[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 15, 1996
.1730 
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I call this meeting to order. We have appearing today as a witness Ms Judith Manley, the chair of the Parliamentary Spouses Association.
.1735
[Translation]
We would like to welcome you to the committee, Ms Manley. I'm sure you have something to tell us about your association's position on the issues the committee is studying.
[English]
You're most welcome to make a presentation. I'm sure hon. members of the committee and senators will have questions for you.
[Translation]
Ms Judith Manley (President, Parliamentary Spouses Association): Thank you. I don't have that much to say.
[English]
As president of the Parliamentary Spouses Association, and with the help of two lawyers within our membership, I've looked at conflict of interest questions from the perspective of a spouse. We had no discussion on code of conduct regarding behaviour per se.
First, we reviewed some materials indicating the status of the issues in other jurisdictions. Generally we learned that our provincial and territorial legislatures have well-defined codes in place, complete with consequences for non-compliance that vary from divestment to resignation. The United States has an extensive ethics code imposed exactingly on all members of the House and Senate and their spouses and dependent children. The United Kingdom in the past only required disclosure by members, but is in the process of tightening up its code.
Second, we reviewed the little bit of membership response that we did receive, which ranged from resentment of the upheaval and invasion of privacy that spouses already experience, through concern about who will be attracted into politics if things get too restrictive, to support for full disclosure by spouses and members alike. There is a commonly held view that there are few perks and many sacrifices already.
Next we had discussion about some of the categories under review by the committee and formed some loose conclusions. We agreed that we are concerned that the committee should focus on large issues and real conflicts. Carrying apparent conflict too far in areas like the receiving of gifts and hospitality will hamstring normal social exchange. We do not object to a listing of assets, but there is a difference of opinion as to how precisely. We do object to a net worth evaluation and publication. We do find it interesting that some of the prime movers on disclosure are newspaper publishers. We do prefer closed-door disclosure to an intermediary over public notification.
We recognize the need for disclosure, but we have to emphasize our interest in preserving the legitimate privacy interests of our members. It is our desire that a level of disclosure be achieved that satisfies the public without going too far.
Finally, we request the opportunity to respond early to this committee's recommendations.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Respond early to whom, to the committee again? Whom were you thinking of responding to?
Ms Manley: Some of the members requested that we see early whatever you come up with so that we can respond somehow.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I see, so before our recommendations are presented to the respective houses.
Ms Manley: That was the request.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Okay, Senator.
Senator Bosa (York - Caboto): Mr. Chairman, I was wondering what Mrs. Manley meant at the very beginning when she said ``behaviour per se''.
Ms Manley: At the time we were meeting, there had been some discussion among some people somewhere about behaviour such as drinking habits and sexual preferences and various things like that. That was not anything we took on at all, in any way, period.
Senator Bosa: You stated that the newspaper publishers are the main proponents of disclosure. Do you think they have a conflict?
Ms Manley: Far be it from me to say.
.1740
Senator Bosa: Mrs. Manley, is there no middle way? For instance, in your discussions with your colleagues, did you ask whether there was partial disclosure or whether if information was disclosed to a public officer that would determine what parts of this confidential information should be made public and what parts should be kept private? Did you go into that?
Ms Manley: That's what we said. We prefer closed-door disclosure to an intermediary. That's what we prefer as opposed to having everything published from the start.
Senator Bosa: Do you believe this should be extended to all the members of Parliament and senators -
Ms Manley: We're speaking for the spouses.
Senator Bosa: - or should it be confined to the spouses of ministers?
Ms Manley: It seems to me we dealt with ministers in years gone by and now we're talking about all members, am I not right? I am speaking from the point of view of the spouses association, if there can be a point of view. The greatest agreement seemed to be on that intermediate step. We were much happier with the thought that an intermediary could then come to conclusions and decide there was nothing worth publishing or that there was something awry and something needs to be done.
Senator Bosa: How many members are there in your association?
Ms Manley: How many spouses of the -
Senator Bosa: How many spouses?
Ms Manley: - members and senators are there? It's almost one to one, so we have a lot of members. They aren't necessarily paid-up members, but that doesn't stop anybody.
Senator Bosa: How many responded?
Ms Manley: Very few.
Senator Bosa: Very few. So there was a lack of interest?
Ms Manley: What we have is a very loosely connected association. The challenges are tremendous. Those we did ask opinions of were not necessarily opinionated. There were so many new members in this last Parliament, as well.
Senator Bosa: Yes, of course. Thank you.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Monsieur Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Ms Manley, it appears the solution you find most acceptable is to have an intermediary for the disclosure of certain interests.
At our last committee meeting, we in the Bloc Québécois said that having an intermediary who would hear these secrets would only be helpful if we were sure we could trust the person in question. How can we ensure this individual's credibility if he or she is the only person who will hear our secrets?
We acknowledge that the fact we ask for advice from this person could remain secret. However, once a property had actually been transferred between the spouses to avoid the strict requirements of the legislation, how could we be certain, if nothing is made public, that there's been compliance with the legislation? How could it work?
[English]
Ms Manley: Do you mind if I answer in English?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Go ahead.
Ms Manley: I understand well, but...
[English]
Mr. Laurin: Oh yes.
Ms Manley: I would imagine that is the purpose of the intermediary. If an intermediary sees there isn't appropriate compliance, they can move on from there.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: But how can the public be sure that the intermediary was not bought? How can we ensure that this individual didn't get a kickback, a considerable amount of money to cover up certain transactions? Some say that everyone has their price. Apparently, we can all be bought. The only thing that varies from one person to another is the price. I have trouble accepting that, but it does make one think.
.1745
That's why I am not sure about this. We have no way of ensuring that this person will play his or her role properly and honestly if none of this is made public. Would you agree that if such a person were to find that an offence had been committed or that there was a conflict of interest, he or she could reveal this information?
[English]
Ms Manley: I did not feel it was our mandate to decide the mechanics of selecting an intermediary, whether it be an intermediary body or an intermediary individual. I didn't think it was our mandate to make that decision.
I don't think it's an unusual situation from what we've read about there being a buffer between privacy and publication. There must be a step in-between. From the point of view of spouses, we lose so much privacy anyway that it is not appealing to lose more.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Do you at least acknowledge that the spouse's situation is almost unavoidable?
[English]
Ms Manley: Yes, I understand what you're saying. Do we need to make it worse is my question.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I'm here today mainly to ask questions, because our report will be coming out later. I understand your problem, and I understand the spouse's position. Would you at least agree that it is difficult to avoid this situation?
We have to choose between limiting the spouse's privacy and ensuring public security and the politician's honesty. We have to choose between the two. It's not an easy task. I understand that we might limit the spouse's privacy, but is that not always true when, fortunately or unfortunately, a person decides to marry a very public figure? The same is true of artists, painters, singers, and athletes who are known around the world. The spouse necessarily suffers because of this fact. When they choose the person they marry, they have to choose public life at the same time. That means they will not have a private life, except perhaps in the bedroom. There are no guarantees that their financial affairs can remain hidden. Do you at least admit that this is a serious problem and that we should try to find a solution to it?
[English]
Ms Manley: Absolutely. It is a challenge. One of the sentences in my statement is ``I hope that you can find a way to require a certain amount of disclosure without going too far.''
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: You think the first requirement is to be accountable to the public. Is it more important than protecting the spouse's privacy?
[English]
Ms Manley: I think as spouses we are always seeking balance, and that is what we would seek in this issue as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: That's all for the time being, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Epp.
Mr. Epp (Elk Island): Thank you.
Thank you for coming. I would like to ask you how you obtained your data. Did you have a meeting? Did you send out questionnaires? What did you do?
Ms Manley: I sent out regular newsletters and informed people that this committee was meeting and that we had an opportunity to make a statement to this committee. I asked for input. The response I got was relatively anecdotal.
.1750
As I said, two lawyers who are members of the group and I went through some of the materials that exist out there and a little bit of the press information, and we tried to come to a reasonable conclusion.
Mr. Epp: So you didn't have occasion to all get together and have a meeting.
Ms Manley: We never have occasion to all get together.
Mr. Epp: So you just asked for input without a structured questionnaire, then.
Ms Manley: Precisely.
Mr. Epp: What do you think - now we're in the area of speculation - would happen if you were to actually put out a questionnaire to these spouses with specific questions along these different lines that you've indicated here? Do you think your feel for what the spouses association is saying is typical and is accurate?
Ms Manley: Yes, I do. I think my response rate would be about the same.
Mr. Epp: You are the wife of a minister, so therefore there has been some disclosure required on your part, but not public disclosure.
Ms Manley: Correct.
Mr. Epp: Just private. Presumably if there were ever a case of impropriety charged - in your case we strongly doubt that would happen - there is a possibility that it might become public. Would that bother you at all, do you think?
Ms Manley: It would bother me more that there was an impropriety.
Mr. Epp: Yes, of course.
I have an idea. I floated it to the committee here and I would like to have your response to it. I'm suggesting that there be, not only for members of the cabinet but also for all members of Parliament, a certain minimal disclosure required to a private person, a commissionaire, or whoever does this. At the time of election, along with the oath of office, the member would also sign a form that says in the event of an alleged impropriety, if necessary, the commissionaire or the ethics counsellor - whatever the title is - would then have the authority to delve more deeply into investigating assets and things like that. Do you think that would sell in your group, or do you have objections to that?
Senator Bosa: Could you give an example of an impropriety?
Mr. Epp: I'm thinking, for example, of Alberta, where we had that bad case with our premier in which there were a lot of serious allegations as to whether or not he was even using insider information for his wife to get a bunch of shares in a company. It was never proven, and the ethics counsellor kicked it out. I think in a case like that - to satisfy what we're about here in this committee - part of our mandate is to restore confidence of the public in what their parliamentarians are about. I think the only way one can put those things to rest is to actually disclose in a case like that the total truth in the matter. It can't stay secret once the allegations are public.
Ms Manley: It seems to me that if there are suspicions, there will be deeper delving. It's an inevitability. I see no reason for this question.
Mr. Epp: That exists under the Criminal Code right now. I'm suggesting if it's not to the depth of being a criminal charge - just an investigation of some impropriety....
I'll give you another example. There's a case of a member of one of the houses - I won't mention it, because we're not supposed to use the word ``Senate'' -
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): You can in this joint committee. There are no court troubles, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Epp: In here we can?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Yes.
Mr. Epp: There was a member of the Senate who, while receiving a full-time salary as a senator, was alleged to have received $5,000 per month over a period of four years to act as a consultant for a firm. When a charge like that is given, first of all, it distresses us, because here's a guy with presumably a full-time job paid for by the taxpayer who must somehow find time at the expense of this taxpayers' job to do this or he's being bought for something. In a case like that, I would like to have all of the details brought out. Either we get it out in the open and the guy is exposed for what he is, or he is exonerated, and the only way you can do that is to have public disclosure. But I would suggest the only time that becomes public is when there is serious, substantial and substantiated evidence of some impropriety. Then the commissioner should have the right to go into it more deeply and to make it public.
.1755
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Make it public, you're saying. It's secret until -
Mr. Epp: It's secret until he puts himself under substantial suspicion.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): So what's your question to the witness?
Mr. Epp: My question is this. Would you object to that?
Ms Manley: I wouldn't, from a privacy interest point of view, want to have that publication be the last thing on the list - not the moment there's an allegation, but the moment there's proof.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Yes, from the point of view of a spouse.
Ms Manley: From the point of view of a spouse, which is the point of view that I take.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Not necessarily for the member.
Ms Manley: I will withhold my opinion on that.
Mr. Epp: She could be an MP just like that, couldn't she?
Senator Bosa: You said that this senator was receiving $5,000 a month. Could that have been a salary for the senator to perform some services? Where's the impropriety there?
Mr. Epp: The impropriety is that he's travelling all over the world, spending time earning that $5,000 a month when he is obviously away from his senatorial job. Personally, I don't think it's right to have two major employers.
Senator Bosa: Could this $5,000 be because he was travelling all over the world and away from the Senate?
Mr. Epp: Well, put it this way -
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether there's any point in going further with the specific case of this type. We could look into this for a long time to try to determine exactly what is going on, but I don't want to know that today. In any case, it is irrelevant for the purposes of...
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I agree with you. I think we're straying off the topic, which is to question the witness we have here. Regardless of our views on what certain senators may or may not be doing, our obligation here is to deal with parliamentary spouses, and I think we should stick to that.
Mr. Epp: Can I come back, then? I have a couple more questions.
You said that you have no objection to the listing of assets, but you do object to a net worth evaluation. What's the difference? Why the difference?
Ms Manley: For example, if so-and-so owns shares in MacMillan Bloedel and it was said how many, then everyone could draw a conclusion about the net worth.
Mr. Epp: Okay.
Ms Manley: But if it's on the table that they have an interest in that....
Mr. Epp: In other words, you would accept a listing of the assets, but without disclosure of the amount.
Ms Manley: Correct.
Mr. Epp: Perhaps the rules could be at a certain threshold value; say, over $5,000 and they must be declared into this private registry.
Ms Manley: They're all to be declared. It's a question of publication.
Mr. Epp: Oh, okay. So you don't even object to a public listing of the companies in which you have shares or interest.
Ms Manley: Right.
Mr. Epp: Oh, that's great.
Ms Manley: There was no reaction against that.
Mr. Epp: That's great.
Ms Manley: That was not unanimous, but that was a conclusion.
Mr. Epp: You know, I think we would be getting somewhere if we could persuade all of our parliamentarians to do that.
My last question has to do with your request to see these recommendations before they go to the House. I'm going to turn that question around. Let's do a time warp here. We have our recommendations and we've invited you back to look at them before we take them to the House. What kind of things do you think - this is speculation now - we might include in this code that you would find objectionable? What would you object to?
Ms Manley: Publication of everything, for example. Things that we would deem to be unnecessarily invasive of privacy.
Mr. Epp: Okay, I rest.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Dr. Pagtakhan.
.1800
Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms Manley, I have a few questions. When you referred to not disagreeing with the assets being listed with an intermediary, do you envision the intermediary as something created by government, such as in the person of an ethics counsellor?
Ms Manley: Something like that - an independent person.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Someone who can be sworn to secrecy, so there will be no problem about breaching that secrecy.
Ms Manley: About breaching that...?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Is that what you envision by an intermediary?
Ms Manley: I understand you, yes.
Mr. Pagtakhan: You mentioned something about accepting gifts, perhaps on the part of spouses. When those gifts are part of normal hospitality - perhaps there will be no disagreement on the part of the committee, as it is just a personal opinion - but they exceed a given value, it might be construed as exceeding the normal decorum or hospitality tradition. Would your association object to setting a value as to the amount of a gift that may be accepted?
Ms Manley: I don't imagine so. I just found it lugubrious in the American code. If it's between $5 and $10, then this, and if it's between $10 and $50, then this. Don't quote me on that, but it was that type of ruling and I found it tedious and entirely unnecessary. As I said, it would hamstring normal social exchange because you would look at something someone gave you and say I need to find out what the value of this is. I think that is entirely inappropriate.
Mr. Pagtakhan: In the event that the value after receiving it, knowing that to decline on the spot might be construed as a slight of courtesy.... Having determined to the best of one's ability that it exceeds a given set value, would your association object to it being disclosed publicly?
Ms Manley: Declared? I don't know that it needs to be public once again, but I would guess that it would be a normal thing. It's not the sort of thing that.... It's not a point of experience.
Mr. Pagtakhan: When we define the private interests of a member and his or her spouse, many assets would likely be excluded. There are also many assets that a couple may claim. I will list them and I would like to have your reaction afterwards. Some of these may be assets or liabilities: any financial interest, real property for residence, personal property for transportation, actual cash on hand, deposits in banks and fixed-value securities, RRSPs, both self-administered and not, guaranteed income certificates, annuities, life insurance policies or pension rights.
Would you object to any of these assets being disclosed?
Ms Manley: To the intermediary?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes.
Ms Manley: No.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Not at all?
Ms Manley: No.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Would you object to them being disclosed publicly?
Ms Manley: Unnecessarily, yes.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Those are all of my questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Thank you, Mr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): Ms Manley, you made reference to the small response from those you asked an opinion of. Did you question all your members, or was it a selected question?
Ms Manley: I sent out newsletters to everyone.
Mr. Loney: So everyone had the opportunity to respond.
Ms Manley: Twice we requested a response, and we phoned a number of people to eke that response out of some.
Mr. Loney: Sort of a follow-up.
Ms Manley: Yes.
Mr. Loney: Thank you.
Ms Manley: It's a busy group.
.1805
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): We'll move to the second round. Senator.
Senator Bosa: Mrs. Manley, you stated that in Britain they have certain rules concerning disclosure, if I understood you correctly.
Ms Manley: If I understand their situation.
Senator Bosa: Did you get some information from the Congress in the United States and the other countries?
Ms Manley: I got the information from your researcher.
Senator Bosa: Do you attribute the fact that so few spouses responded to your request to their not being interested?
Ms Manley: I attribute it largely to inexperience. They really don't know what it's about because it hasn't touched them yet. Cabinet spouses were more likely to comment because they've thought it through a bit more. Many of them simply don't have an opinion developed yet.
Senator Bosa: You said that with things as they are, you already lose some of your privacy.
Ms Manley: Yes.
Senator Bosa: As the spouse of a very prominent minister, do you feel constrained also in other areas, for instance in speaking your mind?
Ms Manley: Yes.
Senator Bosa: My wife doesn't always agree with everybody.
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Laurin, please.
Mr. Laurin: Ms. Manley, would you agree with me that there are sometimes things in life that are mutually exclusive? One day, most of us have had to chose between continuing to live as a family or, as a couple. We could not do both at once and the same time. That may have been a difficult choice to make, but by choosing to live as a couple, one necessarily could not have a family life.
When you choose public life, the situation is somewhat similar. You can't choose public live and also expect, simultaneously, to live a completely private life. Would you agree that one necessarily excludes the other?
Ms. Manley: Yes.
Mr. Laurin: So, would you agree that we could, in a system, have a declaration divulging the assets of the spouse to a third party, as you say, and that this be made public? I don't mean that there would be publication; the information could be entrusted to a trustworthy third party and would be made accessible to anyone who proves that he had a worthwhile reason to be given that information. Would you agree with such a system?
[English]
Ms Manley: I'm not sure I fully understand your system. One thing I would like to say in response to that with which I agreed is that while the member of Parliament or senator may have made the choice to go into public life, the spouse did not necessarily make that choice. Although there may be support there, the spouse does deserve to retain an element of privacy. That is our point.
I think I've made fairly clear our request for that intermediate point. There is no need, in our view, to publish widely a lot of information that does not affect anyone except us.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: You said that the spouse did not make that choice. If all of the members are like me, they could not have decided to go into politics without having the consent of their spouse. In my household, in any case, it would have been unthinkable. I could not have become an MP if my wife had not been in agreement. Otherwise, we could not have lived as a couple; we would have led separate lives. I would have had my public life and she would have kept her private life. When I decided to enter public life, I consulted my wife and asked her: Do you agree? If she had said no, I too would have backed away.
Ms. Manley: Yes.
.1810
Mr. Laurin: I am here because she said yes and, since she agreed...
Ms. Manley: Yes, but there are different degrees of consent. Two people can say yes, and there can still be a difference.
Mr. Laurin: If you say yes, you have chosen public life and you must thereafter live with the consequences. If you say no, you must then make another choice. If you do not agree that your husband should go into politics, the other choice may be to let him go on his way alone and do something else. But that is another issue that would make for an overly long debate if we were to get into it today.
I want to specify one thing. In another committee, we are discussing the possibility of an ethics counsellor. The statements or information divulged by a member and his wife or husband could be entrusted to that counsellor. The ethics counsellor or someone who would have the same status could be responsible for that information. The counsellor would receive your statements and would keep them in trust, carefully, but he would be obliged to allow consultation by any person who could prove that he had a valid reason to know about them.
For instance, if you are a journalist and suspect that a given MP is voting in favour of a bill that will profit a company in which his wife or husband is a shareholder, the reporter could put forward his investigation and his work as grounds, and show that he has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the member does indeed hold shares in the company. Any person who could prove that he or she had legitimate grounds could have access to that information, which would be public, in a sense, but not necessarily released.
Does that reconcile you with the obligation of divulging that information? Would you be more in favour of a system like that one?
[English]
Ms Manley: Could I have time to think about that?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: How much time, Mr. Chairman? You mean that you would prefer not to answer today?
[English]
Ms Manley: I'm afraid I lost some of that. I'm sorry. I'm not listening in English. I'd rather listen in French, but I'm afraid I missed something.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I think the point is that if some reporter came along and wanted to ask the ethics counsellor if you own shares in a particular company, because allegations were made about some transaction involving that company, could he get that information? I think the question is, should the ethics counsellor in our system not be the one who investigates and reports on whether there's been a breach based on the allegation brought forward, having the information at his or her fingertips?
On the idea of confidential disclosure that we have discussed in respect of spouses, my recollection of our brief discussion on this point and on the material we have was that the counsellor could do this work if an allegation came and could give a yes or no answer on whether there was any impropriety, but there was no need for this disclosure.
Ms Manley: I would want to know who was making the allegations and at what level before I made any conclusive response. There are allegations and there are allegations and there are allegations. If it was the reporter making the allegations and wanting to nose into the information, I cannot see anything appropriate about that.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Does that answer your question, Monsieur Laurin?
Mr. Epp, do you have another round?
Mr. Epp: I have a statement to make.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Is it a statement in front of this witness, or can we do this when we're finished with the witness?
Mr. Epp: No, I want to say this in front of this witness. I think they have underlined something that I have gone on record on, and I want to repeat it for the committee.
The independence of the ethics counsellor or whoever enforces whatever code we come up with is absolutely mandatory. The ethics counsellor has to be trusted by all parties, and there has to be absolute and total freedom from any hint that this person has any political bent. To maintain confidentiality in the event of an investigation, that counsellor has to be trusted by the people. Otherwise we've lost the purpose of our code.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I think everyone agrees with that.
.1815
Mr. Epp: Good. Then I want to say one more thing, if I may, to these witnesses. It has nothing to do with this committee.
I have a wife who I believe is making a huge sacrifice for the choice we made together. I commend you and your group for supporting each other. Just hang in there, and do the best you can for us and with us and for yourselves. I do really appreciate that.
I phone my wife every night. I realize I'm the one who's busy and active and involved and fulfilled, and she basically has had to make a life for herself now that I'm gone so much.
It's really something we need to be aware of. Thank you.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): On behalf of all members of the committee, I want to thank you, Mrs. Manley, for coming, and the other spouses who were here to support you. I thank you for the forthright answers you've given to the questions and the help you've been to the committee. I appreciate it very much.
Ms Manley: Thank you very much.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Before we adjourn, I have here a letter from Ian Greene of York University. Members may recall that Mr. Greene appeared before the committee last autumn with two colleagues. There were three of them here. They indicated they were doing a study of political ethics in Canada. They had a questionnaire for 1,400 Canadians, but they also wanted to interview MPs and senators. They have a bunch more to do. I'm not sure how many they're actually going to see by the time all is said and done.
They had been promised money during the last financial year. Because they didn't get another grant in time, they ran out of money and so on. It's all set out in the letter. They're asking if the committee is interested in funding the research they're undertaking with MPs and senators, with a view to providing us with the data in the next short while.
They say the cost of this is $5,000. From the discussions I've had, I believe the present ethics counsellor is prepared to contribute some amount to this. I can't tell you a figure, but it's not all $5,000.
So the question is, is the committee interested in seeing this research promptly, in other words, before we would do a report? If we don't fund it, my understanding is that it will get completed, but it won't happen in the next short while.
It may be too late in the game for this to be useful to us, but it may be useful to us. I guess that's up to committee members to decide. If so, do we want to authorize the expenditure of any of our budget for this purpose?
Any views?
Mr. Epp: Did we not initially get a budget allocation from both houses, are we within that budget, and do we have room?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Yes to all of the above.
Mr. Laurin.
[Translation]
M. Laurin: When we need information, first of all, we decide on the firm we want to hire in order to produce a document. In selecting a firm, we usually consider factors such as credibility, the level of confidence that we have in the firm, expertise, previous work, etc. We then award the firm a contract which specifies requirements and the amount of money we are willing to spend.
However, this is not the case here. A firm does some work which, according to this company, may be of interest to our committee. We don't know. The work has not yet been completed. We risk spending $5000 for work which, in the final analysis, does not meet our requirement and we will have given a subsidy to a private firm.
Our committee does not have the mandate to spend money in this manner. I'm in favour or research, but if the company needs a subsidy, there are other departments that do this type of thing and that decide whether or not the research should be subsidized, whether or not the research is valid. I do not think that it is the role of our committee to do this.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): They have already received a subsidy from another board for that.
Mr. Laurin: Yes, I understand that, but if they have not been subsidized further, that would mean that the organization that subsidized them deemed that it was no longer worthwhile. It's not up to us to take the place of another organization in order to complete this study. At any rate, I will not agree to giving them $5000.
.1820
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Are there any other views?
Senator Bosa: Is the principal investigator from the University of Guelph? I received a call from someone from this university, and I was interviewed over the phone.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Yes, they did phone interviews.
Senator Bosa: This is the same...?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Yes, 140 interviews have been completed. They're doing the interviews by telephone. They're asking for funding to complete the rest of them. That's all.
Senator Bosa: Did they do it on their own up until now?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): No, they received a $5,000 grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, as set out in the third paragraph of the letter. They received it this year.
Senator Bosa: Has anybody been able to evaluate the kind of work they do?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): None that I have seen, but I presume in order to get the grant they had peer review, the normal route through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. But we have not reviewed their work here, aside from their presentation before the committee when they were here.
Senator Bosa: Mr. Chairman, if they've already gone to the extent that they've interviewed 140, perhaps it would not be wise to truncate this kind of research at this stage.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I don't think it's a matter of truncating it. I think they will complete it. But they'll apply for additional funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to complete it, and it'll take them a longer time. The question is, do we want it in time for...in the next three weeks, say? That's what it comes down to. If we put up our money, they think they can complete it in two or three weeks.
Senator Bosa: Do you plan to report...?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I don't; they do.
Senator Bosa: They will be able to perform the rest of the interviews within the next three weeks?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): That was the indication they made to me.
Senator Bosa: Well, I would support that.
Mr. Epp: Is it the intention of this committee to report to the House before the end of June?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): That is the deadline we have had imposed by the House. We can extend it, I guess, if both houses agree.
Mr. Epp: The indication in this letter is that they would be able to give us a summary in two weeks, after they receive the funding.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Right.
Mr. Epp: I don't know; in total, there's been a lot of expenditure, I think, in bringing witnesses and information to us. We haven't funded any of the others, as far as I know, have we?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Aside from travel, no.
Mr. Epp: Just travel. I think we may be setting a dangerous precedent by taking this one group and saying for their information we'll pay them $5,000, whereas the others came free. That would be my problem.
On the other hand, I am really interested in having a report from this committee and what they found, perhaps in more detail, from those 1,400 Canadians who are not politicians.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Did we not get some of that information when they appeared before us?
Mr. Epp: We got some of it, but I don't know if they had completed that part of it.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Margaret.
Ms Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): My recollection is that they ran a pilot in Guelph. Then they were going to go national, beginning in January 1996. I think that is what they're referring to here.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Were we to look at this as a special research request, the very minimum ought to be that we have seen the research proposal. Because a pilot project has been done already, the minimum we should have before we can act on this request is to see the results of the pilot study and the questionnaire applying that, and then we can make a conclusion that in fact it is a solid piece of the study.
Having determined that, we then would be in a position to say whether this is the type of study that could benefit the committee and we can therefore fund it on that basis - not so much that it is a piece of research but that it happens to be a piece of research to ensure that we do not set a precedent.
I share the concern that we may become a funding research council, which is not our intention. At the same time, we hear witnesses, we fund for the trips if need be, if we see the vitality of expected opinion.
We are in a dilemma here, Mr. Chair. I cannot pronounce judgment, because we have not made the determination of the integrity of the experimental design. To begin with, the results of the pilot project: do we in fact need a national survey to see, to validate or reconfirm the results of the pilot project? I can see the potential value to this committee, so rather than give a judgment at this time, if we still have time in the immediate future, we can revisit this issue, Mr. Chair.
.1825
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Well, we can certainly do that. We can't make a decision that's binding on the committee today, anyway, because there's not a quorum here for making a decision. I thought if there was agreement to do it, we'd tell them it appears there will be agreement and when the committee meets in full session, we would approve it. There isn't, so my inclination is to say that at this time we're not prepared to fund it, leave it at that, and see what happens next month.
If the committee decides to seek an extension of its deadline, we can revisit the issue at that time.
Yes, Monsieur Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I do not understand how you can conclude that we are, apparently, in agreement.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I said that we were not in agreement.
Mr. Laurin: Unless there has been a mistake in the translation, I clearly understood that we could tell them that it was not possible to make a decision because we don't have a quorum, but that apparently, we were all on agreement and that they would be given an answer later on.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): No, I said if everyone had been in agreement, I would have told them that they could probably go ahead. But as I said, it's quite apparent that everyone is not in agreement, there's considerable disagreement, and so I'm going to say that as far as I'm concerned, they're not getting funding from the committee at this time.
If we postpone our report until September or October, we may then be interested in funding this to bring it to a conclusion so we can see the material, but that's a matter for the full committee to decide and it'll be decided at a later date. Okay? So that's the end of that one.
Mr. Epp, do you have another matter?
Mr. Epp: It's not quite the end. I have one more quick question. I would like to know whether our researcher has any advice to give us on normal data-gathering for committees and for decision-making. What is the other experience? I believe that some committees do ask for research projects to be done on contract.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I believe that's happened.
Mr. Epp: I would like to know whether they would recommend to us at this time that we should do this. How important is it to us, in their opinion?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Do you wish to offer an opinion, Margaret?
Ms Young: I don't have an opinion as to whether at the end of the day you should say yes or no, but I might add a little background.
Unfortunately, Dr. Pagtakhan was not a member of the committee when these witnesses appeared in November. At that time they gave the committee the results of the pilot and provided to the researchers, if not everyone else, the full questionnaire that they did. Certainly, I have it in my office. I'm sure it was all peer reviewed; they are very reputable researchers in their field. In fact, these are probably the premier academics in this field, going back for some time.
As to your other question about what other committees have done in the past, committees have hired in the past and and are hiring now consultants on contract. I'm not aware of the extent to which they have contracted for actual research - not in my experience, but that may just have been my experience.
Your House clerk Ellen, and Blair as well, would probably be the best people to undertake to find out what the general experience of committees is in contracting for research as opposed to contracting for consultants. If the committee wishes, we could undertake to convey that request and come back to you later. Would that be a good idea?
Mr. Epp: I would like that.
Ms Young: Okay.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Epp, you have another item of business.
Mr. Epp: Are you ready for it now?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Epp: I guess we don't have a quorum here for making decisions, so I will just make this as a notice of motion and a request for information. If I can get it as a request, a motion will not be necessary.
This is my request. I would like to have tabled - I don't care about the other members, if they're not interested - a detailed to the dollar listing and accounting of our expenditures in this committee. I have seen the report from the journals of the Senate and it indicates we have spent $14,400 in this committee at this stage, of which $13,000 is miscellaneous. I'm very curious about that. It's just a little thing, but I would like to have it. That's the request.
The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Armitage): If I may, Mr. Epp, you'll recall there was some conversation about sharing printing costs between the Senate and the House of Commons. The House of Commons is providing the rooms, the transcription, the translation, the editing, the formatting of discs, etc., and the Senate is printing issues. The agreement was that there would be a sharing of expenses between the two houses based on representation on the committee. Because normally Senate committees do not budget for printing - it's a global expense of the committees directorate - there isn't a normal line item in our accounting procedures. What you saw there under ``Miscellaneous'' was, by and large, printing costs.
.1830
Mr. Epp: This is a report of the Senate. I'm really curious. If this is the Senate report, I would like to know whether this is just their portion of the cost -
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Armitage): Yes, it is just their portion.
Mr. Epp: - and if it is and they have lesser representation here than we do -
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): There's no problem getting that -
Mr. Epp: - that means we've spent upwards of $50,000 now, according to this thing.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): No, no. They picked up the printing in a certain way because we were doing all the other work. There was some deal worked out on that, Mr. Epp.
We'll get you the figures. There's no secret about this. There's no problem.
Mr. Epp: Yes, if I can get whatever is available, it may satisfy me and then I will drop it.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): The clerk will draw up that information for you.
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Armitage): If I may, under normal circumstances neither house accounted for the printing costs of issues in the past, when the House did print issues, and that's why the figure is the way it is. I'd be happy to supply you with the information.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): If there is no other business, I declare the meeting adjourned.