:
Ladies and gentlemen, we will begin today's meeting, May 9, of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs.
Welcome, all members. I appreciate that you came out this morning. Before we begin, I would like to remind members that at the conclusion of the initial part of the meeting, I would like members to stick around for just a few moments so that we can discuss a little about future business.
Without further ado, Dr. Shapiro, thank you very much for coming out. It's indeed an honour to have you before the committee this morning. I would offer you a few minutes to introduce yourself, as well as your officials, to some of the newer members. Thank you.
:
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, first I wish to thank you for having invited me to meet with the committee so early in the new Parliament. As well, I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Goodyear, on your election to the chair of this committee. I also wish to congratulate Mr. Guimond and Mr. Proulx who were elected vice-chairs. I wish the committee all the best in its proceedings and business. My office and I look forward to working with you.
[English]
I do have very brief opening remarks with respect to various issues related to the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons, which I hereafter call the members' code.
Before I proceed, I wish to introduce, as you suggested, the Deputy Ethics Commissioner, Robert Benson, who is with me today; and also Micheline Rondeau-Parent, who is the director of communications and parliamentary liaison for the office.
In early April I sent the committee a relatively comprehensive briefing book outlining some of the issues on which we will need to work together. Some are outstanding from the last Parliament. Others are new. The three main issues that I wish to outline for the purposes of my introductory remarks are, first of all, the members' disclosure statement and compliance status; secondly, a number of administrative issues; and finally, some issues relative to inquiries.
Let me begin with the first issue, which is members' disclosure statements and compliance. The outstanding matter I'd like to bring to your attention is the new interim disclosure statement for members and their family members. It was developed in the last Parliament with the previously established subcommittee of this committee on the disclosure statement. Although the form itself has been used by the new members of the 39th Parliament, it was not, due to dissolution, officially approved by this standing committee. As I indicated in my letter last month, pursuant to section 30 of the members' code, a concurrence by the committee--and the House, if you wish--would be appreciated.
I wish to take this opportunity as well to provide the committee with the status of the members' compliance with the disclosure requirements in the current Parliament. I am pleased to confirm that all 68 new members submitted their disclosure statements within the 60-day period provided by the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons. I would like to thank the members for their cooperation in this regard.
With respect to returning members, they have all received their updated profile from my office, and there are presently just eleven members who have not yet responded. We are continuing to work the respective whips in relation to these members. We wish to acknowledge the excellent cooperation the whips have extended to our office in dealing with this issue.
Furthermore, we have received close to twenty disclosure summaries, which will be in the public registry of the 39th Parliament and thereby complete the compliance of these members very soon. Once again, I thank these members for their diligence in that regard.
Finally, in relation to compliance, I remind the committee as well that, at the request of the 38th Parliament subcommittee, we provided a proposed form to indicate the compliance status of all members, a form that was to be made available at the public registry in my office. To date, we have not received any feedback on this proposal, but within its consideration of various administrative rules in support of the code, the committee may wish to consider my office's proposal.
Let me now turn to a second issue, which relates in fact to rules of administration in support of the members' code. With my April letter I also forwarded to this committee some proposed rules in support of the administration of the members' code. These were provided to the 38th Parliament's procedure committee and were submitted pursuant to section 30 of the members' code. They relate to several different sections of the code, namely the disclosure statement, the reimbursement of costs associated with trusts, the inquiry process, the public registry and sponsored travel, among others.
As well, I tabled my second report on sponsored travel, as per section 15 of the members' code, which has been referred, as I understand it, to this committee. In it, two questions were brought to the attention of the committee, namely the interpretation of what we mean by “not wholly paid” and the status of travel sponsored by a private organization but paid for by the consolidated revenue fund--for example, the parliamentary centre--of one kind or another. You may wish to address these issues within your review of the administrative rules pursuant to section 30 of the code, and I would be pleased, of course, to work with you in this regard.
There are probably many other issues that could be raised, but the third issue I want to raise as an introduction to this morning's meeting has to do with the inquiries process, which is sections 27 to 29 of the code.
Following an undertaking with the previous Parliament's procedure committee, I provided you with a detailed draft of a set of procedural guidelines and a summary process chart in support of the conduct of inquiries pursuant to section 27 of the members' code. This is very much a working draft in progress for discussion and consideration of this committee. As it is a substantive and, I think, substantial document, I would be pleased to work with the full committee or any designated subcommittee, as I proposed in my April letter, in order to proceed with a detailed review.
In conclusion, my office and I very much welcome the opportunity to work with you in the next few months.
Along with the deputy commissioner, I will now be pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good day, Mr. Shapiro. Thank you for accepting our invitation. Thank you as well to Mr. Benson.
Mr. Shapiro, an article in this morning's newspaper talked about how some members and government officials accept so-called hockey freebies. These invitations are extended to members or ministers by lobbyists or companies that do business with the government. A reference was made to certain members who accepted invitations to watch the game from a box. As everyone knows, box seats are relatively pricey. I wish the Senators had won their games. At least Members of Parliament would have been there to cheer them on. Unfortunately, that was not to be.
What is your policy regarding such matters? I don't wish to mention any names, but the article refers to a certain MP who sought direction from your office before accepting this invitation.What is your position on requests of this nature from MPs, ministers or government officials? Does it come down to a question of judgment or do you simply wish to be informed or to have the facts on record so that if, for instance, a reporter brought the story to the public's attention, you'd be protected because you could say that you had approved the request? Please explain your policy so that the public can understand the need to proceed with caution when situations like this arise.
:
The first thing I want to say in response is that the policy is different for members of the House and for public office holders. It's not the same policy. It's different in two regards.
To take the easier one first,
[Translation]
one that does not require a great deal of thinking,
[English]
there's the question of the members of the House. Here the requirement is that any gift worth $500 or more be publicly declared. A hockey ticket or a series of them would be a gift and would need to be publicly declared if the accumulated value of the gift over a 12-month period was $500 or more. In that case, it would simply need to be declared and we would put it on the public registry.
For public office holders, the requirements are a lot more stringent in two respects. First of all, the number is $200 rather than $500; and secondly, we ask additional questions. It isn't enough to just disclose the gift. We want to know, for example, whether the donor is doing business with the federal government--as you mentioned is a possibility--or whether there are contract negotiations going on between the sponsor of the gift and whoever is being asked to come. So we ask a more difficult set of questions, where it is a matter of judgment and not just a matter of whether the gift is $200 or more over a 12-month period.
So that is the policy. Certainly, if a particular individual were to ask in advance we would be glad to give him our opinion on whether this was acceptable or not, depending on whether it was a public officer or a member of the House.
I hesitate to comment on the particular case you made. I also read the paper this morning, so I have that information. But it wouldn't be sufficient for me to make a comment now.
Thank you, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Benson, for being here. It's always a pleasure to have you here in our little committee.
I wanted to ask a couple of things. Actually, I wanted to, if I could, just get the list from you, Professor Shapiro, of the items on which you're seeking to have the committee undertake its responsibilities under section 30 and make a recommendation to the House. Obviously there's a disclosure statement itself, a copy of which we have in a binder that was prepared for us. I'm not sure if it was prepared by the clerk or by you—okay, by you. So we have that disclosure statement for members and their families. What other items are there that you're looking for?
:
I can't really respond to that question in a detailed way because it depends on the context in which the information arises or the issue arises.
The reason I would decide to commence an inquiry would be because the information that came to me, one way or another, seemed to me to be convincing enough that an issue of public ethics was at stake and should therefore be investigated. It's a very vague response, but that is in fact what I do. I ask myself whether or not the information is sufficiently convincing and sufficiently substantive to make an inquiry worth while.
I try not to do this often because one of the difficulties that I find we work under is that the launching of an inquiry all by itself creates problems for the people about whom the inquiry is launched. Irrespective of the outcome or irrespective of any wrongdoing, clearly that's the case. It's the sheer mentioning of something.
To choose another context, it's as if one accused a kindergarten teacher of some sort of sexual harassment. Whether or not it's true, damage is created by the sheer mention of the possibility.
I try to do it quite infrequently, and I have done it quite infrequently simply because of that.
:
What I didn't intend to mean by that statement was access by members of the public to the information inside the office. That's obviously not possible; it's confidential information. By access to the Ethics Commissioner, I simply indicated that we get a lot of calls and e-mails saying you should do X--you should inquire about so-and-so; you should do this; you should do that; you should do something else; I would like you to investigate Ms. So-and-so.
The legislation does not provide for that possibility. That is, I or members themselves are the only people who can launch an inquiry. We do get a lot of correspondence, either electronic or not, from people who say that in their district, X in essence happened--this person did that; that person did this; you should launch an inquiry against whomever. We respond by indicating that if they regard the matter as serious, they should deal with it with the local MP--or any MP, actually--who can then, if he or she is convinced, take action, and if not, not.
So there's no direct access. We refer them back to--
:
I'd like to take up where my colleague seated to my right left off.
First of all, I was very pleased to hear you state your guiding principles. As someone who practised criminal law, I know full well the harm that some accusations can cause. Therefore, it's important to tread carefully until we have proof.
Regardless, when someone asks you a question about a complaint filed against a member or some other person, wouldn't it be better for you never to comment ?
To quote Voltaire:
A lie repeated often enough will end up as truth.
I don't think his intention was to encourage people to lie, but the fact remains that some people apply this adage. Resentment can lead to accusations being levelled against a person. The damage can never really be repaired. I've seen first hand the fallout when some professors were the target of false accusations.
In my opinion, you've given some excellent examples and I'm pleased with that. However, I feel certain that if someone were to put this type of question, you would respond: No comment. Would it not be better for you to say that you never comment before an inquiry is actually concluded?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today.
First of all, I want to say that I was very pleased to hear your statement, Dr. Shapiro, in your earlier response to Ms. Redman, I think, that you realize perception becomes reality when you deal with political sensitivities and you deal with members of Parliament.
You'll recall appearing before this committee in the last Parliament, dealing with one of my colleagues, Deepak Obhrai, in a very sensitive situation, and what readily became political reality once you had confirmed with a journalist that an investigation was under way.
I was pleased to hear you say that you recognize today that there is a reality and that you would now proceed differently by basically saying “no comment”. If a journalist phoned you and asked whether it's true that so-and-so is being investigated, you would say “no comment”, rather than “yes” or “no”. As others have noted, simply by making the statement that yes, you are looking at this, immediately that particular member of Parliament is branded, for lack of a better term. I was pleased with that.
But I want to follow up on something else that I think I heard you say. In reference to a question from the opposition, you made a comment about being interviewed on a talk show. Do you believe that it's part of the mandate of the Ethics Commissioner to appear on talk shows?
:
I'm not going to make any comment about public servants. I haven't thought about it carefully, and I don't wish to comment on it.
In terms of differences in standards, let's say, or in guidelines for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, etc., as compared to MPs, I have no problem with the fact that there are differences. I think the responsibilities of these people are different. The occasions on which conflict of interest might arise are very different, and I have no conceptual problem with that distinction.
I think there is likely to be in the future--although I may be wrong--pressure to eliminate the distinction, simply because people find it easier to keep one thing in mind rather than two. And you can sort of understand that, but I have no difficulty with the distinction currently made.
:
Thanks for the question.
This is something that has come up in the inquiries that we conduct.
Again, if I can draw the distinction between the public office holder code, which is not this one.... Under the public office holder code, the Ethics Commissioner has the power to summon or subpoena information; under the member of Parliament code, he does not.
In conducting investigations, if the allegation raised leads us to try to obtain information from government departments or organizations, we have great difficulty getting that information. Under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, we are not an investigative body under those acts that would allow them to release it to us, and we don't have the power to summon or subpoena, so we can't get the information. So if in relation to a particular situation the path of the inquiry leads us to a government department, they react as they have to, but they cannot provide the information to us. So we end up against a bit of a roadblock there.
:
Thank you, members of the committee.
Dr. Shapiro, I appreciate very much you coming out on short notice to present before the committee.
Mr. Benson, thank you as well.
Ladies and gentlemen, we were going to move to future business, but given that not all the whips are here today, I propose that we use the next meeting to deal with future business.
Are there any concerns with that? It's simple enough.
:
Okay, in resuming our meeting, there are two items I would like to deal with today. First, if I could skip to the draft letter, which I handed out at the last meeting, we would like to send that out to our colleagues to get some input on our broadcasting issues. May I now have approval to send that letter out?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. We will send that letter out.
Yesterday the steering committee met and discussed in some detail the issue of security on the Hill. Following up on that meeting, the steering committee was of the opinion that we should set up a subcommittee to properly and appropriately look into matters of security on the Hill.
Indeed, the suggestion was made that there would be three phases to this. The first phase would be trying to understand exactly what the situation is at present. I propose that we set up a subcommittee to do exactly that and then bring that information to the main committee. We would probably encourage the subcommittee to continue on to look at what security is available and what else we should do. Ultimately, we would end up with a report.
I would like a bit of discussion, if we need to do that, but ultimately I would like to hear from members as to who would like to sit on the subcommittee. I see Mr. Preston's hand up.
Mr. Godin, we need you on this committee, sir. You're in? Thank you.
We have two members. I will be sitting on the committee, and there will be one member per party. Monsieur Guimond and Monsieur Proulx. I'm very pleased. Thank you very much.
Is there any other business that we need to attend to today?
Mr. Hill.
:
There are two rooms in this building that are set up for televising by the House of Commons and provided to CPAC, which broadcasts them. They're are also provided to members of the parliamentary press gallery.
In 2000, the predecessor of this committee set up guidelines for the electronic media and the members of the parliamentary press gallery to give notice to film other public meetings. I think the original draft provided for a longer notice period. After negotiations with members of the parliamentary press gallery, the decision was that it was not to specify a specific period of time to provide notice. The thinking at the time was that witnesses sometimes changed at the last minute, the notices of meetings often go out late in the afternoon, and therefore the media do not always know who will be appearing. Also, they don't always know what other demands will be made on their camera crews, so they need some flexibility to give notice up until a short time before the meeting.
The purpose of the letter is to solicit input from all members of the House. The committee has previously decided to call representatives of the press gallery and representatives of the table officers. If there's a concern over the notice period or the lack of television facilities provided by the House, one of the ideas would be that these are things that could be addressed before these guidelines are made permanent.
:
I'm just reading through it.
I guess perhaps all this time I was working under a mistaken premise, if I can put it that way, because it looks to me as if they are allowed under certain conditions: they have to be immobilized in the sense that they have to remain stationary during the proceedings, and they're not allowed to do close-ups. Like the cameras in the House of Commons, they're supposed to be focused only on the individual who's speaking, either the chair or the witness or the individual committee member who's asking a question.
I was under the understanding--well, maybe it had to do with the notice--that other committees that I was involved in where they attempted to--“they” being one network, whether it was CBC or CTV or Global, or whatever it was--would come in, and there was some high-profile witness or whatever, and they would come in and want to film the proceedings, and they were always not allowed, any committee I was ever involved in. So I was a little surprised to see television network cameras here, as opposed to the televised rooms, where my understanding is it's CPAC that broadcasts those proceedings the same as they do in the House of Commons.
But I guess under these guidelines this is allowed with sufficient notice, and provided they follow the rules exactly, and are restricted to certain--