HAFF Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 6, 2003

1105

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

1110

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

The Chair

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

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

1115

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Duff Conacher (Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition)

The Chair

Mr. Duff Conacher

1120

1125

1130

1135

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Duff Conacher

1140

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Jacques Saada

1145

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Duff Conacher

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Duff Conacher

1150

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Duff Conacher

The Chair

Mr. Duff Conacher

The Chair

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Duff Conacher

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Duff Conacher

1155

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Duff Conacher

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Duff Conacher

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Duff Conacher

The Chair

Mr. Duff Conacher

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Duff Conacher

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Duff Conacher

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Duff Conacher

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Duff Conacher

The Chair

Mr. Duff Conacher

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

1200

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Duff Conacher

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Duff Conacher

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1205

Mr. Duff Conacher

The Chair

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay (President, Parliamentary Spouses Association)

The Chair

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

1215

1220

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

Mr. Michel Guimond

1225

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

1230

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Ron Catterall (Vice-President, Parliamentary Spouses Association)

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Ron Catterall

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Ron Catterall

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Ron Catterall

The Chair

Mrs. Yvonne Reynolds (Vice-President, Parliamentary Spouses Association)

The Chair

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

1235

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mrs. Yvonne Reynolds

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

1240

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Jacques Saada

Ms. Margaret Young

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

1245

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 017

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 6, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

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

We have a few items of business before our witness, who is here, returns.

Of the witnesses today, we're going to hear from Democracy Watch first. Then during their presentation the spouses association will arrive. We'll move on to them second. They know this.

If I could, I will first of all address the item under other business, which is security on the Hill, and report to you as follows. The Commissioner of the RCMP was not available this week or else we would have invited him this week. He is available next Wednesday. It will be an additional meeting. The meeting could be either in the afternoon or evening on Wednesday. I'd like some opinion, a sort of straw vote, on that. Is there any strong feeling between the two, or can I pick one?

Jacques Saada.

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

The Chair: The afternoon at 3:30. I hear 3:30.

[Translation]

Is it the same thing?

Mr. Jacques Saada: M. Chairman, the Board of Internal Economy usually meets on Wednesday and most members around this table are at that meeting. So there is a scheduling conflict.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. We're going to aim for an in camera meeting with the Commissioner of the RCMP at 3:30 on Wednesday.

Having said that, this is strictly for the benefit of Ken Epp. During this meeting I will circulate a very tentative work plan for our consideration of Hill security, Ken. You will see it largely depends on what the commissioner says to us, and what the response is from this meeting, as to how we proceed. It's being translated as we speak. It will be here during the meeting. I will circulate it at that point.

Are you comfortable on security? This is based on our discussion this time. Okay.

If we could move to the subcommittee matter--in fact, I suspect we have two to deal with, both of our subcommittees. The item you see before you deals with our Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. We have to appoint a chair. We also have to appoint two new members. My understanding is that it's one from the Bloc and one from the Liberals.

Could somebody move that someone be appointed chair of our private members' subcommittee?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I move that Carolyn Parrish be chair of the subcommittee.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Do we get a secret ballot?

I'm not quite sure, Mr. Chairman, that the process of private members' business is dead just yet. I understand the modernization committee is meeting to talk about some adjustments and changes to the proposals that were supposed to be sent.

I think it's a little premature to be striking this committee, and certainly the chairmanship, until modernization has decided whether in fact they're going to be discussing that.

Why don't we put this off?

The Chair: Can I counter that first, if I might?

In fact, under the existing regime the subcommittee has to meet next week. The selection under the current procedures has to continue, whatever the modernization committee does. We're not creating something new. We are simply staffing our existing subcommittee.

Are you comfortable with that, Rick?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm not comfortable with the whole process.

The Chair: I know you're not comfortable with it. That's a different matter.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: [Inaudible—Editor]...private members' business go forward if in fact that's the case.

The Chair: As chair of the committee, my job is to see that our committee functions. One of the ways we function is through subcommittees. That's what I'm doing.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: M. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleague from the Conservative Party that if this process is paralyzed, it would penalize backbench members who wish their bills to be considered. That would therefore go against the whole point of this issue.

[English]

The Chair: We have a motion, Jacques Saada's motion, that Carolyn Parrish chair our private members' subcommittee. Those in favour? Those against?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: If I could deal next then with the Bloc replacement, could someone move the replacement?

Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): I propose that Benoît Sauvageau be my substitute on the subcommittee.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, you heard the motion. Those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chair: Congratulations, Benoît.

[English]

Also, it's not on our agenda, but there has to be a replacement of a Liberal member. Would someone move a replacement? I guess it's for Tony Tirabassi.

Yes, Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I'm sorry, I thought we'd already done that.

The Chair: David Price.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I so move.

The Chair: Thank you. It is moved by Marlene Catterall....

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I want the chair to know--

The Chair: I think, Rick, you consistently underestimate the chair.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: On a point of order, as was indicated just previously, it's simply the chair's prerogative to move this business along. I'm surprised that the chair knew who the appointee was going to be before the motion was even made by the Liberals. I find that strange.

The Chair: Maybe so. I also knew Benoît Sauvageau was going to be....

You heard the motion, that David Price replace Tony Tirabassi.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

I want to look--and I'm a bit more vague on this--at the matter of our electoral boundaries readjustment subcommittee. It is my understanding that there will be a change of chair, and perhaps, Thomas, a change of membership, I don't know.

But using the same motions, would someone move a new chair for our Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment. The current chair is Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I would move that Paddy Torsney replace Carolyn Parrish as chair of the committee, and she will be signed in as an associate member of this committee.

The Chair: You've heard the motion. Those in favour? Those against?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Can I ask the parties now? The boundaries readjustment subcommittee is very important, considering P.E.I. at the moment.

We have Rick Borotsik, Michel Guimond--

[Translation]

Michel, you would certainly be a member of this subcommittee—

[English]

--Scott Reid, Yvon Godin, and Marcel Proulx.

Oui, Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I would like a clarification, Mr. Chairman. When we discuss the New-Brunswick regulations, should I withdraw? The reason I am asking that question is that I expect to appear before the committee.

[English]

The Chair: You could take that course of action or you could provide a substitute. It's simpler if the substitute is already an associate member of this committee.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That person will be.

The Chair: Thank you.

Oui, Jacques Saada.

Á (1115)

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: May I know why Mr. Godin may have to withdraw when the New-Brunswick commission appears?

[English]

The Chair: If I might say, that's his own business. He's a member of Parliament and he can say whatever....

If it's pure personal curiosity, and as long as there's not going to be a big debate about it, I don't mind him answering that question, but I would rather....

Couldn't you discuss it privately? It is his own business.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm asking if it was a matter of principle for which he--

The Chair: Please, let's discuss that privately, okay?

Guy St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): I don't think that Mr. Godin would have to leave. There is no rule to that effect. In any case, he represents the people of New Brunswick.

[English]

The Chair: Again, that is Yvon Godin's private business. I don't see it as a matter for the committee or for us at the moment.

If we could move on, then, to the main item of business today--

Mr. Yvon Godin: My question was technical. What do I do after I decide? I'm asking, technically, do I have to remove myself?

The Chair: No, you don't have to.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

The Chair: Colleagues, today we are winding up the hearings, in other words, the reception of witnesses on the ethics package.

The work plan, as you know, is that next Tuesday and Thursday we consider the ethics package, paragraph by paragraph, in a very systematic way.

I believe we have recirculated the interim report that was tabled in the House before Christmas, which summarized where we were. It wasn't a conclusive report.

So the plan now is that today we have two witnesses: first, Democracy Watch, as I've mentioned; and then the spouses association. Then we'll proceed to paragraph-by-paragraph starting next Tuesday.

Our first witness this morning is Duff Conacher, who's the chair of the Government Ethics Coalition. Is that the title under which you're here?

But, Duff, unless I'm mistaken, I wasn't wrong in mentioning Democracy Watch.

Mr. Duff Conacher (Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition): No.

The Chair: Could you explain some of that before you start, and then we'll be glad to hear what you have to say.

Mr. Duff Conacher: Certainly.

Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you today.

Democracy Watch has been focusing on the issues of government ethics for eight and a half years now. Democracy Watch is a citizen advocacy group based here in Ottawa. We focus on issues of democratic reform, government accountability, and corporate responsibility. We were established in the fall of 1993 and currently have eight campaigns in those areas, and we also coordinate four nation-wide coalitions, including the Government Ethics Coalition, addressing various issues of democratic reform and of government and corporate responsibility.

The Government Ethics Coalition is made up of 31 groups from six provinces and the Northwest Territories as well as 12 national groups. It represents over two million Canadians in total in terms of the collective membership of the groups. I am submitting today a list of the member groups to the committee so you'll be able to view that.

There is of course always a question, and we usually receive it when we're before committee, as to our actual representativeness of Canadians. I know I certainly received that question when I was before the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct back in October 1995, which drafted a code that unfortunately did not pass. Now here we are, over seven years later, hoping to finally have these rules put in place.

The coalition very much believes that it is representing Canadians in terms of both its membership and the proposals it's putting forward. This is based on surveys that have been done consistently over the past decade showing that 80% of Canadians want strong ethics rules for politicians and public servants.

It is also based on the fact that most of the jurisdictions in Canada already have rules in place and independent enforcement of the rules, including the newest jurisdiction in Canada, Nunavut. It already has ethics rules in place, an ethics law, and an independent ethics watchdog enforcing that law. It is only at the federal level that these rules are absent for all public officials.

In addition, in May 2002 the Liberal Party's own polling firm reported that 45% of Canadians believe that the federal government is corrupt. We believe we are very much representing the concerns of Canadians here today, and again, that's why I welcome the opportunity to present to you.

I know that in an interim report you circulated to your colleagues, this committee already stated that it agrees with the need for a code, agrees with the need for the code to cover spouses' independence, and also agrees with the need for independent enforcement of the code.

We are doing what we can in other ways, but to help you convince your colleagues that the code is needed--because I understand there is some resistance, in particular from senators currently--we are also submitting today to the committee a summary of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in a case from 1996 called R. v. Hinchey. I will read just a few of the quotes from the court's decision that we believe are very relevant to what is happening currently in the consideration of this code.

In that case, which, just for your information, was a case involving a public servant accused of a Criminal Code breach that was of course also an ethical breach, the majority opinion stated--and this is Justice L'Heureux-Dubé speaking:

Á (1120)

It is hardly necessary for me to expand on the importance of having a government which demonstrates integrity. Suffice it to say that our democratic system would have great difficulty functioning efficiently if its integrity was constantly in question.

I have another paragraph:

For a government, actual integrity is achieved when its employees remain free of any type of corruption. On the other hand, it is not necessary for a corrupt practice to take place in order for the appearance of integrity to be harmed. Protecting these appearances is more than a trivial concern.

And then most specifically in terms of the ethics code, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

In my view, given the heavy trust and responsibility taken on by the holding of a public office or employ, it is appropriate that government officials are correspondingly held to codes of conduct which, for an ordinary person, would be quite severe.

Again, I am submitting the summary to you of those particular paragraphs in which the Supreme Court of Canada has made it very clear that in their view such codes and the enforcement of such codes are essential if we are to have democratic government in Canada. I hope that this submission will help you and that you can circulate it to colleagues who may be saying, we don't need rules; we can just enforce our own ethics, and we don't need independent enforcement; again, we can just watch over ourselves.

This is a common argument that has been put forward, that having a code means that you are admitting that you are all crooks. This is simply an illogical argument. We have a criminal code in Canada, yet it does not mean that everyone in Canada is a criminal. Similarly, the ministers have had a code for over 15 years now, and it does not mean that every cabinet minister who has served since the code came into being in the mid-eighties is a crook. The rules are simply necessary, as the Supreme Court has articulated.

I know that in your report to your colleagues in December you set out several issues you still thought needed to be considered, and thankfully, the Prime Minister has referred this code to you in pre-bill form so those issues can be considered.

Turning to what the coalition sees as the key loopholes and gaps in the proposed system, I will simply go through them briefly, and then I will be quite happy to take any questions from you about the coalition, what we have been doing to date, and as well our proposals for changing the proposed system and also adding some measures to it.

First of all, given what we have witnessed over the past eight and a half years, almost nine years now, we feel it's very key that the appointment of the new, proposed ethics commissioner be approved by all parties in the House of Commons, by all opposition parties and not just as proposed and approved of by the ruling party only.

The ethics commissioner will be watching over all MPs, those of all parties, and it will simply skew the system in favour of ruling-party MPs if they are the only ones who get to have a say in selecting the ethics commissioner.

Second, the new system is unfortunately raising the barriers to holding politicians accountable compared to the current system because currently the public can file complaints with the ethics counsellor. The new, proposed system is saying that only parliamentarians should be allowed to file complaints. We think that it is simply undemocratic and unethical to shut out the public from having the right to file a complaint with the new ethics commissioner.

Just to let you know, we will challenge that very strongly if the system goes forward in that way. We will file complaints with the ethics commissioner, and if they fail to address those complaints, we will proceed to court, challenging the ethics commissioner's failure to uphold legal duties to enforce the rules.

Á (1125)

It will create a very difficult situation for the ethics commissioner when a member of the public, but no MP or senator, files a complaint—especially when it's a clear situation of violation of one of the ethics rules, but even if it is an unclear situation.

Third, the new system allows the ethics commissioner to give advice in secret and also to make some rulings in secret. Again, we believe this will be a completely ineffective system. Advisory opinions should be made public. They do not have to identify the politician who asked for the advice, but they are very important to establish what the rules mean, and to establish it publicly so that all members of Parliament will know what the rules mean and will themselves be able to simply check, without having to go to the ethics commissioner. As well, the public will know what the rules mean, and the media will know what the rules mean.

There's no reason why the advisory opinion given to a politician seeking advice should not be made public. Again, there's no reason why, because the question would be seeking advice on whether something can be done in the future. The identity of the politician does not have to be disclosed, but the advisory opinion must be made public to have an open and effective system.

All rulings must also be made public. There is currently a loophole where in one situation, depending on what the ethics commissioner decides, the ruling will not be made public; it will be reported in secret to the committee of MPs and senators. That is not going to work, we believe, at all. If it's a ruling about an opposition party member, it will likely be leaked by a ruling party member. If it's a ruling about a ruling party member, it will likely be leaked by an opposition party member. It's going to come out anyway, so just make all the rulings public. It's the only way to have an open and effective system.

Our fourth concern is that the ethics commissioner is only given the power to enforce this new proposed code as well as the minister's code. The registrar of lobbyists is going to be given, under the proposed system, the power to enforce the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. That is going to create a very difficult situation that raises the possibility of conflicting rulings. Why? It's because there is a rule—rule 8 of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct—that says a lobbyist cannot undertake any activity that puts a politician in a conflict of interest situation. If you have a complaint filed about a lobbyist doing that, the registrar for lobbyists will be looking into whether the politician is in a conflict of interest situation. The ethics commissioner will also be looking into whether the politician is in a conflict of interest situation, to determine whether the politician has broken the conflict of interest code. The registrar will be looking at the lobbyist to see whether the lobbyist has broken the lobbyists' code.

What if they disagree? What if the registrar says the lobbyist put the politician into a conflict of interest but the ethics commissioner says in his ruling that the politician is not in a conflict of interest? You then have conflicting rulings. It does not make sense.

The registrar has no history or expertise in enforcing a code of conduct. The rules overlap. Close that gap, in terms of the effectiveness of the system, and give the ethics commissioner the power to watch over the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. It is simply common sense to do that.

In addition, a new measure we think should be added to the proposal you have before you relates to the bill being introduced today by the Treasury Board minister, Ms. Robillard. It is that the ethics commissioner should also be given the power to enforce the ethics rules for public servants and to protect so-called whistle-blowers within the public service. Again, we simply believe this makes sense. It is efficient and it will be effective to have one entity enforcing all of the codes.

Á (1130)

All of the codes—the ministers' code, the MPs' and senators' proposed code, the lobbyists' code that exists, the public servants' code—have similar measures in them. If you have, as you will have if the system goes forward, three different entities ruling on these four different codes, you're going to have conflicting opinions as to what the same words mean in different codes and different standards for public officials from those you'll have for MPs and different standards for MPs from those you'll have for lobbyists. Again, it will not make for an effective system.

Currently there is a public integrity officer who is given the power to protect and investigate whistle-blower complaints amongst the public service. That public integrity officer lacks key powers and also does not make rulings in public. So you are going to be setting up a system where ministers and MPs and lobbyists will face watchdogs who will be making public rulings most of the time—except in the advisory opinion area, as I mentioned—while public officials are investigated for ethical breaches, and it's all done behind closed doors.

Set the same standard for public servants as you do for yourselves. You know that public servants have as much of a hand in the day-to-day running of the government and are as much influenced and affected by lobbyists and other possible conflicts as you are. They should have the same system, with the same ethics commissioner enforcing the system.

The ethics commissioner, we also believe, must have the power to fine violators of the ethics rules. We do not believe the penalty of possible dismissal from cabinet or possible censure by Parliament or dismissal from Parliament is enough of a penalty. The penalties for many other professions include fines, and we believe that for the profession of public office holder there should also be a penalty and that the ethics commissioner should be given the power to fine a violator of the ethics rules—and again, should be given the power to fine lobbyists and public servants as well who violate the ethics rules.

Finally, the ministers' and lobbyists' and public servants' codes should be changed into laws. You are considering a draft of a law for MPs and senators. Why should only that code be a law while the ministers', the lobbyists' code, and the public servants' codes are simply codes that have very vague status in terms of whether they have legal force?

We believe all of the codes should be laws so that they have greater force and are more binding upon all of the parties concerned.

To summarize, if you pass the proposed rules and changes in this current form, the ethics commissioner will not be as independent as needed; some ethics rulings will still be kept secret; public servants will still not have an independent ethics watchdog; penalties for unethical behaviour will still be too weak; and ethical whistle-blowers will still not be adequately protected.

We call on you to urge the government to close these key loopholes and gaps and to bring back a much stronger bill that will create an open and effective system that will actually ensure honest and ethical government.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you, Duff. We appreciate your addressing so specifically the document that's before us, and also the fact that you've read our interim report.

Colleagues, it's my intention to go to about noon on this, which is why I was getting a bit concerned—so that we can move to our other witnesses. But so you know, and so Duff and the other witnesses know, the working document we will be using next week to consider the guide for the drafting of legislation will be.... We'll go through the sections and following each section there will be a summary.

So, for example, concerning Duff's points about complaints, I think complaints are in paragraphs numbered in the early 30s—31, 32, or something like that. Underneath those paragraphs, what he has already said and what is the result of any questioning will appear. That's how we're going to deal with it. Just so you know—and, Duff, so you know—even though we're only going to take 20-odd minutes on this, that's how it's going to be handled.

I have Ken Epp, Jacques Saada, and Benoît Sauvageau.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): We'll have about five minutes?

The Chair: And, Duff, so you know, we'll have five minutes each, including your answers.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. I appreciate your presentation here today, as the others do, I'm sure.

When you contemplate that the commissioner should be appointed by all parties, what precise process do you think we should use?

Mr. Duff Conacher: You could either do it from the House, requiring a two-thirds or three-quarters approval, which would likely cover it, or simply have a review by a committee and sign-off by the opposition leaders, in terms of caucus review—or in a full public committee review if you wanted to go into a public committee review.

Mr. Ken Epp: One thing you didn't talk about was the filing of reports. You mentioned that they should all be made public. Then you went on to say that this ethics commissioner should have the ability to invoke fines. Would you suggest that Parliament itself be taken right out of the loop in terms of exacting penalties?

Mr. Duff Conacher: No, there can still be the penalty of censure or dismissal from Parliament, as is currently possible under the Parliament of Canada Act. But we also think the ethics commissioner should be given the power to levy one penalty—a fine.

Mr. Ken Epp: And to do so without reference to Parliament?

Mr. Duff Conacher: Yes, without reference to Parliament.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

Then I have a serious question with respect to your statement that the public should have the right to file complaints.

I won a very fine majority in the last election, with about two-thirds of the voters in my riding supporting me. But this means one-third of them out there didn't vote for me, which I think opens up the commissioner's office to just a blizzard of complaints, because these guys look at me much more critically than the guys who voted for me, right? They will cut me some slack, but the other guys cut me none. We are going to have 307 or 308 members of Parliament, and the poor commissioner is going to be going just whacky with all of these complaints coming in from people. So how would you vet them?

Mr. Duff Conacher: Well, the ethics counsellor currently takes complaints from the public. We are the only organization that's ever filed complaints, and we've only filed 12 in 9 years. So where is the flood that you are worried about?

Mr. Ken Epp: It's probably not known that the public can individually file complaints.

Mr. Duff Conacher: First of all, will the public know this time around? And second, if you want to put in a frivolous or vexatious dismissal, it's fine, but I don't think many people are going to be coming forward with these complaints. These complaints are libellous in every case; if you're wrong, you're committing a libel. That's a pretty serious check—

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

Mr. Duff Conacher: And when you sue them for libel, Parliament will be paying your costs and people will know this. They're facing someone who has all the resources to challenge them if they're wrong. If they are wrong, every single complaint will be libellous or a slander. I don't think you need to shut out the public.

Á (1140)

Mr. Ken Epp: When I have a request for access to information, I have to pay for it. Would you require a payment in order to file a complaint?

Mr. Duff Conacher: If you wanted to put in a nominal sum to discourage some people just making hay...but I wouldn't go above what the access to information—

Mr. Ken Epp: Like $10,000, or something.

Mr. Duff Conacher: That's what the access to information.... Actually, I think it's $10 that's being proposed.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, I know. Thank you.

The Chair: Jacques Saada, then Benoit Sauvageau, Marlene Catterall, and Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In order to be logical, I will start with the end. You referred to twelve cases over nine years. How many of these cases turned out to be well founded?

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: Actually, the ethics counsellor has only ruled on three of our twelve complaints. He sat on eight of them. We have one complaint that's two and a half years old, two others that are over two years old, two that are over a year old, and another three we filed in the last six months. We are before the Federal Court right now challenging the ethics counsellor over unreasonable delay.

The ones that have been ruled on were about lobbyists. One lobbyist was not registering, but it was found that he didn't meet the threshold of having to spend 20% of his time lobbying in order to be required to register. In another one, the two parties denied—

Mr. Jacques Saada: Excuse me, I'm going to stop you, because I have a lot of questions. I understand the thrust of your answer. So if you don't mind, okay?

[Translation]

What I conclude is that in the last nine years, no member or senator has been found guilty of anything in these or other cases. In other words, not a single member or senator was found guilty of violating any code. Is that correct, yes or no?

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: For a member of Parliament or a minister?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm talking about members of Parliament.

Mr. Duff Conacher: It's impossible right now to file complaints about members of Parliament. There's no body to file them to. So who knows?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: You talked about things your members have been telling you for years. Are the members you have consulted with regard to this issue aware of existing provisions in the various regulations and legislation which may address ethics issues for members of Parliament?

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: Sure.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: You said that complaints and decisions should be made public, isn't that right? But how would you propose to avoid cleverly orchestrated witch hunts during an election campaign?

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: You can prevent that now. Someone can simply put forward a complaint to an ethics commissioner. It's not going to be any different than it is now. Someone can file a complaint publicly and just have a news conference. So changing the system is not going to change that dynamic, and there's nothing you can do that would change that dynamic. If someone wants to go public with a complaint that's unjustified two days before a vote, they'll go public with it. If it's libellous, the libel lawsuit will take several months, depending on whether they back off, or it'll take a year or two if it goes to court. So there's nothing you can do about people filing public complaints.

This system will make it better. At least you'll have an independent person, and if they're on their guard and want to help the system work they'll leap on those complaints right away and try to get something investigated and done before an election date. You don't have that person now, so the complaint will just hang over you for the rest of your life because no one can investigate it.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have stated at this table numerous times that of course I'm in favour of a code, and of course nobody can be against a virtue. I just want to have a code that is as fair as possible. My next two questions are going to be on that.

First, you say if there is libel we can sue and the House will pay for it. But the House will not pay for it if we are not members of Parliament any more because of that.

Á (1145)

Mr. Duff Conacher: Then the complaint would not go to the ethics commissioner and wouldn't be covered under this system.

Mr. Jacques Saada: No. Let's say, for instance, two weeks or three weeks before an election the complaint goes to the commissioner and then it's not dealt with. The election takes place, your reputation is ruined, and you lose your seat. You have to assume your own costs to recover your reputation, whatever is left of it.

Mr. Duff Conacher: Again, there's nothing to prevent that now. There's nothing you can do about the public holding a news conference and making a public complaint, unless you say the public can never say anything publicly about politicians.

Mr. Jacques Saada: On my last question, can you tell me how fines can be harsher than losing a job and a reputation?

Mr. Duff Conacher: You may not lose your job and reputation, depending on what Parliament does, especially since in certain cases if you're found guilty the ruling will actually go in secret to a committee, and the committee may decide to just keep it secret. That's why we believe in public rulings.

The Chair: Next are Benoît Sauvageau, Marlene Catterall, Yvon Godin and Carolyn Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Conacher, you are perfectly right. Today, there is nothing to prevent someone from publicly making a false accusation in the papers two weeks before an election. However, if people are given tools and if they are invited to use these tools, perhaps they will feel encouraged to do so. There is a difference between not preventing someone from doing something and encouraging someone to do something.

Second, you base your idea for an ethics code on the fact that in a poll 45% of respondents, I believe, said they thought all politicians were corrupt. So, if I understand correctly, you want an ethics code because people think we are corrupt. In places where there is a code of ethics, has the perception changed? Three, four, or five provinces have a code of ethics, so I wonder what percentage of the population think their politicians have suddenly become more virtuous?

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: You can say the only reason to do a code is to restore the public's--

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's the basis of your argument.

Mr. Duff Conacher: Yes, that is part of my argument. When you have a code and independent enforcement, if there are not all sorts of violations of the code, as there have been in the other provinces, then you will see the public's view of politicians getting better.

But in those other provinces, politicians have been found guilty of violating the code. So the public will have faith when there's reason given by the politician's behaviour across the board to follow these codes and not ignore them, and actually follow not just the letter but the spirit of the codes. Again I quote the Supreme Court of Canada: “...it is appropriate that government officials are correspondingly held to codes of conduct....”

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'm sorry, but since we only have five minutes, I will interrupt you. Since Alberta, Saskatchewan and British-Columbia each have a code of ethics, can you send us poll results to see to what degree people trust their elected representatives? Since these codes of ethics were introduced, the citizens of each of these three provinces probably believe their politicians have become more virtuous. If you could send us those polls, it would surely help us in our future deliberations.

You also propose that the ethics commissioner have the power to impose fines on members in order to encourage them to comply with the code of ethics more closely. We currently have an ethics commissioner, Mr. Wilson. Are you suggesting that we immediately give him the power to impose fines in cases involving ministers?

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: Yes, I do believe that. Lobbyists and public servants face fines for breaking their codes, so why shouldn't politicians?

Á (1150)

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fair enough.

Now, you often refer to the relationship of trust between the public and politicians, and you follow current affairs. Can you tell me who the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner is?

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: Do you mean the commissioner for sustainable environment?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is answerable to the auditor general and may receive complaints.

[English]

The Chair: I think it comes under the Auditor General.

Mr. Duff Conacher: We don't watch the area of the environment.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: How do you expect the public to know of the complaint process involving the ethics commissioner when you yourself, who follow current affairs closely, do not even know the name of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development? How do you expect the average Canadian, apart from the nitpickers, to find out about this process?

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: They'll know about it like they know about the enforcement of the Criminal Code. They will see coverage of cases and be able to follow it like any other issue.

I'm not sure if you're putting these arguments forward to say there should not be a code, but 80% of Canadians want a code.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I just want to know why.

Mr. Duff Conacher: They want a code because other professions have codes. They see that there are rules in the Parliament of Canada Act, but they're not strong enough, not comprehensive enough, and not independently enforced. As a result, the government is not accountable enough for holding up the public interest.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are saying that we should have a code because the public wants one. By that logic, we should not go to war because people do not want to go to war. Does the government always have to do what the public wants? Does the public want a code because it believes a code will correct a problem which does not exist? When 45% of respondents say that politicians are corrupt, which is not the case, why should we try to resolve their misperception?

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: It may be their perception, but they see a gap in government accountability.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I want to ask you a question about the stats--the polls in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia--because I want to know if the gap is different where they have the code.

Mr. Duff Conacher: The gap in government accountability is different at the federal level because they have a code, actually a law, in most of the provinces and independent enforcement.

The Chair: The question simply relates to--and perhaps you didn't know, Duff--where there have been polls in those provinces--

Mr. Duff Conacher: I understand.

The Chair: --do you know if the outcomes of those polls have been higher or lower? Were they higher than 45% or less than 45%? That's the question, I think.

Mr. Duff Conacher: I do not know about the polls for every single jurisdiction, but whether they've been higher or lower, it's not just because of the existence of the code; it's whether people follow the code. If there are several complaints and the complaints are found to be justifiable--

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Where they have codes....

[Translation]

Can you send us poll results indicating the degree of confidence the public has in its elected representatives and governments in provinces which have a code, as well as figures indicating how many people know about the ethics code? I would be curious to find out whether it is more than 0.5 per cent. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: I can try to do that. But do you have a Library of Parliament researcher with you?

The Chair: If you can we will be grateful. We've made a note on this point and we'll be considering it. We appreciate your help.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: There's only one we might be concerned about, conflict of interest, and therefore the need for a code of ethics so someone won't be in a position to make decisions that could influence their own well-being, usually their own economic position. Have you any concrete examples of where members of Parliament have been in a conflict of interest that requires a code of ethics where that is not currently covered by the Parliament of Canada's Criminal Code?

Mr. Duff Conacher: Well, yes. We currently have complaints in at law societies about several senators who have sat on committees that were considering legislation that affected corporations on whose board they sit. We have filed those complaints with the law societies because several law societies have a rule for lawyers as public office holders.

Their rule sets a very high standard, one that essentially says, for example in the Law Society of Upper Canada, that if you are a public office holder and a lawyer and you have any sense of a conflict of interest, you must state it immediately, leave, and not take part in any discussions, let alone any votes. We have filed these complaints against senators who are lawyers with the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Á (1155)

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You are talking about the professional responsibilities of these particular individuals, lawyers who also happen to hold public office, but they are not in a position to make decisions that affect their own personal economic status.

Mr. Duff Conacher: Actually, we believe they are, because when you're on a board of directors, you have a fiduciary duty because you are paid a per diem; they are paid compensation as board members.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Excuse me, but they do not have the power, as do senators, to make a decision that affects their own economic status. That's the main point here, thank you very much.

Mr. Duff Conacher: No, but the potential to influence the decision is enough for the conflict.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, the witness started off talking about representativeness and referred very briefly to representing the 33 members of what he called the Government Ethics Coalition, but he then very quickly did not refer to those organizations or to their opinions but to general public opinion. I wonder if on this issue he has consulted with the 33 members of the coalition and if he could tell us who they are, when they were consulted, and what the position of those organizations is--question number one.

Number two, I note that Democracy Watch has a three-member board of directors. I wonder if Mr. Conacher is one member of that board of directors. Next, is he also an employee of the association, how often does the board meet, and to whom is it accountable?

Mr. Duff Conacher: With regard to the coalition, rather than going through the whole list of the 32 groups in the coalition, I could submit the list to you. I can read it into the record now if you like.

The Chair: If you would kindly submit it, I'd be grateful. Thank you.

Mr. Duff Conacher: As for Democracy Watch, yes, we have a board of three, and we are designed as a staff collective. This could also be known under another term, a workers' co-op, where the board and the staff are the same.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The board of directors who direct the organization are also the staff?

Mr. Duff Conacher: That's right.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So there's no accountability to anybody other than yourselves?

Mr. Duff Conacher: There are our supporters. They're not forced to donate to us. If they like what we do, they donate to us.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It seems to me that's a bit of a conflict of interest. If you're the board of director setting policy for the organization and you're also the employees of the organization for whom the policy is set, I would just like to know what accountability you exercise towards your contributors then.

Mr. Duff Conacher: We report to them regularly. If they want to continue supporting our work based on what we've done, then they send donations. If they don't believe that what we're doing represents them, then they don't send donations.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Do you ever consult with them on the public views you put forward?

Mr. Duff Conacher: Oh, sure. We get calls all the time. Our mandate is very clear on our website and in all our news releases, and our coalition list has been up on our website for years.

If you're really concerned about our representative nature, then I have a suggestion for you. In the tax forms that are mailed out each year, include a one-page pamphlet that invites Canadians--all of them, because most Canadians receive the tax form in some form in the household--to join a group that will watch over government ethics and be a citizen watchdog. If you don't want me here testifying, then do that. You have to give Canadians a voice somehow.

The Chair: The message isn't that you're not wanted here--in no way whatsoever. This is a perfectly straightforward line of questioning.

Please continue, Duff.

Mr. Duff Conacher: So that's my idea. If you don't like us here representing you, if you don't feel we're representative enough, then enclose a one-page pamphlet in the taxpayer envelopes that are mailed out to 18 million taxpayers each year. The pamphlet would then be mailed out to a group that would watch over government ethics and spending.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think it is my obligation to inquire into an organization, one that claims to be representative of public opinion, as to how they purport to actually tap into public opinion, which they say they represent, and as to how they are accountable to those they say they represent. That's my role as a member of Parliament.

The Chair: Thank you.

The committee would appreciate receiving the list, Duff, and if you do come across surveys in the provinces that were mentioned by Benoît Sauvageau, we would be grateful. As you say, we can look for them other ways.

Yvon Godin.

Â (1200)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome our witness.

I believe you have already read our preliminary report, which you have commented. You have fairly strong opinions, but I am not sure what you think about members' spouses where the code of ethics is concerned.

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: What I was going through were the loopholes and gaps we saw in the system. The proposal you have before you includes spouses and dependants, and we agreed that should be kept in. It's a very key part of the code and we agree with the current proposal to keep that in.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: With regard to senators, I believe you said a few moments ago that there was a link with law firms and that this may influence the decision taken with regard to the code of ethics. Does this mean that when there is a vote in the House of Commons, all the lawyers should leave the chamber because their vote may influence law firms throughout Canada?

I am a former union representative. If, for instance, I were my party's labour relations critic and a vote were held in the House of Commons on employees going back to work, since I am a former labour representative and the organization involved is one I support, should I withdraw from the vote to avoid a conflict of interest?

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: Are you still a member of the bar of Quebec?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. Personally, I was a member of the United Steelworkers of America.

That was really if we were dealing with labour and with labour law.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We won't accept him at the bar.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, and I don't want to be accepted, you can be sure of that.

But does that mean I am in a conflict of interest in your opinion, because you were using the one about the senator? There are all kinds of people here who represent the population of this country.

If somebody represents a group--and I believe that in our Parliament we have people coming from the community who represent all kinds of groups--does that mean we assume that when we're dealing with a subject, the members of Parliament, to not be caught...what's your opinion? Would they have to remove themselves from committee, remove themselves from Parliament? I just want to know your opinion.

I don't know what our Parliament would look like.

Mr. Duff Conacher: What we're concerned about with the senators is when they still have explicit ties to a private interest because they sit on the board of a corporation and as a result have both a fiduciary interest in and a fiduciary duty to that private interest. They have to, by law, protect that private interest. At the same time, they're sitting reviewing a bill that affects that private interest. How can they uphold the public interest when they have that fiduciary duty?

We can't say, oh, you all have to come from birth right into Parliament and not have any experiences, but we're concerned about people still having ties that are explicit ties that create a conflict.

We're quite sure, as in other jurisdictions in Canada, that the ethics commissioner will apply a sliding scale of responsibility and a sliding-scale interpretation of conflict of interest, depending on what role you're in: if you are a chair of a committee, if you are on a committee or not on a committee, and if you're a critic or not a critic. Then the ethics commissioner will look at your actual situation and say, well, you have to meet a slightly higher standard now because you're in a slightly different position than if you're just not on any committees or not in any position as a critic.

[Translation]

The Chair: Yvon, do you have another question?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a comment. I think that our constituents know who we are before they send us to Ottawa and they expect us to represent them in any case. That is not an issue, unless a member is the owner of a company affected by a particular vote.

Â (1205)

[English]

Mr. Duff Conacher: Well, the current rules effectively say you can't, if you had your own company and you voted on something that specifically helped your own company.

But beyond that, what about your shareholdings? They don't know what shares you own when they elect you, and they don't necessarily know all of the boards you sit on in various organizations. It depends on how complete your resume is and how publicly you distribute it. That's part of the disclosure in the system. Then, as well, the ethics commissioner will be determining on a case-by-case basis....

I urge the committee to pass these rules. We are now on the fifth, or perhaps the sixth, attempt to get these rules. Please do it. Please urge your colleagues to do it. If you want to create some safeguards against frivolous or vexatious complaints, no problem; we don't believe you're going to have them. Put them in, and they'll be libellous. Generally, you'll be protected and you won't have them hanging over you, because you'll have an independent person who will.... If that person doesn't rule publicly, the complaint will hang over you, because no one will know—

The Chair: Duff, we appreciate it. I do apologize for cutting you off. Whether I agree with your arguments or not, you certainly speak very clearly, if I may say so. I do genuinely appreciate this and the meticulous way you have dealt with the issues before us. This last one is the fact that, as we've been told, we are potentially in conflict virtually all the time, because we're dealing with such general aspects of the law. That's what Yvon and others were trying to deal with.

I just want to thank you and your colleagues very much for being here. We appreciate it.

Colleagues, I'm going to suspend the meeting for about two minutes, and I would invite our other witnesses to come forward, please.

Â (1207)

Â (1210)

The Chair: While you're settling down, could I refer you—and Ken in particular—to the document on security that we have circulated. John Reynolds asked about this. You have it before you, and we would welcome your comments.

If you look at it, it essentially says that we will meet with the Commissioner of the RCMP in camera. Depending on what he says, we have the possibility of discussing security on the Hill the following week. That's really all it is. I had agreed to produce this document this week for this meeting, which I have done.

Are there any questions on it for the moment? No.

Perhaps I could introduce our witnesses. The general witness is the Parliamentary Spouses Association. We have Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay, who is the president. Mary Anne, we're delighted to see you here.

We also have Yvonne Reynolds. Yvonne, are you a member of the executive? Could you give us some indication on that? Or will you do that, Mary Anne?

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay (President, Parliamentary Spouses Association): You're stealing my thunder.

The Chair: I won't do that. I want to read the names in, if I can.

We have Ron Catterall. And we have a staff person who will be introduced again.

I have to leave for about 10 minutes. I'll ask Carolyn Parrish, our vice-chair, to take my place. This is no disrespect. I have to make a phone call to the media.

Please, Mary Anne, continue.

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: Thank you.

Madam Chairperson, and Mr. Chairperson who's leaving, members of the committee, on behalf of the Parliamentary Spouses Association, thank you for this opportunity to address you today.

Let me introduce my colleagues in attendance, Yvonne Reynolds and Ron Catterall are the vice-presidents of our organization. We also have two staff with us, Elizabeth Matte and Susan Simms.

It is important for all members of this committee to understand who the Parliamentary Spouses are, so please bear with me for a brief history.

The Parliamentary Spouses Association, known as the PSA, was established in 1950 to provide support among individuals who share common situations and decisions as spouses of parliamentarians, to serve the public by providing non-partisan support for the parliamentary system of government in Canada, and to foster good relations among the spouses of the members of the Senate and the spouses of the members of the House of Commons of Canada.

Our membership totals 314 people, 71 of whom are spouses of the members of the Senate and 243 of whom are spouses of members of the House of Commons. We are a complex group. At any meeting, 50 is the average number of people in attendance. Why? Our association encompasses members from the Arctic to the Atlantic to the Pacific, and we are a non-partisan association.

Our methods of communication are by newsletter, e-mail, and telephone.

Our association has both male and female members. We have members who are stay-at-home parents. Some stay home as individuals, some are working in the riding, others are in business, and others are retired. We have professionals, such as lawyers, teachers, accountants, medical personnel, and others.

Travel to Ottawa for some is almost an impossibility, because of the distance and their home commitments.

From the history you can see the diversity of our association.

Now, why did we request to speak to this committee about the proposed disclosure of spousal assets? I want to refer you to a document from the chair, to all members of the House of Commons, dated December 19, 2002, entitled “The Working Document on the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons”, page 3, item 4, bullet 2. I quote:

Members of the Committee generally agree that any regime for Members of the House of Commons should include spousal disclosure, although its specific form and details remain to be determined. Spousal disclosure is an important protection for Parliamentarians, and it recognizes the reality of the modern family. It is also consistent with the practice in other jurisdictions.

My comments are not the result of surveys of our members or of consultation meetings with members. My remarks are a result of verbal comments made to me and my office staff, and of data collected for a presentation by a past president of our association to a similar committee meeting as today, made in 1996 when the present Speaker was chair of this committee.

The information expresses concerns from our members, which are still current. The concerns are general in nature. Since the Prime Minister's code in 1996, spouses of cabinet ministers and/or parliamentary secretaries have been well aware of and involved in the disclosure process. It is not the process that causes us concern. It is what is done with the information given in the disclosure and who has access to it. Is it available to the public, and is it available to the media?

I would like to read from part of the presentation that the past president, Judith Manley, made to the committee in 1996. I quote:

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....

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.

Â (1215)

Finally, I'd like to read her last statement, which I think sums up very well why we're here:

Finally, we request the opportunity to respond early to this committee's recommendations.

Let me give you some personal information. When my husband was appointed a parliamentary secretary, we were asked as usual to disclose and put our assets in a blind trust. Most of our assets are joint, so we proceeded. I did not object. In reading through the comments made of different witnesses, the chair indicated that he and his spouse found this to be a very interesting and worthwhile process. The process was not the problem. The problem came when I had some shares that, when we handed in the information, were deemed to be such that they could present a problem. So in order to avoid the problem, I sold the shares, and as a result I happened to gain some money. You can imagine what happened to my income tax. It went right off the wall.

Now, in consulting with several of our other colleagues, some others have had the exact opposite happen. They deemed it was going to be a problem. They took the advice. We were never pressured to sell, but it was sort of given that it would be in our best interest. In that particular case, the person took a major loss.

Those are the things that bother us. If you want to take that extreme a bit further, most of us, as spouses, spend a lot of time alone. When you make a public disclosure, it's out there for everyone to know, and we do have some, pardon me, “strange ones” who are looking at those kinds of things. So the spouses who spend a lot of time at home alone with children...I don't even want to go that route.

I want to share another example with you. My husband has shares in a local hotel, and we were told that was not a problem. I also wanted to purchase some shares, and I was asked to take a position on the board of directors. He had to give up his position when he became a parliamentary secretary, so feeling very uncomfortable about whether I should take that position or not--and wanting to do it as an individual--I chose not to.

Let me give you one further example. We have several spouses who are lawyers. Some of them are in partnerships. Now I ask you, does a declaration mean disclosing the assets of the firm? That involves other individuals. And what about the rights of the partners and the spouse to their individual and personal privacy?

As spouses we want to be seen as cooperative, but we want to be informed. We want to be part of the process. Let us look at the documents you're proposing--I have most of them, but not the current ones. We were told as late as yesterday, “You've been receiving all of this information. It shouldn't be a problem to you.” I'm not here to complain to anyone. I'm here to say we have not received any information up until yesterday, when I was asked to make this presentation and started looking for documents.

We want to be a part of the process, instead of having a code or procedure enforced upon us. We chose to be spouses, but we would like to be in a position to continue to be individuals, as business persons or professionals, without a public declaration. We want you to be well advised that as spouses we can be an integral part of the big picture.

This concludes my general remarks. From reading the minutes of all the previous witnesses, I'm confident that the question period from this committee will garner a great deal more information.

Thank you.

Â (1220)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): Thank you very much. That was much appreciated--the long-suffering team at the end of the table.

My first questioner is Mr. Guimond, from the Bloc.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Epp, did you request a question?

Mr. Ken Epp: It's almost a point of order. I would like to know whether there will be opportunity for the other members to give a prepared statement, if they have one, or was that it for the group?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I think Mrs. Finlay was speaking on behalf of all the--

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: I'm speaking on behalf of the group. If there's a question that I don't know the answer to or can't make up one, that's why I have these experts.

Mr. Ken Epp: I was wondering whether the others had something to say in advance.

A voice: No.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: Can I interrupt and say you're going to have to bear with me to deal with the translators, so please be patient with me. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I just wanted to tell you that I found your presentation interesting. I discussed the situation with my spouse and it would be fair to say that we are divided on the issue, or even psychologically torn between two competing notions. On the one hand, there is the notion of the independent legal existence of parliamentary spouses... I am convinced that when you try to get someone elected... Here, in Ottawa, divorce happens. So, if you want to succeed in this line of work, you need to have a close relationship with your spouse. God only knows that it is not always easy.

Therefore, you must recognize, on the one hand, that the spouse is not the person who got elected. The spouse is the other person who shares our life, our bed and our love. In that sense, the spouse could argue that he or she does not have to disclose his or her assets, because they are not a member of parliament, but the spouse of that member. My legal training may influence my thinking—I am a proud member of the bar—but be that as it may I have no intention of abstaining from a vote in the House, contrary to what Mr. Conacher was suggesting. In any case, that is not your concern, but that is my opinion. I am more concerned with the first part of the issue.

The second part has to do with being able to do indirectly what one is not allowed to do directly. A member might “use” his or her spouse to transfer assets or to circumvent the ethics rules.

I would like you to tell me whether you understand these two approaches, these two parts which are in contradiction with each other, and tell me which one you prefer. I have to admit—in any case, this whole thing began when Mr. Manley came before the committee— that I have not yet made up my mind. I am still tortured by both notions. However, I am not losing any sleep over it, but I like the idea of the spouse being an independent legal entity.

Â (1225)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Does anyone at the end of the table want to comment on that?

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: I would just say I agree with him. We are very supportive people. That's why we're here. We feel strongly. I know of certain situations where assets are transferred to the spouse, and that's probably very fair if the two are separate entities. But if a lot of things are jointly held, then I understand where you're coming from, from that. I can appreciate your legal mind and I can appreciate the difficulty you're having distinguishing the two. Once again, I can only reiterate that we are very supportive. The biggest concern we have are the individuals who are in their own private business. They are the ones who feel very strongly about a public disclosure.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you.

Are there any questions from this side of the table?

Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to welcome you to this committee and let you know how much I appreciate what you have said. When two people who form a couple fill out their income tax returns, they are perceived as being one person. You say you don't have a problem with that but that it would be more difficult to make it public and to have all the necessary people to look after the situation. I appreciate that issue. I don't think the person charged with implementing the ethics code should decide whether there is a problem; he or she will simply have to make the facts known. I like the way you presented your argument, I just wanted to say that.

On the other hand, that would open the door to real problems, because only the member can disclose what has been transferred to his or her spouse. But this is an artificial line in the public's mind, because the MP would simply have transferred his assets to his spouse, which would not solve the issue. It would be a good idea to have someone study the situation and give his professional opinion to the member and to the member's spouse.

I have a question for you. You said your husband was a parliamentary secretary and that you had to disclose your assets. Was this on the public record?

[English]

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: No, they were disclosed privately to the ethics commissioner.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Any other questions? Still none from this side?

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you very much. I appreciated your presentation. It was clear and succinct.

Ideally, we would not have to be in this situation at all if ever, in our whole history, there had never been a case of a member of Parliament or a senator using spousal assets to try to get away with stuff. Unfortunately, that has happened. I think that's why the public is clamouring for this kind of a disclosure and a control regimen.

You said you preferred a closed-door disclosure as opposed to an open or public disclosure. But the fact of the matter is that if there were ever accusations made, rightly or wrongly, they probably would become public because it is going to end up in a hearing or some sort of thing.

We had Duff Conacher here and some of you heard his complaints. He said all of these hearings should all be in public, and to a degree he's right because people don't trust it if it's done behind closed doors. Yet we have to guard the privacy of spouses, and indeed of members, when they're being accused of something. How do you propose that we would balance that?

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: I'm not sure I have an answer to that. I'm reading a spectrum of different opinions regarding this. One of the proposals I've read said the minute the member is elected he or she must disclose his or her assets. That to me says we may be looking at eliminating a group of people who feel strongly about disclosure and because of it choose not to be part of the elected process.

I'm also reading other facets that say keep the status quo, keep it the way it is now. If you're a member of the cabinet or the public service or a parliamentary secretary...sometimes all of those people will fall under the code and need to make disclosure.

Again, I can't answer that because I don't know the solution. I can only say that as far as having a public disclosure, yes, there are things that are publicly disclosed now. I just look at the reports that are in the newspaper regarding members' travel or regarding their budgets. This is all part of the public disclosure now. That's part of what I see as the parliamentary system.

But here we're dealing with spouses who, as I have indicated, I don't think are particularly opposed. I know they are not opposed to the process. Their opposition is to the public disclosure of their own personal assets.

When you say if this becomes a matter of a legal process, well, I suppose then anything becomes an open process. That's way down the road where we hope we never have to go.

Â (1230)

Mr. Ken Epp: I want to ask each of you--and maybe you can give me a sense of what some of the other members have said too--would you actually way down deep prefer that there be no disclosure? Would you prefer that we just say, okay, you're independent of your MP or senator or husband or wife, you're independent of them, and what you do is your business? Let the politicians carry on with this, and if you want a disclosure routine from them, fine, but spouses are out of it. Is that what you would really like?

Mr. Ron Catterall (Vice-President, Parliamentary Spouses Association): Just on a personal basis, I have no objection to the disclosure. And if it goes to an ethics commissioner or a board that gets it and there's an apparent conflict, it at least gets the frivolousness out of it. The board or the commissioner can just say, sorry, you're way off base if there is a public disclosure or a judicial disclosure. Personally, I have no objection at all to publicly disclosing my assets.

Mr. Ken Epp: Even publicly?

Mr. Ron Catterall: Not publicly--

Mr. Ken Epp: In private.

Mr. Ron Catterall: In private, yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: You mean private disclosure for accountability.

Mr. Ron Catterall: Yes, and I think that would get over any apparent conflict of interest; it would go a long way anyway.

The Chair: Okay.

Yvonne.

Mrs. Yvonne Reynolds (Vice-President, Parliamentary Spouses Association): My position is I don't mind the disclosure to the ethics commissioner, but it should be kept private. I don't think you should necessarily have to sell your investments because your husband is doing something that might be a conflict of interest.

I don't know a lot of the committees my husband is sitting on. I don't know a lot of the decisions he is making. We don't discuss that when he comes home. He's tired of politics when he comes home; he wants some comic relief, which I try to provide. We're not talking about his day-to-day committees and what he is involved in.

Also, if you're in a position where you have to sell your assets, you're not going to necessarily be able to recoup. For a four-year term, a three-and-a-half-year term, which we've been having, you really expose yourself to the markets when you have to sell because there might be a conflict of interest.

I think the ethics commissioner can look at it and give you a choice, and then you make the decision whether you think you're going to put your husband in a compromising position. None of us want to do that. None of us want the public to think we're there for a private gain.

But you do have to protect yourself. A member never knows how long he's going to be able to serve. He may only get one term, and then you're selling all your assets. What do you do then when you come back to deal with real life and with business?

So I don't think you should have to make money in this profession, but I also don't think you should have to jeopardize your own financial security to serve the public, and I don't think the public expects you to do that. I think we're all here with credibility.

The Chair: Sorry, Ken, Mary Anne wants to say something.

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: I agree. I don't think there is a spouse I've ever talked to who is opposed to the first step, and that is disclosure to the ethics commissioner, or whatever the new position may be. But it's throwing it wide open to the markets, so to speak....

Â (1235)

The Chair: Okay, Ken, briefly please.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

I suppose the final statement--and it's something you said.... The public gets to know the travel expenses and so on. That's direct expenditure of public money related to my work as a member of Parliament. They have the right to know that I'm using public money to fulfill my duties as a member of Parliament, as opposed to for personal use. There's no objection to that, I'm sure.

Mrs. Yvonne Reynolds: No, absolutely none.

Mr. Ken Epp: No, okay, good.

Thank you.

The Chair: Jacques Saada, and then Benoît Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[English]

I was appointed in 1998, and as all PSs and their spouses know, we have to provide this information to the ethics commissioner on a confidential basis. My wife asked the question, “Why do you need to provide information on what I do?” She is not in business. She's a school principal, so there is a very limited scope here in terms of possibilities. I explained to her that as a parliamentary secretary, in a way I'm a part of government.

A bit earlier, just before you started--I'm sorry I had to leave, I had to split my time between two duties--Mr. Conacher read a statement by Supreme Court Judge Claire L'Heureux-Dubé. He mentioned the need for government to have a strong code of ethics. On both counts we're talking about government, but here it's not government we're talking about. We're talking about members of Parliament.

The reaction that my wife had, even though we did issue this information, as we had to, when I was a PS--I'm not a PS any more--was that she was very reluctant because she felt it was too tempting to associate the credibility of members of Parliament with the potential lack of credibility on the part of the spouses, who are viewed as manipulating in the back.

What's your feeling on all that?

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: I could say I agree with your wife. It is somewhat of an intimidating process, but it's a learning experience--and I can only say that personally. I can reflect on some comments I read that were made by a past president. Her husband chose to be a member of Parliament and she wanted to stay at home and be in the background. I think that's what you were alluding to; that's what your spouse had indicated. I think that's where we get really engrossed in what is right and what is wrong, and we, as spouses, feel strongly that we still maintain a right to our own personal privacy. That's where we feel strongly that we want to stay as individuals and not be part of the government, so to speak.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I need a point of clarification here.

When spouses file their information--up to now, when they didn't have to--wouldn't the commissioner have the power, when he or she investigates an allegation of conflict of interest, to actually dig this information up?

The Chair: Okay, I have a hypothetical question. If they have not declared and there was no provision for declaring, would the commissioner investigating a spouse of a member of Parliament have the right to--

Mr. Jacques Saada: I don't mean investigating the spouse. Let's say I'm a member of Parliament and there is an allegation against me that could involve something that my spouse had done. Wouldn't the commissioner have the power to dig into this information, as it stands today?

Â (1240)

The Chair: I'll ask either Jamie or Margaret to comment on that.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): At present, the only spouses who are required to disclose are--

The Chair: No, he's told us, as of now. For example, let's use my wife. I am accused of something. Is the information on my wife's assets and responsibilities and so on available to the commissioner?

Margaret.

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): With no spousal disclosure from the beginning, that information would not be on file with the ethics commissioner. However, the family and spousal interests are applicable under certain rules of the proposed code. For example--

The Chair: He means now.

Ms. Margaret Young: I apologize. I thought you were talking about the proposed law.

Now the ethics commissioner has the confidential disclosure of the spouses.

Mr. Jacques Saada: If I am accused of something.

Ms. Margaret Young: Are you a private member or a--

Mr. Jacques Saada: I am a private member. The commissioner goes into my case and finds things that might require him to obtain information from my spouse. Does he have the power to enforce that at the present time?

Mr. Ken Epp: Right now you're out of his jurisdiction.

Mr. James Robertson: That's right. Right now there's nobody who can investigate a complaint against you except a committee of the House of Commons, if the committee chooses to do that.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Can the committee do that?

The Chair: The committee has the power.

Mr. James Robertson: Yes. At present, a committee that is investigating a member could order the member, or anyone else, to provide information to the committee. If the person refused, it would be up to the House to decide whether to issue an order.

Mr. Jacques Saada: In this case, Mr. Chairman, I'm not opposed in principle to the concept of filing, confidentially, information from spouses, but I would suggest it's only for perception purposes. If there is a real problem, you have access to the information. So it's only on the surface. It's only to resolve an issue of perception.

Again, we are coming back to the fundamental question that I've been raising all along in this debate: are we doing it to resolve an issue of perception, or are we doing it because there is a problem?

The Chair: By the way, I've duly noted that opinion. The difference would be that at the moment what we've just said we have to ferret out. In the future there would be a code that says this stuff is available. If the present situation were codified, Jacques, there would be a list that says that, but there isn't.

Unless the witnesses have some comment on that, I'll go to Benoît Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your presentation. As Jacques said, it always give us great pleasure, since we are parliamentarians, to welcome the spouses of parliamentarians.

I also am of the opinion that if ever spouses were required to disclose their assets, the information would have to remain confidential. In my view, this is basic and essential. My wife did not marry a member of Parliament; she married me before I was elected. Therefore, she has her own personality and often reminds me of that fact.

I have to apologize because I am wearing two hats. I am also the official languages critic. If you don't mind, I will ask you the following question. Quite some time ago—even though I am still young, I have been a member of Parliament for a long time—my wife participated in an event organized by the Parliamentary Spouses Association and she told be that she was rather unhappy with the fact that it was entirely in English. She regularly receives documentation in both official languages. However, in the case of events, do you look after minority groups, such as francophones, and if so, how? I am not making an accusation; I simply want information.

[English]

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: You've already referred to the fact that the mailings go out in both official languages.

Regarding our meetings, when we get the list of people who are coming to meetings, we always have a translator available to us so that things can be done in translation simultaneously.

To date, in my term as president, we have never had to use that facility. We had it all up and ready to go for one meeting, and the person who wanted the translation cancelled at the last minute.

So if your wife chooses to attend, that translation facility will be available.

Â (1245)

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do your members know about this service?

[English]

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: Absolutely. First of all, their reply comes back in French, which indicates to us that French is their first language. Therefore, we automatically assume, if they're attending, that we need to have provision for the translation, and it's done automatically.

A voice: Does the member know that?

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: You mean, does our member know that?

A voice: His wife.

Mrs. Yvonne Reynolds: Yes, she gets the information in both languages.

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: If she doesn't, we're remiss. But my immediate answer, through you, Mr. Chairperson, would be, yes, she would, because we say we're making provisions.

Actually, what usually happens is if we know we have one person attending who's French-speaking, the staff will phone and make sure the person is attending and we say we're making provision for a translator. That's the courtesy they extend to us when they cancel, because they know we're paying for that person.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much for that information. I simply wanted that clarification. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

On behalf of the committee, thank you all for doing this. As you realize, you are likely the last witnesses we will be receiving, because we're going to move into the paragraph-by-paragraph examination of the document that is before us.

So I'd like to thank Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay, Yvonne Reynolds, Ron Catterall, and Susan Simms. We greatly appreciate it.

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: And Liz Matte.

The Chair: Yes, thank you, Liz. Thank you very much, indeed. We do appreciate it.

Now, colleagues, before--

Ms. Mary Anne Silverthorn Finlay: Mr. Chairperson, could I just make a final comment?

The parliamentary spouses have often felt as if we're left out of the big picture and the loop. We struggle hard to make people realize that we really are part of the big picture. All we would ask, our point here today, is to make sure we are made to feel as if we're included and have some say in what is really going on.

We don't want to vote--you are the people making the decisions--but we want the opportunity to give our input since we are the other half living in the House, so to speak.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: I frequently hear echoes of your voice, I may say.

I explained the procedure earlier so you would hear it before you came to the table. Your comments today and the results of the exchanges will be in the document we'll be using next week. When we get to the paragraph dealing with spouses or, by the way, on any of the other areas you have mentioned, your testimony will be there and will certainly be taken into account.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, our next meeting is on Tuesday, when we continue with the paragraph-by-paragraph consideration of the ethics document. Next meeting--and this is for John Reynolds' benefit--is at 3:30 on Wednesday, when we have the Commissioner of the RCMP for an in camera meeting here on Hill security. Then we follow that with our regular Thursday meeting, which is on the ethics package again.

Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned until Tuesday at 11 o'clock. The meeting will specifically be on the code.