Canada Act.

Mr. Boudria: I am asking the reverse. I think that's clear. In other words, you couldn't lobby.

Ms Young: Be paid, yes.

Mr. Boudria: You couldn't be a paid lobbyist. What about in reverse? Could an MP in Canada receive fees for giving advice to...? I don't know. Say that the pharmaceutical association was paying an MP. Would that be legal? I mean, not for advocating their position in Parliament -

Ms Young: I'm not sure that's a -

Mr. Boudria: - but for advising the group as to what goes on in Parliament, which I understand is what is presently legal in Britain.

.1055

Ms Young: No, it's for services rendered in relation to any bill proceeding, contract claim, controversy charge, accusation or arrest or any other matter before the Senate, the House of Commons or a committee of -

Mr. Boudria: So it covers it both ways, in other words.

Ms Young: It covers it both ways, but clearly just parliamentary. Again, as I say, if a company in a member's riding wanted to pay for assistance in getting a contract with the government and the member lobbied bureaucrats, I'm not sure this would be covered.

Mr. Boudria: Wouldn't the bribery provisions cover that?

Ms Young: Perhaps. It certainly seems wrong.

Mr. Boudria: No doubt.

Mr. Robertson: I think the bribery would apply more if you were paying the public servant who was charged with issuing the contract. If you gave him or her money under the table, that's bribery. But whether you're paying a consultant to get this contract for you or you decide, for whatever reason, to pay your member of Parliament or a senator to get the contract for you, it may not be a contravention of the law regardless of the morality involved.

Ms Young: I wish we had the code here, because I think the Criminal Code would -

Mr. Boudria: I think that clarifies it at least a bit, as confusing as it is. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Senator Gauthier.

Senator Gauthier: We're not the only ones looking at this question. I understand the Canadian Judicial Council is also looking at that. You're both lawyers, I take it, and I know one of our chairmen is a lawyer, God bless him.

An hon. member: They both are.

Senator Gauthier: You're both lawyers? Oh, we're in deep trouble.

Could you find out for me exactly what the issues are before the Canadian Judicial Council, which is actually looking at the code of conduct and the conflict of interest, and probably bring us a briefing paper as to where they are in terms of their work so we can familiarize ourselves with -

A voice: [Inaudible - Editor] ...members of the judiciary. That's their....

Senator Gauthier: I don't know. You're the lawyer. All I heard is that Sopinka - is it Sopinka?

A voice: Yes.

Senator Gauthier: In a comment that I read in the press, he said that possible consequences of this code of conduct they're establishing would probably restrict their freedom of speech. I'm just wondering exactly what the connotation is here and how we compensate for those rights that may be in jeopardy.

My other question has to do with the registrar in London. I met him. I don't know ifMr. Milliken was there when we went to London - I think you were there - but we met the registrar. Who names him? I never got that clear. Who appoints him?

Ms Young: I'm not sure. My understanding is -

Senator Gauthier: Would you find out for me?

Ms Young: - that he is an official in the office of the clerk.

Senator Gauthier: I know that, but who appoints him, the clerk? Is it the government? Who is it?

Ms Young: I can find out.

Senator Gauthier: Also, what's the term of office and his or her functions? Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Are there any other questions for our witnesses today?

Mr. Epp.

[English]

Mr. Epp: It's my understanding - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that currently there is nothing preventing a member of Parliament or a senator from earning money besides his salary as a senator or a member of Parliament. Is that correct?

Mr. Robertson: Unless they are a cabinet minister or parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Epp: Right.

Senator Gauthier: Just a minute. If a minister is a farmer, for example, he doesn't have to give up farming just because he is a minister. You don't have to sell your business because you become a minister. You have no conflict there. The conflict occurs when you get monetary considerations for the services you render, not for what you've done all your life. A medical doctor doesn't have to give up his practice, for example, or his licence just because he happens to be elected to Parliament.

An hon. member: A farmer would have to sell his farm if he wanted to be the Minister of Agriculture.

Senator Gauthier: Would he?

An hon. member: I would think so.

Senator Gauthier: I'm not so sure. They usually have a blind trust administered by some trusted friend, I guess, or a corporation.

A voice: I don't think he would have to sell it.

.1100

Senator Gauthier: If it is that, we would have to -

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Yes, it's section 17 on page 13.

Senator Gauthier: Pardon me?

Mr. Robertson: Mr. Milliken has come up with it in the code. It's section 17, on prohibited activities. I'll just read it quickly, since it's very short:

...public office holders shall not, outside their official duties,

(a) engage in the practice of a profession;

(b) actively manage or operate a business or commercial activity;

(c) retain or accept directorships or offices in a financial or commercial corporation;

(d) hold office in a union or professional association; or

(e) serve as a paid consultant.

I believe with farms there is an issue as to whether it is a business or commercial activity, first of all, and then whether you are actively managing or operating it. If you had a child or a manager doing that, you may not have to dispose of it; you may be able to put the farm business into a trust of some sort, such as a blind trust. But I think there could well be difficulties if you were managing the farm itself as well as trying to be a cabinet minister.

Senator Gauthier: There again, that applies to ministers.

Mr. Robertson: That's right, and parliamentary secretaries.

Senator Gauthier: My point wasn't answered for obligations of members of Parliament.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Do you have any more questions?

Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois: I'm wondering about a member of Parliament or a senator who practices his legal profession and who would like to defend the interest of a specific party to whom one of the Acts of Canada's Parliament would apply.

Let me give you an example relating to Bill C-58 on the RCMP. A lawyer representing the RCMP's officers claims, in a case pending in court, that the provisions of the Constitution of 1982 gives the officers of the RCMP the right to form a union. And there is a bill in the House dealing with these specific questions. In your opinion, would the lawyer have to abstain from voting on the bill if he's also a member of Parliament or a senator?

[English]

Ms Young: The requirement in the Standing Order that you not vote where you have a pecuniary interest has been interpreted to apply to basically private bills. So on any public bill on which members of the public in general have an interest, it would be acceptable for a member to vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: My other question is the following: Is there any provision in the regulations or the Parliament of Canada Act which prohibits the selling of services by a member of Parliament? Let's take the following example: A member of Parliament decides that instead of having one 800 phone line for his constituents, he'll have one 900 number for which there is a $5 a minute charge in order to raise funds. Is there any provision which would keep him from doing so?

[English]

Ms Young: There's nothing in general that addresses that question. My suggestion would be that it would be under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy on the House side because that would be a use of the services and premises and goods provided to members. If the members were provided with a phone line and then they charged for it, that would seem to be under House jurisdiction.

If there is a specific rule, I don't know of it, but your inquiry would be directed to the Board of Internal Economy.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Are there any other questions?

I now give the floor to Senator Gauthier.

Senator Gauthier: I don't have any questions. But I would like the Chair to tell me about the quorum of this committee which has 11 members. Are there any special provisions for the hearing of witnesses?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Yes, six members must be present for the hearing of witnesses.

Senator Gauthier: Is this in the order of reference?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): It is in both Chambers' motion. I only have with me the English version which reads as follows:

[English]

That the quorum of the Committee be eleven Members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six Members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;

.1105

A voice: I have one more question. If we have briefs from witnesses who will appear before us, could we have the briefs before the committee holds its meetings? It's a discovery for me, coming to the Senate, to see that we come to the committee meetings and we have the briefs, or sometimes the witnesses don't even have a brief. It's not easy. We're super men and super women, but it's not easy to ask proper questions sometimes when you don't have anything.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): I am told that the practice of the clerks is to ask the witnesses, if they have a brief, to have it prepared in advance so it could be distributed to members, and we will endeavour to do that.

From my own experience, I've had witnesses arrive who said they would not have anything in writing and then suddenly decided the night before to produce something in writing and seek to distribute it at the meeting. Obviously we can't control that, but we will do our utmost to see that materials are distributed to members in a timely fashion.

It is for that reason that Senator Oliver and I met informally with the library staff to prepare this book to assist members of the committee.

A voice: Okay.

Mr. Pickard: Mr. Chair, I really think we can control witnesses in helping people understand the issues and deal with the issues. Even if they don't have a long written brief of 20 minutes or half an hour, they can give the fundamental points they are going to present to the committee a reasonable time ahead, a week ahead or 10 days ahead or whatever, so committee members can review what is being booked. I think we can demand that of anybody who comes.

It seems to me that more and more, in some committees I sit on, at the last minute we are getting somebody coming along and handing it to us. While I'm sitting at the table listening to the witness, I'm trying to read it. I don't believe that's using my time valuably, I don't believe it's using the witness's information valuably, and I think we should be a heck of a lot more demanding when people are coming here. We are paying their expenses to come. Why can't they give us a general outline of their principles and ideas before they come?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Pickard, I think your point is well taken, and I think particularly with the subject-matter the committee is dealing with, it would be a reasonable request of witnesses to give us that information in writing. We will seek to do that in each case and try to have something for members on a timely basis.

Mr. Pickard: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Is there any other business? Senator Gauthier.

Senator Gauthier: I don't want to prolong the meeting, but what are we doing in terms of calling witnesses? Who is going to decide to present a list of appropriate witnesses? Are we asked at this time? Can we offer advice? Can we offer you names? I just want to have some direction here from the chairs. We've met before and discussed this -

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): I suggest that what you do -

Senator Gauthier: - prior to the election, mind you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Oh, we had a discussion, and a steering committee has now been struck to -

Senator Gauthier: Is that right? May I have the composition of that steering committee, sir?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Yes. It's two senators -

Senator Gauthier: Who are they, with names?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): One Liberal senator and the co-chair.

Senator Gauthier: May I have the names, please?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): We are waiting for the Senate to tell us who it'll be, and I assume we'll hear it in due course. I expect -

Senator Gauthier: I see. Who's from the House, then?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): There will be your co-chair and one from each of the three parties. And again, I suspect -

Senator Gauthier: They are not named as yet.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): No, sir.

Senator Gauthier: That's my point. I take it the steering committee will be receiving suggestions as to how soon we start working. We have to make a report by October 31, so we'd better move. We've little time to waste waiting for the steering committee to gather themselves and have their appointments confirmed by their whips or whoever does it. All I'm asking is how soon will this committee meet and are we asked here today to propose names of certain witnesses?

.1110

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): The proposal I am suggesting is that the steering committee would meet on Tuesday, September 19, and make arrangements to have the committee meet shortly thereafter. If there's a general desire that we can determine in the meantime for the committee to meet sooner than that - that is, on September 18 or later on September 19.... I note that the Senate will not be sitting until September 26. I don't want to ruffle any feathers by suggesting undue meeting dates, but if we can arrange a time to meet on September 18 or 19, then I suggest that we should do that. I think there'd be a disposition to hear the ethics counsellor as an early witness, since he has expertise in the area and some experience that I suspect the committee might want to hear about in relation to dealings with the minister. So if we could agree that far, then I am prepared to try to arrange a convenient meeting date for the committee.

I note - and I say this so all the senators will realize this is a problem - that because redistribution, Bill C-69, has not been dealt with in the Senate, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs now has 75 objections to the current redistribution proposals, which it must hear. It has 30 sitting days in which to hear them, starting on September 18. So the members of that committee are under some considerable pressure, and it's going to be a little bit difficult to fix times when I am optimistic we could get members of the procedure and House affairs committee to attend to their other duties. So there is a problem here and we're going to have to deal with that.

Senator Gauthier: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I know you're going to be overworked and underpaid, but that's your problem, not mine.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): That is true.

Senator Gauthier: We have a deadline, October 31. If you wait until September 20 to advertise that this committee exists and is asking for submissions to the committee, then it will be some time in October before we can start really logically and rationally hearing those witnesses, because you have to give at least two weeks in order to give the clerks the notice that they want to appear.

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that we don't intend at this time to do a quick job on this. If we do so intend, then I will just resign from this committee right now, because two or three weeks of looking at a very serious subject-matter of this nature with the workload that you have, which you just explained to me, makes it absolutely physically impossible for us to report by October 31.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): I think there's a willingness to move to extend the deadline if need be.

Senator Gauthier: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): The steering committee can deal with all this work, Senator Gauthier. You want to jump the gun on everything in the meeting, and I'm not sure -

Senator Gauthier: I'm not jumping the gun; I'm asking questions.

Mr. Pickard: To meet Mr. Gauthier's concern - and I think he has a valid one - I believe it could be handled rather easily by suggesting that within the next week to ten days, any members who have recommendations for people they would like to see as witnesses to the committee should submit them to the clerks, and the clerks can deal with them, whichever clerk they feel is appropriate. Submit them, and then the subcommittee can review them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Absolutely. I was just going to suggest that, Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Boudria: Would there be a consensus on doing our meeting with the ethics counsellor before September 18? I know it's easier for me than for anybody else to say that, because I live nearby. Before anyone else brings it up, I'll be the first to concede that.

Having said that, I'm just wondering whether there would be such a disposition. If so, then we could have that, and on that day, after we hear that witness, we could have the motion to appoint the steering committee. We can't even do it any more now; we've ceased to have a quorum in this room.

Or we could try right away to have it as the first thing on September 18, because one of the first things we have to do is appoint this steering committee.

I recognize everything else that has been said, plus the 75 objections to that electoral redistribution bill that we have no choice about hearing. We have to do so. Under the statute, the committee must hear every one of them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Epp, are you likely to be the representative of your party on the steering committee?

.1115

Mr. Epp: In fact, it is actually now quite likely that I will not be. As you probably know, we're having a caucus meeting in the week before Parliament reopens and it would be very difficult for us to have someone here - unless it were next week, and I'm not sure I can get somebody lined up that quickly. So it is a problem.

[Translation]

Le coprésident (M. Milliken): Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois: We're in somewhat the same situation. You know, Mr. Chairman, that I am a member of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is legally required to take the objections into account, to hear them. Of course, one must understand that the government did act rather early with Bill C-18 which had been buried since the winter of 1994. One cannot fault the House for dragging its feet on that and we are stuck by those restrictions.

We should perhaps take things in the proper order and if we must extend the deadline or ask for an extension, then that is what we will have to do.

You must understand that the week before the House resumes, our party will also be having a caucus meeting and next week I will probably need two days for the Sub-Committee on National Security. So I am willing to do a lot of things, but I would like to do them well. I might prefer to do less, in order to do better.

I also understand Mr. Boudria. He has an advantage over me as far as distance is concerned and we can more easily get around in Ottawa.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): May I make a suggestion to the Committee? We meet on Monday September 18, in the afternoon; since practically no other committee will be sitting at the same time, we could perhaps meet all day with the legal council in order to discuss this issue?

Does the Committee agree with this suggestion?

[English]

Mr. Pickard: Mr. Chair, I would agree with that as long as the agenda for that meeting is structured so that we can really move on quickly. I think the question here is not a matter of getting the work done; if we're going to get under way and we're going to meet any time commitments, we really have to be structured well.

If you have arrangements for the subcommittee to be appointed and certain witnesses to be heard and you structure it so that you can do the things within, I would say, at least three or four hours.... You could be gone a long way down the line before the subcommittee had to sit down and work out details beyond that if you know specifically who you want as witnesses ahead of time.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Well, if members submit names.... I can tell you that the library staff have prepared a list, which I'll circulate to members now, that may give ideas to members, and members may express views to the clerks on this list, which could be carried forward to the steering committee. However, I think the steering committee needs to meet either later on the Monday or on Tuesday, and we'll work that out. But we could at least have a meeting of the committee and hear witnesses on Monday, September 18, sometime after Question Period is through.

Mr. Pickard: What about a tentative list of witnesses, then, to be submitted? Then a final decision can be made by -

An hon. member: Leave it to the final authority of the co-chairs.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): We'll work something out for that day.

Mr. Pickard: Okay.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Why don't we send the list to the offices later this day, unless members want to come and pick one up. Is that agreed?

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, let's be clear about the process. Tentatively we'll meet on September 18 and we'll hear the conflict of interest commissioner, probably after Question Period. We would get ourselves ready at that point to appoint the members of the steering committee. After that's over, the steering committee could meet right then on that day, or shortly after on that day, so we don't lose any time. Is that the tentative agenda for that first day back?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Yes.

Mr. Boudria: If I might add, between now and then our clerks will be sending to members of both Houses invitations to offer names of witnesses we might want to bring forward so that we have that list for both the full committee and the steering committee on that first day we're back. Do I have all that straight?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Agreed.

Mr. Boudria: Okay, thank you.

.1120

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to be sent the original copy. The Parker Report, the translation, is being quoted. I always like to read the original text to see what the nuances might be and my text is in French. Do we get our bills with the French and English versions together. I'd like to be able to complete my book.

An honourable member: Perhaps Mr. Robertson could send you one.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): We'll get that done.

Meeting adjourned.

The meeting stands adjourned.