;

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

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

1535

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

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

1540

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister)

Mr. Mitch Bloom (Privy Council Officer, Privy Council Office)

The Chair

Mr. Mitch Bloom

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Wall (Director, Parliamentary Relations, Privy Council Office)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1545

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Ronald Wall

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Ronald Wall

1550

Mr. Mitch Bloom

The Chair

Mr. Mitch Bloom

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Ronald Wall

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

The Chair

1555

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc (Clerk of the Committee)

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc

The Chair

1600

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

Mr. Jacques Saada

1605

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

1610

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

1615

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

1620

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

1625

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Mitch Bloom

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Mitch Bloom

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Mitch Bloom

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

1630

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

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

Mr. Michel Guimond

1635

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Wall

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Ronald Wall

1640

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Mitch Bloom

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

1645

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

1650

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Mitch Bloom

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Mitch Bloom

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Mitch Bloom

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

1655

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

1700

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

1705

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Mitch Bloom

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Mitch Bloom

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

1710

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Mitch Bloom

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mr. Mitch Bloom

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mr. Mitch Bloom

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mr. Mitch Bloom

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Mr. Mitch Bloom

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Mitch Bloom

The Chair

1715

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

1720

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

1725

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Ken Epp

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 054

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, perhaps we could resume.

The order of the day is Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other acts in consequence.

On clause 4

The Chair: We're doing clause-by-clause and we have finished PC-3. I would suggest, if you're agreeable, that we leave amendment PC-3 and proceed immediately to BQ-2.

Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

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

I will dispense with reading the amendment in its entirety. However, I think I should read the proposed paragraph 72.08(1) on page 8 of the bill. To understand the gist of our amendment, one must refer to this provision which reads as follows:

72.08(1) A member of the Senate or House of Commons who has reasonable grounds to believe that a minister of the Crown [...] has not observed the ethical principles, rules or obligations established by the Prime Minister for public office holders may, in writing, request that the Ethics Commissioner examine the matter.

(2) The request shall identify the alleged non-observance of the ethical principles, rules, or obligations established by the Prime Minister for public office holders and set out the reasonable grounds for the belief that they have not been observed.

I have a question for the committee, one that will help you to understand why I have tabled this amendment calling upon the Prime Minister to introduce a code of ethics for ministers. What would happen if the Prime Minister decided not to have a code of ethics for his ministers? There is nothing in the act requiring the Prime Minister to bring in such a code.

What steps then could parliamentarians take, pursuant to the proposed section 72.08, if we had grounds to believe that the principles, rules or obligations established by the Prime Minister had not been observed? How can we ask the ethics commissioner to look into this matter if there is no obligation on his part to do so?

That's where my amendment comes into play. Under the proposed section 72.061, the Prime Minister would be obligated to have a code of ethics. That explains why my amendment begins with the following words: “72.061 The Prime Minister shall [...] establish ethical principles, rules and obligations [...]

Secondly, I would like to draw committee members' attention to the proposed section 72.062. My amendment would require the Prime Minister to make this code of ethics for ministers public. As such, I'm asking that the ethics commissioner lay before the House a report on the principles established under the aforementioned code of ethics.

In light of paragraph 72.08(2) as proposed in the bill, I respectfully submit to my colleagues the following question: Is anyone here familiar with the specifics of the ministerial code of ethics? I would venture to say that no one is. If that's the case, how can I, as a parliamentarian, conclude or believe that a minister has failed to observe this code of ethics? How can I do that when I'm unfamiliar with the code's content. For that reason, I'm proposing that the Prime Minister be required to make the code public.

Consider the wording of the proposed paragraph 72.08(2):

(2) The request shall identify the alleged non-observance of the ethical principles [...]

If there's someone out there today who is familiar with the ministerial code of ethics and who is capable for filing a complaint, I'd like that person to tell me how to proceed, given that the details of the code are not public knowledge.

My proposed amendment would also resolve another dilemma. In response to a question, Minister Boudria indicated that the ethics commissioner would rule on cases of alleged non-observance of the code of ethics as it applies to Members of Parliament, or to ministers.

¹ (1540)

However, how can I appeal the commissioner's decision if I'm not familiar with the code of ethics for ministers? If I know the details of the code of ethics for Members of Parliament, it won't be a problem. I'll be able to confirm the decision, as the details of the code have been spelled out clearly to me. However, how can I say the same thing for the code of ethics for ministers, if its existence and contents are unknown to me?

I hope that my colleagues will weigh this matter carefully. That's the crux of my amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Michel.

[English]

By the way, it is my understanding that the Prime Minister's code is on the website and it certainly is in the briefing book that we received on Bill C-34.

Rodger Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister): I'll make my comments and then I'll defer to Mitch, but I believe proposed sections 72.062 and 72.063 might be redundant, as reports are already tabled in the House. I believe the first paragraph of proposed section 72.061 would be in order.

Mr. Mitch Bloom (Privy Council Officer, Privy Council Office): I think the comment the member made was reasonable. It's a bit of a gap to not have a requirement to have such, notwithstanding the fact that they do exist and have existed for several prime ministers now. It's not unreasonable.

The Chair: Am I right about the fact that the code is public?

Mr. Mitch Bloom: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Michel, do you want to comment on that? The suggestion is that proposed section 72.061 looks as though it's okay. For proposed sections 72.062 and 72.063, they seem to think there is a reporting mechanism of some sort.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm prepared to move an amendment, if my colleagues have no objections. I need unanimous consent to delete section 72.062 as proposed in my amendment. I'm willing to do that. However, since the Privy Council has said that a loophole could potentially be created in the process in that a Prime Minister could decide not to have a code of ethics and the whole complexion of the bill could be altered, we need to ensure that he is under the obligation to introduce one.

[English]

The Chair: Can I get that right? As a friendly amendment, we would take out proposed section 72.062. Colleagues, the amendments we're considering are proposed sections 72.061 and 72.063.

Rodger, do you have any other comment?

Mr. Ronald Wall (Director, Parliamentary Relations, Privy Council Office): I believe proposed section 72.063 is also redundant because the annual report is tabled.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes. The position of the government is that proposed section 72.063 would be redundant as well since there's an annual report tabled in the Commons.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Thank you.

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): I would disagree with the statement just made because this amendment speaks of tabling amendments in the House immediately they are made, not to wait until the annual report. I think I understand that correctly. Am I right on that?

Yes. I don't think it's redundant in the truest sense of the word because this is a requirement here.

I would also like to say that I support the amendment and sincerely hope members of the committee will concur with this. I think it's very important. Again, what we're trying to do here--remember the whole reason for this exercise--is to have people trust us more. How can you judge whether or not they're living up to a code?

First of all, do we have code that is justifiable and is reasonable? Secondly, are the members of the cabinet of the government living up to it? I think that measure is very important, and I support it.

Before I give up the microphone, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask whether Mr. Cuzner is signed in here as a witness or as a member of the committee. That's just a technical question.

The Chair: He's a member of the committee who also happens to be a witness.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, so he does get a vote.

The Chair: Yes, he does. He's a full-time, permanent member of the committee, Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I call amendment BQ-2.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Excuse me for a moment, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to add to what Mr. Epp said, because I'm not certain if Mr. Cuzner misread the proposed paragraph 72.063 which says: “Any amendment to the ethical principle [...] shall immediately [...]”. I'm making a distinction between this report and the annual report to be tabled. I'm referring to the immediate reporting of any amendments to the principles. That's the distinction I'm attempting to make.

With all due respect, your earlier comment is irrelevant to what's written down here, unless of course amendments are now reported immediately.

Is that in fact the case? If so, I will withdraw my amendment. However, if that's not the case...

[English]

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a question regarding this matter for counsel.

[English]

The Chair: Rodger, do you want to comment on Michel's question first? Then we'll go to Jacques Saada, who has another question.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: The Prime Minister's code and the Ethics Commissioner's report are tabled in public. So we're just concerned that it's already addressed, that it may be redundant.

The Chair: Okay, Michel--briefly--and then Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I've directed my question to Mr. Cuzner and to counsel. A simple yes or no will suffice. Are amendments to ethical principles reported immediately at this time, yes or no?

[English]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'll ask Ron to answer.

Mr. Ronald Wall: Proposed section 72.061 would require that the Prime Minister's code be tabled after the swearing in of a ministry. The annual report of the Ethics Commissioner would be an opportunity to make public any changes in a document.

It would still be open to the government to table changes, but the way proposed section 72.063 is worded, there are some technical problems. It's redundant, and it creates a bit of confusion with the government's support for proposed section 72.061 but not proposed section 72.062.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: WIth your permission, Mr. Chairman, could someone kindly tell me which words in the proposed section 72.063 of the amendment pose a problem?

[English]

Mr. Ronald Wall: In the final proposed subsection 72.04(8), “who shall lay it before the House of Commons” wouldn't make any sense if you didn't have proposed section 72.062 as well.

As Mr. Cuzner just indicated, the Prime Minister's code has already been tabled in Parliament, and within the swearing in of cabinet, I think that would include any subsequent changes to the ministry. Is that right?

¹ (1550)

Mr. Mitch Bloom: If I can offer a more general comment--

The Chair: Mitch Bloom.

Mr. Mitch Bloom: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since the initiation of these types of codes--it was with the preceding government, prior to this government--the code has been public. It doesn't work unless it's public, because it requires the transparency provisions to be known by all so they can judge the minister's actions on the basis of the rules that are in place.

So proposed sections 72.062 and 72.063 are unnecessary because the whole premise of a prime minister's code is that the document is public so that ministers can be measured against it. In fact, that has always been true; the code for public office holders has always been public.

The Chair: Jacques Saada, and then Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, if we accept the principle of the proposed section 72.061, why would it be necessary to go through the commissioner to report amendments to principles, rules and so forth, given that the Prime Minister would be required to publish these rules within 15 days of the swearing in of Cabinet? Why would it be necessary to compel the commissioner to report these amendments when we can act through the commissioner to have them reported the first time around?

I'm not sure if Mr. Guimond would be willing to consider this option, provided of course the proposed section 72.061 is adopted. As a corollary to this, the proposed section 72.063 would be amended to read that the Prime Minister, not the commissioner, shall report any amendments immediately. The important thing here is not who reports the amendments, but that they are reported in the first place.

[English]

Mr. Ronald Wall: We can live with that.

The Chair: Rodger Cuzner, and then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Would Mr. Guimond be willing to make a friendly amendment to that effect?

The Chair: Can someone think about the wording of that while Marlene Catterall makes her point?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I'm still not quite clear what the problems are. Yes, the Prime Minister has guidelines and principles but doesn't necessarily have guidelines and principles. I think what Mr. Guimond is seeking to do is to ensure that any Prime Minister in the future must have guidelines and principles; in his next section, they must be tabled in Parliament; and in his third section, if they're changed, Parliament must be notified of that change--which makes sense. If Parliament is to be told what the guidelines and principles are, then if they're changed, they should be told that, and not maybe a year later.

I'm trying to get to, in principle, what the problem is here. If there's no problem with the principles, which is in fact the practice of this government but might not be of a future government, then what's the problem with adopting the amendments? If it's simply a question of them needing to be worded differently, can we come up with alternative wording?

The Chair: While you're thinking about that, I'll go to Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Just for my own benefit, if proposed section 72.061 is accepted and proposed section 72.063 is reworded so that it's the Prime Minister who tables any changes to the ethical code within...is there a time limit there?

Heaven help somebody who changes the rules, doesn't make it public, and tries to use that as a defence after the fact, but on proposed section 72.063, with what I'm hearing the witnesses and officials say, if that's the Prime Minister standing up, through a prime ministerial statement, and announcing the change and tabling the new document, I think that's what we're essentially after here. So we may be close to having something we can adopt.

The Chair: One suggestion I have here--if one of you could think of this while I go to Jacques Saada--is, for proposed section 72.061, there would be effectively another sentence, which would refer back to the first sentence: The ethical principles, rules, and obligations for public office holders shall be tabled in the House, as shall all subsequent changes to them.

I'll go to Jacques Saada while all these things are in play.

¹ (1555)

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think that would be logical, Mr. Chairman. If the Prime Minister establishes principles, rules and obligations, he should be required to make these public, otherwise he could establish them, but never report them. The same goes for any amendments, which he should also be required to report. Therefore, I think Mr. Jordan's suggestion is extremely relevant under the circumstances. It removes the need for three paragraphs and, if Mr. Guimond agrees, the same purpose would be served.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I won't belabour the point. In any case, the bill is not overly long. I've worked on a draft amendment to the proposed section 72.063. I could share it with you. It would read as follows: “Any amendment to the ethical principles, rules and obligations established under section 72.061 shall immediately be reported in the form of a report laid before the House of Commons.”

[English]

The Chair: Sorry, Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I was speaking to the interpreters and to no one in particular.

[English]

The Chair: Non, pas exactement.

Can we get some other responses as to where we're going here? We're trying to get some ideas to help with this thing.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Chairman, the change you brought forward seems to be the simplest way to go about this.

Mr. Michel Guimond: What way?

The Chair: Should I read it again?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes, please.

The Chair: The way I put it was that there should be another sentence in proposed subsection 72.061. It says, at the moment, that the Prime Minister shall have, as we said, ethical principles, rules, and obligations, and shall establish them. They have not been tabled. They've been established.

This next sentence says:

the ethical principles, rules and obligations for public office holders shall be tabled in the House, as shall all subsequent changes to them.

By the way, that could be further simplified by saying “these”. I read it out like that because “ethical principles, rules and obligations for public officer holders” is mentioned in the last sentence.

It could then say:

these shall be tabled in the House, as shall all subsequent changes to them.

There may be some doubt about this, because I was trying to listen to Michel as well as take this through. The suggestion is that it does cover off some of 72.063 as well as, obviously, leaving 72.061 in place.

Michel, and then Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm prepared to go along with that wording.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

When a report is tabled in the House, is it deemed officially tabled if the House is not sitting?

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc (Clerk of the Committee):

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), a report can be deposited with the Clerk when the House stands adjourned and will be deemed to have been laid before the House. One day a month is designated for this purpose.

Mr. Jacques Saada: And the report is deemed to have been officially laid before the House because everyone has access to it.

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc: Correct. It is deposited with the Clerk and is deemed to have been laid before the House.

[English]

The Chair: I think you can now, under the new modernization.

Is this the 15th of every month or some specific date?

º (1600)

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc: It's the Wednesday after the 15th.

The Chair: It's the Wednesday after the 15th of the month, throughout any break.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can I clarify this?

If there has been an election, and if Parliament has not been convened or has been prorogued, is that still the case because Parliament does not exist?

Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc: You can't table anything when Parliament is prorogued.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay, thank you very much. The first categorical answer doesn't apply in those two circumstances.

I think this basically foresees following an election with the swearing in of a new cabinet. We have to be clear that in fact it can't be tabled at any time.

The Chair: Colleagues, in a moment I'm going to call amendment BQ-2.

Excuse me, Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm always reluctant to write law “on the fly”. Much of our common-sense wording makes sense and most laws should be written in more common-sense language.

I wonder if we can agree in principle to amendment BQ-2. Is there someone who can go to a corner and write something so that it says what this committee wants it to say?

I think we're very clear. We want these three principles in the act.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I mean, maybe the wording is satisfactory. Perhaps a closer look by a legal person would show that it doesn't quite do what you want it to do.

The Chair: Okay. Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, regarding the swearing in of Cabinet, are we talking about the swearing in of Cabinet at the start of a new Parliament, or does this also include Cabinet shuffles? What exactly is meant here by the swearing in of Cabinet?

[English]

The Chair: By the way, Michel can explain that, but I think the intent is certainly what Marlene said. It is to deal with the normal situation immediately following an election.

You do raise a good point. Cabinet does change from time to time.

Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: It was not my intention to have this provision extend to Cabinet shuffles. The meaning of “the Prime Minister shall, within 15 days” is clear. I made it very clear at the outset that the purpose of this amendment was to compel the Prime Minister to establish a code of ethics for ministers.

To my mind, the reference to the swearing in of Cabinet was a reference to the exercise that takes place following a general election. I admit that it could be clearer. I drafted this as best I could, but the point is not to repeat...In any event, the report should be laid after the election, after Cabinet has been sworn in, when a new Parliament begins...That's the gist of what I was proposing. The aim is to compel the Prime Minister to establish a code of ethics following an election. A new Prime Minister might see things differently.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm of two minds about this. I was looking at our esteemed staff down there.

Would you sooner hold it for a few minutes?

Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, as I explained to you, I have a scheduling conflict. I'm also scheduled to attend the meeting of the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment. Several witnesses from Quebec are slated to appear this afternoon and I've been designated to attend. I've presented my amendment and I was going to take my leave.

[English]

The Chair: You'd rather deal with it now.

Colleagues, could I suggest this? Obviously, with the changes we're making, if some modifications come to your minds before the end of our dealing with this clause by clause, we could change it again.

Given Michel's point and given that it's his amendment, do you want me to ask for amendment BQ-2 in the form that I described?

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a little suggestion to make. Rather than speak of the swearing in of Cabinet, could we not talk about the accession to office of a new Prime Minister?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Why couldn't you?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: This would avoid problems associated with shuffles, re-elections and so forth. It would be the Prime Minister's code.

º (1605)

[English]

The Chair: Again, I'd have to ask Rodger Cuzner that.

We are getting very close to rewriting “on the fly”, as Marlene was describing.

Yes, Rodger Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Can we take five minutes?

We think we can get it “massaged” in about five minutes.

The Chair: While we're doing that, we'll give Michel five minutes. Meanwhile, we'll continue.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: We'll move on to the next one.

The Chair: Amendment CA-3 is on page 11.

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. I don't know whether I'll be able to attract the attention of the members when they are consumed with doing something else simultaneously.

The Chair: No, they're not doing that. We have someone doing it who has left the room.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'd like to propose amendment CA-3, and this asks us to simply shorten lines 16 to 20 on page 8 of the bill.

Let me give you briefly the rationale for this. I know we talked about this during the preparation stage coming to this point, but we continue to have a major problem with this Ethics Commissioner dealing, on one hand, with members of Parliament who may be under investigation, and the requirements to make public statements as a result of that investigation. When dealing with cabinet ministers, which, as I will remind you again, is a source of 99.99% of the problems that trouble the public, then we have the Prime Minister dealing in secret.

So as it states right now, the commissioner will give “confidential advice to the Prime Minister with respect to those ethical principles, rules, or obligations and ethical issues in general” and will “provide confidential advice to the public office holder with respect to” that application to him of those principles.

I don't think we have a problem with dealing on a confidential basis with a person who's under investigation, but it has to go beyond just giving private advice to the Prime Minister. Again, we want to remove the Ethics Commissioner from being merely part of the damage control team when something comes to light. And talking in secret and devising a strategy whereby through spin and obfuscation and perhaps transfer to another country it solves the problem, this is not adequate. We have to get down to where this is not just confidential. And that's why the new wording would be simply that, and I quote:

The mandate of the Ethics Commissioner in relation to public office holders is

(a) to administer any ethical principles, rules or obligations established by the Prime Minister for public office holders; and

(b) to provide confidential advice

In other words, he's to administer the principles. Forget about using the Prime Minister to try to advance a cover-up.

So that's basically it, and I don't know whether the members of the committee here are amenable to this amendment or not. I rather doubt it. I'm rather discouraged after sitting for an hour and having those very important amendments shuffled off in the first hour or so. So I'll put it forward, and if you accept it, fine, and if not, I guess you will do what you will do.

The Chair: Rodger Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Well, the commissioner is there to administer the principles, but fundamental to his mandate is to provide confidential advice and guidance. So we won't be supporting the amendment.

Mr. Ken Epp: May I?

The Chair: Yes, by all means.

Mr. Ken Epp: Why involve the Prime Minister at all in this phase? There's a complaint against a minister or against the parliamentary secretary. Is it not reasonable that the commissioner, if he's truly independent of the Prime Minister, would deal with it and investigate the issue?

º (1610)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Well, the Prime Minister is responsible for his ministers and his parliamentary secretary. So inevitably that's where the responsibility lies.

Mr. Ken Epp: Will he make that report public?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: It's his choice. It's his prerogative.

Mr. Ken Epp: But not according to this legislation...he's not required to. That's my point.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: That's what I said.

The Chair: I don't interfere with these things, Ken. One thing it says here is code, a public code, but it is his.

The other thing is, I think we've been saying frequently that it's 90% priest, and what's the other one, 10% cop? Is that the expression that's been used around here quite a lot? And I can only say to you that I was a parliamentary secretary very briefly, too briefly in my mind, but my wife and I benefited a great deal from the advice. We really did. It didn't affect us in any other way, but it affected the way we thought, and each of us thought about the office of parliamentary secretary that I was in.

So I would make that comment to you. Rather than imagining an investigation and prosecuting somebody, a lot of it is this other stuff that would be a part of the--

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. I can see that. And if you look at it, I haven't touched proposed paragraph 72.07(c). Proposed paragraph 72.07(c) in the bill says “provide confidential advice to a public office holder”. So that's fine. I think that's great. But what I'm addressing in this issue is this. When a problem comes to light and there's an investigation, here we have the independent “Ethics Commissioner” going and talking to the Prime Minister about it. And we want to have the independent Ethics Commissioner free from ties with the Prime Minister. Here the bill actually requires that he's to provide this advice to the Prime Minister with respect to those principles.

I guess I would throw it back to the committee members then. If you reject this amendment, how do you then propose to clear the air when issues come out that ought to be dealt with? I'm saying this. When there is a complaint registered, I suppose there's a matter of degree, but most of the time, you come out in the end with a conclusion, the person is guilty as charged or is innocent. And we've seen too many instances, not only in the last 10 years but even before that, where charges were made and there never was a satisfactory resolution to it. It was swept under the rug and nobody ever did anything about it.

I asked the question yesterday in the House. It took the Prime Minister days to decide to move the Minister of Public Works out of the cabinet, out of his MP position, and out of the country. Yet the RCMP have been studying this now for three years, in secret. And there's still nothing there.

I'm really suspicious, Mr. Chairman, that in this particular instance it's a case of delay, delay, delay, and hope it will go away. That does not engender respect and trust on behalf of the people of this country, which is what this is all about.

So we need to have some sort of a mechanism when those instances occur that it's investigated honestly and fairly and a report is made to the public, which, if the person is guilty, says so. On the other hand, and I emphasize this, if the investigation finds that the person is innocent, just saying so is not sufficiently reassuring to Canadians. You now have to present what the investigation found and show hard evidence by your saying that this individual in fact has been unfairly accused. And the only way you can exonerate him or her is if there is no secret connection to the Prime Minister who appointed the commissioner in the first place.

I think you have a dilemma, my dear friends. I think you have a serious dilemma, and it's not going to bear the scrutiny of close investigation by people who are looking at this.

º (1615)

The Chair: I will call the vote on amendment CA-3.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I believe that negatives amendment CA-5 and amendment CA-6.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Amendment CA-5 and amendment CA-6 are related?

The Chair: Yes, they are consequential.

I propose to go to amendment NDP-4 and amendment NDP-5, Lorne, if that's okay with you.

Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yvon Godin could not be here this afternoon so I want to move this amendment on his behalf.

I move that Bill C-34 in clause 4 be amended by replacing line 26 on page 8 with the following:

of Commons or a Canadian citizen who has reasonable grounds to

What this really means, Mr. Chair, is that if this amendment were accepted, then any Canadian citizen could launch a complaint. The way the bill is going today, it has to be a member of Parliament or, I understand, a senator. But this would open it up to allow a member of the public to launch a complaint or to start a process.

I want to say to members of the committee that I understand many provinces have this provision now in their own separate codes. So it's not something that is without precedent in the country, and it appears to work very well. And the people who are going to be running the code later on will be intelligent people who would weed out frivolous complaints.

I think there would be no danger about that, Mr. Chair. It seems to me it makes it more democratic, more open, more transparent, and more egalitarian. So I would like to propose that as an amendment.

The Chair: Before I go to Joe Jordan, is “Canadian citizen” sufficient under the charter? What about a permanent resident or landed immigrant, or something? In other words, I'm not arguing for or against it, but I am just wondering about that aspect of it. Perhaps some of you could think about that.

Joe Jordan, and then Jacques Saada.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This certainly was an issue that received a lot of debate when we went through the draft and heard the witnesses. If my memory serves me correctly, the issue is how to strike a balance between having a workable process, given the wonders of modern technology and the number of e-mails, for example, you receive in a day, and reasonable access for legitimate complaints. I think some of the councillors from the province, or at least one of them, said that access shouldn't be an issue in an adversarial system like ours. You should be able to find an MP who will bring the complaint forward.

We discussed this and looked at the pros and cons of the issue and the notion that when a complaint is laid, sometimes people form opinions very quickly and don't wait for the resolution.

We were just trying to strike that balance, which is why we arrived at what we did. It certainly wasn't for lack of discussion that we decided to support in our report the notion that it had to go through an MP. This is an MP's code, and you're protected by certain things. We didn't think that access was an issue.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

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

When we get around to examining the code itself, I'll come back to what I've said several times about safeguards. Specifically, I alluded to the possibility of a complaint being lodged at the beginning of an election campaign, of the details possibly being published and the person targeted not being able to defend himself, or herself.

If we must take steps to ensure that the process remains confidential until the commissioner has filed his report and publishing his findings, it's possible in the case of a parliamentarian, but not in the case of an ordinary citizen. Therefore, we can't allow for the possibility that no control mechanisms would be in place to ensure that the target of the complaint enjoys the same rights as any other citizen and is considered innocent until proven guilty.

I think it's an extremely important consideration, so as not to allow for the possibility of citizens lodging complaints directly with the commissioner.

º (1620)

[English]

The Chair: Can I confirm that with you, Rodger?

I remember the discussion of this, but if in fact a member of the public wrote to the commissioner, could and would that trigger an inquiry?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: It can in fact, and it has. The commissioner has responded to inquiries from outside of the House. Groups such as Democracy Watch have conveyed concerns to the commissioner.

The commissioner apparently has a power similar to the Auditor General. If there's something he sees fit to investigate, then he or she can pursue it.

The Chair: And under the new regime as well?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes, exactly. There's no compromise at all.

The Chair: Do you want to comment further on this, or will I go back to Lorne Nystrom?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I think the other reason for moving the amendment, Mr. Chair, would be to remove some of the cynicism about politics that you see out there in the public. In terms of appearance, it would be much better that the ordinary citizen is on an equal par with a member of Parliament to launch a complaint.

I stress that the commissioner would not be entertaining frivolous complaints, but serious ones. We have precedents for this in some of the provinces; I can't recall how many provinces, but it is more than one.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We are now on amendment NDP-5.

Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: The amendment proposes amending clause 4 by replacing line 7 on page 9 with the following:

request, provide the Prime Minister and leaders of all political parties recognized in the House of Commons with a

This is about receiving a report. In the proposed legislation, Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister is the only leader of a party who receives the report. We're saying that leaders of all recognized parties in the House of Commons should be receiving that report. In other words, you treat all official or recognized parties in the House of Commons on an equal footing.

The Chair: It belongs to the House.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It should go to all parties that are recognized in the House of Commons, on an equal footing. It's a great Liberal principle--egalitarianism and section 15 of the charter. I couldn't see a single Liberal voting against something that talks about equality, not even Carolyn Parrish.

The Chair: And reporting to Parliament.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Reporting to Parliament, openness, democracy, and transparency. Lynn Myers might oppose that but not Carolyn Parrish.

The Chair: Okay, Rodger Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: We're just in recent receipt of this.

The Chair: Rodger, given that Michel is waiting here, I am a bit concerned because he made the point that he has to leave and it's going to be difficult for him to come back.

I know where we stand with that other--

Mr. Michel Guimond: I don't know if we need permission of Stéphane Dion from the PCO?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Do you have any idea how long that's going to be? I know you're thinking about something else.

Mr. Michel Guimond: He's on his way.

The Chair: Well, Michel was being very polite.

He's on his way. Thank you.

You're thinking now, are you?

Mr. Michel Guimond: I hope Stéphane shares your concern.

The Chair: Okay, the Bloc motion is in a holding pattern and you're in thinking mode.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I hope I will recognize the amendment.

The Chair: Would anyone like to sing a song or anything like that while we're here?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I think Carolyn wanted to make a speech.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Everyone is picking on me today.

The Chair: Gerald, I was joking. No, thank you. We don't want you to sing.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: On amendment NDP-5--while we're waiting for the final word on Michel's amendment, which I'm sure we're going to get--I see no reason it wouldn't be reported to all the leaders of all the parties.

Certainly, if what we're looking for is to have it reported to Parliament--and information is important for parliamentarians, especially the leaders of the parties, to understand what's before them--then I would think that would be a proper amendment.

I intend to support the amendment, but I'm wondering, if it was the government's intent to vote against it--and I'm not presupposing that--even if the information were in camera, at least it would give the leaders of the political parties knowledge of what's going on. We have in camera meetings and in camera issues before us all the time that hopefully never see the light of day; they remain in camera.

So I'm just wondering if that perhaps wouldn't make it more palatable.

º (1625)

The Chair: Before I go to Ken Epp and Jacques Saada, I think Rodger Cuzner has something for us on this.

Rodger.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Just the fact that it's not an in camera document at all. It's a public document, and that's identified in proposed subclause 72.08(5).

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Why does it go to the Prime Minister and not the leaders?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: It states that in proposed subclause 72.08(5).

The Chair: So it is a public document.

Are you still thinking, Rodger, or what?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: No, I'm finished.

The Chair: You're finished.

I have Ken Epp and then Joe Jordan.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, I'd like to ask a question of Mr. Nystrom, and it's actually based on this.

This whole section has to do with the report, and it says that if the commissioner discontinues the examination, for whatever reason, proposed subclause 72.08(4), the one he's seeking to amend, says we'll provide the Prime Minister with a report setting out the facts in question, as well as the Ethics Commissioner's analysis and conclusions in relation to the request. He wants to now add to that the House leaders.

Proposed subclause 72.08(5) says that at the same time this report is going to be provided to the member who made the request and the minister or individual who's under investigation, the report will be made public. This is all at the same time. I'm just questioning whether or not this whole amendment, which I would be prepared to support if it weren't for subsection 72.08(5) here, isn't redundant when you read the next paragraph.

I guess Mr. Cuzner beat me to the punch even though I had my hand up first.

The Chair: Okay. Lorne, before I come back to you, it's Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: A point of verification. It strikes me that this could be characterized as a courtesy, really, in view of the fact that it's going to be made public anyway. Manners are always nice, I guess.

The Chair: Gerald, do you have a question?

Lorne, I'm coming back to you in a minute.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Actually, from our legal experts here, would there be any difference in the reports? Would the report the Prime Minister received be more thorough than the report Parliament would receive, or would they be identical?

Mr. Mitch Bloom: There's only one report; that's it. This act has been structured so there is only one report.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The reason I ask that is because it says:

provide the Prime Minister with a report setting out the facts in question as well as the Ethics Commissioner's analysis and conclusions in relation to the request.

So I want to be clear that the information received by the Prime Minister would be absolutely identical to the information that, at the same time, the report is provided under subsection (4).

A voice: It's “the” report....

Mr. Mitch Bloom: There's only one report referred to in this section of the act.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And there wouldn't be any behind the scenes, off the record, “Look, this is what I saw, this is what happened”. That couldn't happen.

Mr. Mitch Bloom: The report, as it's outlined here, has to contain the facts in question as well as the analysis conclusions. It's one report that's prepared. Yes, under proposed section 72.07, as we've already discussed, confidential advice can be provided to the Prime Minister. That's not in the report. There is only one report and it outlines in the section what it is going to contain.

The Chair: Lorne, do you want to conclude this, or can I call the question?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It was actually Mr. Godin's amendment, in his wisdom, so I can't add anything more to it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues, I'm calling NDP-5.

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think we won the vote. Mr. Jordan voted and I think Mr. Epp voted with us, that's 5 to 4.

The Chair: No, he didn't. The motion is negatived.

Canadian Alliance number 4, if we could.

Gerald, we'll get back to you.

I ask again, because I feel a bit guilty about Michel sitting here now. In all seriousness, can we not speed this up?

º (1630)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Maybe we need to vote on Michel's motion. He's changed it slightly, I think, and it was acceptable to the members.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: If you look at what he's suggested, I'll support it.

The Chair: Can we give it another couple of minutes, Michel? We'll give it another couple of minutes.

Now, CA-4.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, CA-4. Do I have any body language over there? Does it pay to make a speech?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Did you say CA-4 and CA-5 were automatically out?

The Chair: No, CA-5 and CA-6.

Mr. Ken Epp: All right. I'll explain briefly what CA-4 does. It deletes lines 18 to 20 and you look on page 9 to see that. This has to do, again, with confidentiality. It says “The Ethics Commissioner may not include in the report any information that he or she is required to keep confidential”.

I'll tell you why I propose the deletion of this. There are times when the legality of requiring to keep things confidential can in fact hide the issue that's being questioned.

I hate to do this, because it's old history and is long past, it's behind us, but I refer to the time when we had a minister who used a government credit card for personal expenses. It was very frustrating to us at the time, because we contended that putting expenses on the government credit card put it into the public domain. Yet when we asked under access to information to see the credit card statements, they were all whited out with a code that said because these were private purchases it was therefore confidential. I agree with that. Nobody has any business to know what kind of private expenditures a minister or any member of Parliament is making. But the fact that they were purchased on the government credit card moved them, in my view, from the private to the public arena.

I think this is a very rigid statement, especially now that the rules have changed to the point where we now have no access at all any more to expenditures of public office holders, of cabinet ministers. When we ask now for a copy of their expenses on a trip, we're told point blank, “It's not available, not accessible, you can't have it”, period. It's the end of the show.

As a result of that experience eight years ago, where we were actually able to add up...because all you have to do is look at the opening balance and the closing balance on these statements and see how many are listed. The difference is how much is personal. So we simply went through them and added them up, except that they whited out enough of the details that even that was made difficult.

That is an area where an Ethics Commissioner investigating it would not have been able to report any information the commissioner was required to keep confidential. That's exactly what is required to clear the air here. So I'm proposing that we delete this on the understanding that when it's very clear in law that it's required to be kept confidential anyway, it will be.

I believe other laws will supersede this law in that particular instance. Therefore, it's redundant in one sense, and in the other sense it adds another hurdle that could prevent the commissioner from actually, as I said, clearing the air on an investigation.

There's my speech for this. I urge you to support this amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): When the Member claims that the public does not have access to ministers' expense claims, that's not entirely true because in Part II of the Public Accounts of Canada, many of the expenses incurred by ministers and Members of Parliament are reported.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Michel, do you want us to wait until we have a written version, or do you want us to read it?

Mr. Michel Guimond: We have a written version. Apparently, they are making photocopies.

º (1635)

The Chair: Could I go then to the next motion?

Mr. Michel Guimond: No problem.

The Chair: Amendment PC-3, on page 5.

Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't have a problem with doing PC-3, but if we have the written version, do you want to do Michel's?

The Chair: PC-3, on page 5.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The intent again is that there were a couple of things that I thought were questionable in the legislation as it exists. One of them is the fact that the Ethics Commissioner shall be paid remuneration set by the Governor in Council, and I don't see any parameters on what that pay scale is. So apparently the Governor in Council can decide what it is and that will be that.

There are rules set out, such as being paid reasonable travel and living expenses incurred in the performance of his or her duties; engaging exclusively in the duties and functions of the Ethics Commissioner; having the rank of a deputy head of a department; having the control and management of the office; entering into contracts. All that information is there, but it would seem to me that somehow or another we should know exactly what the rate of pay is going to be.

If you would look at it, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner are two commissioners who are already there, who are servants of Parliament, who work for the House. I would think it would be similar.

The Chair: Joe Jordan, and then Ken Epp.

Mr. Joe Jordan: In the interests of clarity, it's my understanding that the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner's pay is linked to that of a Supreme Court justice, so it might be easier to make that direct link than to have this intermediary. So if that was our intention, to pay them the same, then use the same language that we use in GIC documents that say they're paid the same as a Supreme Court justice--but I could be wrong there.

The Chair: Ken Epp.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think it should be laid out clearly.

Mr. Ken Epp: Before you do that, I'd like to point out that farther down the line, it says in proposed section 72.04 that the Ethics Commissioner “has the rank of a deputy head of a department”. That's the rank. I wonder whether there isn't a salary schedule attached to that.

I'm asking the question.

The Chair: Colleagues, that's proposed subsection 72.04(1).

Are our colleagues back there listening to this?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I had my thinking face on again, Mr. Chairman.

The concern we have here is that it may handcuff the GIC as far as negotiations are concerned.

The Chair: We imagined that. But the other point that has come up is, does proposed subsection 72.04(1), which gives the rank as deputy head of a department of the Government of Canada, have a pay scale connected with it? That is the question.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: No.

The Chair: The answer is no, Ken.

Are you finished on this, Rodger?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes.

The Chair: We're still on amendment PC-3.

Go ahead, Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: Do we have easily accessible the language that is used vis-à-vis the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner?

The Chair: Ron Wall.

Mr. Ronald Wall: It was similar to what Mr. Jordan says. It says,

The Information Commissioner shall be paid a salary equal to the salary of a judge of the Federal Court, other than the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice of that Court

So it's a Federal Court judge's salary.

As Mr. Bloom indicated, there might be a case where we had to pay this person somewhat more--

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Explain that to me.

Mr. Ronald Wall: This says a Federal Court judge. What happens if it's a retired Supreme Court justice that was--

º (1640)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So what? They apply for a job, the same as you and I apply for a job, at the pay scale that exists. If you're a Supreme Court judge, maybe you're a Supreme Court judge that is no longer a Supreme Court judge for a reason, and maybe you're looking for whatever job you can get, quite frankly.

Look, if you're going to start this game, then you can add any of that in, but generally when you apply for a job, whether you're applying in government or in the civil service, you know what the pay scale is, and with some exceptions there's room for negotiation, but I think what we're trying to do is get rid of that, not add to it.

The Chair: As I say, you occasionally have hockey stars who have been sitting on the bench a long time and take lower pay just to get onto a team where they can get some action.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: What happens if Mike Tyson applies?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We say no.

The Chair: Rodger, we're in your hands

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Again, I think we need the flexibility. There are provisions in there. If the candidate is currently receiving a federal pension, that would have to be factored in.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Why? Rodger, I appreciate what you're trying to do and why, but if you're receiving a pension, why does that factor into anything? You're applying for another job. If you're an RCMP officer and you've retired after 25 years or you're a member of Parliament who's pensionable, your pension doesn't affect your next level of pay.

The Chair: Yes, Gerald, it does. When you retire with your large pension and you get some of these appointments, it is subtracted.

Nevertheless, the principle is being made here.

Rodger, do you want to address Gerald's point?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: No.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Along the same lines as Mr. Keddy--and my mind is open on this--does this particular position need flexibility that the Information and Privacy Commissioners don't need?

It seems to me that we're making an exception here, and I wonder, if that has been thought through, what is the rationale for that.

Mr. Mitch Bloom: Part of the problem with this as well is that we're administering the House code, which of course isn't written. So we don't exactly know the scope of that or the responsibilities that will come with that and that job.

By leaving it open-ended, we can accommodate both the functions that will come with the House code, including possible roles for committees, as well as the functions under the Prime Minister's code, which are more laid out in the statute.

That's why it differs from the Information and Privacy Commissioners, because all their functions are laid out in statute. Here, some of them will be in the code, and that could change over time as well.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Can I just answer that argument, because we're getting to the end of that?

The Chair: Yes, by all means.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: When we originally wrote the amendment, we wanted to put in that the pay level would be linked to a Supreme Court judge. We were trying to pick something that everybody could identify with.

At that time we decided that the role would probably be closer to that of the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. I can't presuppose exactly what the role will be, but I suspect that's what it's going to be pretty close to.

I would have a difficult time imagining that the Ethics Commissioner's job will be busier than the Information Commissioner's job. Maybe it will be, but if you decide that you're going to pay this person $50,000, $100,000, or $200,000 more a year than the Information Commissioner, I think you're going to have quite a little job explaining that.

What this does is leave it open-ended, for reasons that I just can't agree with. We have the role that will need to be filled, and if the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner are linked to a Supreme Court judge's pay level, then I would suggest to you that the Ethics Commissioner should be at the same level. If not, then the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner should be able to renegotiate their levels of pay as well, because the same argument could be used for them.

I just think we have to have some method of predictability in negotiating this agreement. If someone is applying for the job and you put the sign out saying, “Please apply here; pay level will be negotiated after you're hired”.... Most of the time the pay level is negotiated before you're hired.

(Amendment negatived)

º (1645)

The Chair: Colleagues, you all have before you the new wording for amendment BQ-2. The original wording is on page 10.

Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'd like to discuss a few minor changes. I totally agree with the wording of the proposed section 72.061 which provides for the establishment of principles by the Prime Minister.

However, something is lost in the proposed section 72.062 in that the mention of a timeframe for establishing these rules is deleted. The provision states that rules must be established. However, if the new Prime Minister has been in office for a year and has yet to establish any rules, he cannot be accused of not setting any rules, because of the absence of any requirement to act within a certain period of time.

You may recall the discussion with Mr. Saada during which mention was made of the accession to office of a Prime Minister. I'd like to propose the following wording for section 72.062. I'll read it to you slowly:

72.062 These principles, rules and obligations shall be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 days after the accession to office of the Prime Minister.

The provision would go on to say this:

Furthermore, any amendment to the ethical principles, rules and obligations shall be reported as soon as possible.

It could be as soon as possible, or again, within 15 days. I want my amendment to stand a chance of being adopted. I won't quibble here for the sake of the principle involved, although “as soon as possible” is still a subjective notion. It's much simpler if a clear timeframe is set out, but the principle is nonetheless clear, namely that rules must be established within a reasonable period of time following the accession to office of a new Prime Minister.

[English]

The Chair: We'll hear from Guy St-Julien and then Joe Jordan.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Guimond refers to the Prime Minister's establishing some “principes, règles et obligations”, I would prefer him to use the word “règlements”, as “règles” conjures up an entirely different image.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm merely using the same wording as appears in my second amendment. Moreover, this is the same terminology used in several places in the bill where the reference is to “ethical principles, rules and obligations”.

[English]

The Chair: Joe Jordan, and then we're going to go to Rodger Cuzner.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: This is the standard formulation.

[English]

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think in the interest of trying to scale this down, we did miss exactly what Mr. Guimond is referring to.

Why don't we leave 72.061 the way it is in the original amendment? Then 72.062 can just be that any subsequent changes shall be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 days after they're established.

Those are the two things. That's what we're after here, so let's in fact say it--any subsequent changes to the ethical principles, rules, and obligations for public office holders shall be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 days after they are established.

º (1650)

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I agree with Mr. Guimond about including a reference to “as soon as possible” since there are no benchmarks for determining when these principles and rules will be established. They are not formally established until they are laid before the House. Therefore, it is very difficult to use, for the purposes of our calculations, a date that is subject to change.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I just want a point of clarification. What Joe suggested is that we take the original 72.061 and then we take the changes to 72.062 as they're already written.

The Chair: But it's up to Michel to agree to that, okay. I mean, it's not for Joe to suggest.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, no, I understand.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Now I'm going to go, I think, to Rodger Cuzner first while Michel is thinking about that.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: We just need a couple of minutes to see if that's going to work.

The Chair: Okay.

Michel, in principle, what do think about what Joe said?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I totally agree.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: May I make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman?

I believe the spirit of this provision is extremely clear and that the wording is quite similar to what we have here. Why not put this to a vote, with the proviso that Mr. Guimond can always revisit the issue, should a major problem arise. We'd be making some progress.

The Chair: Michel.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Quite honestly, the Privy Council Office official worked diligently to draft the amendment, but the element I wanted to include has been lost in the process.

Mr. Jacques Saada: You'll correct your amendment accordingly.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Let's sit tight.

Mr. Mitch Bloom: Perhaps we can just offer two things around the issues we're discussing. One is the problem--I think it had been mentioned earlier--with the swearing in of cabinet. There's no legislative event to tie it to. I'm not sure when swearing in of cabinet is. I think what we were trying to do here is to just capture the Prime Minister having to have the obligation to have the mechanism in place.

The other thing I want to consider is the existing Prime Minister's code, which is 26 pages long. It would take a significant amount of time to draft. We're used to this one right now when we have to modify it, but a new government having to draft, within 15 days, 26 pages of ethical rules that will have to sustain it throughout its duration is hard to imagine.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have no problem with specifying a set period of time. You're talking about 15 days after the first sitting of the House, and not 15 days from taking office. Correct?

[English]

Mr. Mitch Bloom: No, no, I was commenting more on the notion of keeping it the way it was established here.

The Chair: It's Joe Jordan's turn now.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Could we make reference to the swearing in of the Prime Minister? Would that work, as opposed to the swearing in of cabinet? Just to say “the new Prime Minister”...I don't know. Or is that not going to work?

The Chair: Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Doesn't the amendment as suggested actually give more time? If we leave section 72.061 as it was originally put in, “The Prime Minister shall, within 15 days after the swearing in of Cabinet”.... So the Prime Minister is elected, and cabinet may be three or four or five days in the making. He may elect part of cabinet; it may not be all. There might be a couple of days there. Then you have 15 days on top of that.

When you go to the changes made in section 72.062, it talks about the ethical principles, rules, and obligations for public office holders and subsequent changes 15 sitting days after the coming into office of the Prime Minister.

So it's still there because that was added on. Instead of the wording “after they are established”, it's “after the coming into office of the Prime Minister”. So the sense of it being 15 days is still there. That's your argument.

Mr. Mitch Bloom: Cabinet is sworn in en masse as soon as there's a turnover of government. That's not a lot of time, as I said, to draft a document as complex as the current code.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Is the code going to continue to change every time the government changes? Are we just going to write codes to suit ourselves there? Aren't we going to have something that's going to have some longevity that will be passed from one government to the next, which will stay basically the same? Is that where we're at?

The Chair: Gerald, the difficult answer is that we actually don't know. I think, frankly, that would often be the case. We don't know. Somebody might run for office on the principle of changing the code.

I have Ken Epp and Joe Jordan, and it's Michel's amendment, but at some point I have to call something here. We have a number of things on the table, the original thing and adaptations of it and so on. Michel, by the way, gave us--and I think I have most of it--his last wording, and quite soon I'm going to call that, unless I get something very, very clear.

So it's Ken Epp and then Joe Jordan.

º (1655)

Mr. Ken Epp: I have no solutions, but I have a suggestion. Since prime ministers and members of cabinet are not sworn in afresh when there's a new election--they carry on, the government carries on, and it's only Parliament that changes--I think it would be better if we recognize that there will be a code of conduct. I don't even know whether we need to seize ourselves with it. It will be made public by the legislation. All we should have in here is that it shall be tabled in the House, or somehow made public, when there are changes. That's my idea on how this should be.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, I guess I can see the problems with the wording in the original amendment involving section 72.061 because the Prime Minister could always delay the process by saying, well, I'm thinking of perhaps swearing in a couple more cabinet ministers sometime in the future; therefore, I haven't actually sworn in my cabinet yet. So I think it's a self-policing concept, really. If the Prime Minister doesn't do it in a timely way, the opposition is going to ask every day, “Where is it?”

Mr. Ken Epp: We did that for five years.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

So I think the way this was drafted is probably workable.

I think 72.061, even though it tries to tighten it up, might actually provide more loopholes than the new amendment we have in front of us, as drafted.

The Chair: So, Michel, what do you propose now?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: We are seeking an agreement and I hope we can find one. I realize that there are some sticking points, in terms of the swearing in provision. As I said, I drafted the amendment myself on the fly. I understand the concerns over the swearing in of Cabinet. We can work on this. I'll accept the wording suggested by Mr. Wall.

Do we agree then on the proposed section 72.061 which reads as follows: “The Prime Minister shall establish ethical principles, rules and obligations for public office holders”? That's how the first paragraph would read.

As for the second paragraph, I appreciate Mr. Bloom's last remark, namely that a new Prime Minister has many things to attend to upon taking office. Fifteen sitting days isn't a great deal of time. I'm not saying that ethical considerations are not important, but I can appreciate that a new Prime Minister may have other priorities to attend to and that this might result in a botched code of ethics. I would prefer to specify a longer period of time, provided the obligation to lay the code before the House remains in effect, that is, of course, if there is agreement on the first principle.

Here's what I'd like to propose for section 72.062.

The Chair: Go slowly, please.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Of course. The provision would read as follows:

72.062 The aforementioned ethical principles, rules and obligations shall be laid before each House of Parliament within 30 days of the accession to office of the Prime Minister. Furthermore, any amendment [...]

[English]

The Chair: Michel, could you repeat the part “after 30 sitting days off”, please?

[Translation]

[...] within 30 sitting days following the accession to office of the Prime Minister.

I'd like to make a comment at this point. For the sake of discussion, let's say the Prime Minister is sworn in on February 12 and a new Parliament is convened on March 18. The 30 sitting days would commence on March 18. The Prime Minister was sworn in February 12 and technically, he would have until April 18 to table his code of ethics, which would give him more than enough time to comply. That's what is meant by 30 sitting days following the accession to office of the Prime Minister.

Continuing on with my amendment:

Furthermore, any amendment to the ethical principles, rules and obligations shall be reported within 15 sitting days.

The time frame for reporting amendments would be 15 days.

» (1700)

[English]

The Chair: Rodger Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: We will not support that--unless Mr. Guimond is perfectly happy with it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: He won't support it unless Michel's perfectly happy with it.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Can we now go to amendment CA-7 on page 17 of the package of amendments.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Are we finished with amendment PC-3?

The Chair: Yes.

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

One of the dilemmas we face is that the commissioner is in charge of two codes, one applying to members of Parliament and another to public office holders. A complication arises when dealing with a public office holder, such as a cabinet minister or a parliamentary secretary, because it's unclear which role the individual is playing at the time the issue comes into effect.

Now, we have this very trivial case of accepting a gift. Our code will say you must report it if it's more than $500; the Prime Minister's code presently says $250. So that's a trivial example--who cares? Our code in this particular case is actually more lenient in the sense that it doesn't require as rigid a disclosure of smaller amounts.

However, there are other areas where the question becomes much more serious. For example, if we look at the potential of a scandal, such as the charge of having used personal influence to gain a contract, or something like that--I won't use any specific examples this time, but I'll just ask, what happens if that occurs? Well, of course, the Prime Minister's code would kick in, because he or she would be working as a cabinet minister at this stage. Therefore, that rule would come into play or take effect.

Given there are greater public disclosure provisions for ordinary members of Parliament than for cabinet ministers, we would like to make sure the disclosure rules apply even when a cabinet minister is being investigated. That's why we propose adding after line 36 on page 11 the following:

For greater certainty, where any of the provisions of any code of conduct or rules regarding public office holders that have been developed or may be developed by the Prime Minister or the Government of Canada in the future are in conflict with this Act, this Act shall prevail.

I know there's a potential problem here. Government members will undoubtedly use this to say, “Well, we can't support it”. Generally, the Prime Minister's code and the rules for public office holders go beyond, or are more stringent than, rules for members of Parliament. We're saying that if there's a conflict, “this Act shall prevail”. We're basically saying that a cabinet minister cannot hide under the Prime Minister's rules, if those are less stringent and require less disclosure than the rules we have under this code. So that's why we're proposing that “this Act shall prevail”.

I'm certainly open to discussion and suggested friendly amendments, but that's the purpose of this particular amendment.

» (1705)

The Chair: Gerald Keddy, and then Rodger Cuzner.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What then happens in the case you've already used, namely, with the gifts? Whereas the Prime Minister's code specifies $200, the code for the House will be for $500. So the Prime Minister's code is...I don't know if it's less stringent or more stringent. I don't know which way you look at that.

Mr. Ken Epp: It's actually more stringent if you have to declare a gift as small as $250. We're saying that's no big deal; so then this one would prevail and $500 would be good enough.

I guess what we're saying, in essence, is that the Prime Minister must basically have a code that is not less stringent than ours. That's really what it's....

The Chair: Rodger Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: For clarification, the way the act is structured, it addresses types of activities that would be undertaken by a member of Parliament or by a minister as two baskets of activities. There's no real threshold where the Prime Minister's code kicks in here. The complaint would go to the commissioner. He would deem how to best pursue the specific complaint, whether it's under the Prime Minister's ministerial code or the members' code.

The Chair: Can I ask a question? Is there a code in this act at all?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Is there a code? We have to develop one.

Mr. Mitch Bloom: No. It's ethical rules, standards, and obligations that is the euphemism for “code”.

The Chair: So there are no standard against which to compare it in the legislation?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: No.

Mr. Mitch Bloom: No. Again it's the ethical rules and standards for both the House and for the....

The Chair: Those in favour of CA-7, please show.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Before I proceed--

Mr. Ken Epp: Did we do PC-3?

The Chair: Yes, we did PC-3. It was negatived.

I again, and this is for me, refer to the letter we received from Howard Wilson, the Ethics Commissioner. I refer in particular to his appendix; it applies at this particular point. Essentially the appendix suggests that the Ethics Commissioner, as proposed in this legislation, administer the Lobbyists Registration Act.

I'm not introducing this as an amendment, as I've explained before, but I think it's appropriate, as we received it in time--not in the form to be an amendment, but as a suggestion--that this be a part of our official record. If anybody has any comment on it, I'd be glad to hear those comments.

(Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?

Lorne Nystrom.

(On clause 7)

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: In clause 7, I'm wondering about the addition that the Senate ethics officer and the Ethics Commissioner cannot be sued. They're being put here, Mr. Chair, in the same category as the Senate and the House of Commons, or a committee of the House of Commons or a committee of the Senate, in terms of not being susceptible to being sued.

The Chair: Do you have the page, so we can find it?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm sorry; it's page 12: “Subsection 2(2) of the Federal Court Act is replaced by the following....”

Subsection 2(2) talks about the Senate and the House of Commons. It reads:

For greater certainty, the expression “federal board, commission or other tribunal”, as defined in subsection (1), does not include the Senate, the House of Commons or any committee or member of either House.

That's in terms of being sued.

Now we're having here--and I'd like to ask the great procedural expert from Cape Breton to explain this one--the addition of “the Senate Ethics Officer or the Ethics Commissioner.”

» (1710)

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'll rely on my vast experience and turn this over to my....

An hon. member: That's a very wise decision.

The Chair: Mitch Bloom.

Mr. Mitch Bloom: It's a consequential amendment that simply covers the Senate ethics officer and Ethics Commissioner with parliamentary privilege, the same as other offices and aspects of Parliament. It's needed to complete the circle, so that the status of those offices and the people in them is the same--not just in this act, where that is also laid out explicitly, but in other related acts. In fact in this act as well we have provisions that make it clear that this is also covered by parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I know it extends parliamentary privilege to the Senate ethics officer and the Ethics Commissioner, but are there any other precedents around where other commissioners have parliamentary privilege?

Mr. Mitch Bloom: This is the only office that's actually an “officer” of Parliament. The other parliamentary agents, such as the Auditor General, the Information Commissioner, and others are not within the institution of Parliament. These offices are.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Is there any other precedent for this anywhere else in the world with our system of government, where a person like this would have parliamentary immunity or privilege?

Mr. Mitch Bloom: In effect, yes. In the U.K. their system is structured in the same way, but they do not write statute like this. It's unwritten, but their approach is the same. The activities of their House's Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is cloaked within parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Is there in Canada now anybody else, other than a member of Parliament or a senator, who has had parliamentary privilege and immunity? Are we breaking new ground here? Are we plowing a new furrow?

Mr. Mitch Bloom: I believe you would find--this is maybe getting a bit far--that the clerks of both the Senate and the House would also be captured by parliamentary privilege, as would their staff--

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Their staff?

Mr. Mitch Bloom: --all within the institution of Parliament. I'd have to research it to verify, but certainly the clerks would.

The Chair: Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Do you want to add to that, Mr. Chair? You're a person who claims to know almost everything.

The Chair: No, we're just a little, tiny bit outside my range there. Now, if you were asking me a question about geishas....

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm just worrying about whether or not we are--

The Chair: I understand the principle.

Joe Jordan, did you wish to speak on this one?

Mr. Joe Jordan: In the interest of context, Mr. Chair, I would ask, through you to Mr. Nystrom, Lorne, could you give us an example of what potential problems might arise under this?

The Chair: Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm “pro” judicial review.

The Chair: Okay.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: This raises a very important question. Imagine for a moment a situation where the commissioner has reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Pursuant to the legislation's provisions, he notifies the authorities and requests an investigation. Imagine that the matter makes its way to the courts.

Could the ethics commissioner be subpoenaed to testify, or would he be granted the same parliamentary immunity as Members of Parliament and ministers enjoy?

[English]

The Chair: I hear the reply to that is “no”.

Mr. Jacques Saada: The reply is no?

Mr. Mitch Bloom: Our understanding--and I apologize, because these provisions are mostly drafted by Department of Justice officials trying to make sure the whole thing fits together--was, and our advice was, that this provision and this amendment were needed to ensure the appropriate coverage for parliamentary privilege for the two officials. I shouldn't and can't go beyond that.

The Chair: Okay.

I understand the potential significance of this, but I'm still going to call the clause.

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(Clauses 8 to 42 inclusive agreed to)

» (1715)

The Chair: Colleagues, shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Is there debate?

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words before we cast our final vote on this particular bill.

I'm not going to chastise the committee. It has sort of been fun working with you all. I think you have missed a golden opportunity to do more than just use the correct terminology. I say this most sincerely.

The first couple of amendments I had, especially, were very important to us. I think we erred by not saying, legally, that the Governor in Council shall appoint the commissioner, but certain steps have to take place before it can occur. I think they would have been very good and important steps that would have been very useful to the public in Canada.

In a way, I am saying that we didn't do as good a job here as we should have, in my view. Undoubtedly, this bill will carry in a few milliseconds.

I would strongly suspect, Mr. Chairman, that this is going to come back to haunt all of us, those of us in opposition, as well as those who are now on government side, whether or not the roles reverse in the future.

We want to have a code. We want to have ethical conduct in government. We have to make sure then that the whole process, the whole system, is transparent and fair. We have to make sure that there is absolutely total freedom from any control by the Prime Minister, because that has been the hang-up with our present system.

I really do deeply regret, Mr. Chairman, that we didn't take the necessary simple steps that would have assured Canadians that we were moving toward a truly independent Ethics Commissioner. As it is, it appears to me that we will be using the term “independent”, but it will not be as meaningful as it could have been.

I only wanted to get that off my chest, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate this opportunity. I thank you for being able to work with you, and the other people, Margaret and Jamie, for all of the assistance they have given. It has been a great experience.

I hope this bill, which probably is going to be pushed through by the government majority, is going to be adequate. I hope that in the future there will be a government that will seek to amend it in such a way that Canadians will say that it does work and we can improve our present situation. I hope that happens very quickly.

I thank you.

» (1720)

The Chair: Thank you also, Ken, for your contributions.

Shall the bill carry?

Mr. Ken Epp: Could we have a recorded vote, please?

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Ken Epp: Do we have a quorum?

The Chair: Yes, we do.

(Agreed on division: yeas 5; nays 4)

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm told that because there's only one amendment, we don't need a reprint. It's reprinted after the third reading anyway. I'm not going to call the last question on your order paper.

Yes, a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I voted in favour of Bill C-34.

The Chair: Yes.

[English]

Can I go on? We haven't finished. Can I continue?

Colleagues, the committee has two things that, as I see it, we should do. I have a suggestion as to how we should do one of them.

One is the referral and the question of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary immunity that I've suggested we deal with on Thursday.

The other is the code of ethics. For this, I would suggest that we do sufficient work on it so that we can report it to the House.

We have not done this, by the way. We circulated the last document that we prepared to all members of Parliament, but we didn't table it in the House of Commons.

Members of Parliament have seen it, and we now have a document. The document was circulated to all the members of Parliament, but we have comments from the round table of members of Parliament that we held.

I would propose that we meet tomorrow at 3:30. We can take the document and go though it, looking at any changes that can be made with respect to members' comments. At that point, as an unfinished document, we table it in the House of Commons as an interim document.

I think this would be of use to drafters and it would be of use to the Senate, which, by the way, is engaged in a similar exercise.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: If I could just make one comment, Mr. Chairman. I've yet to receive confirmation of this, but as is often the case on Wednesdays, it's possible that there will be a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy and of the Joint Inter-Parliamentary Committee. Often, members of this committee attend these two meetings. Therefore, we run the risk of...Cloning hasn't yet been approved and I can't be two places at the same time. What do we do with this?

[English]

The Chair: I understand the difficulty, colleagues. This week I would imagine that everybody does. We've seen members coming and going here. I would urge that we try to proceed with this.

By the way, I don't see it as being highly political. I see it as a technical matter.

We're not going to finish the document, but we want to get it into a form, while this bill is in our minds, that we can table in the House as an interim document. It will be one step further than the document we circulated from members of Parliament.

Joe Jordan, and then Jacques Saada.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, the document that was circulated won't change. You're only going to append the comments from the round table.

The Chair: No, I'm sorry. We do have suggested revisions based on our colleagues' comments.

Mr. Joe Jordan: They want to incorporate them. Okay.

The Chair: The document is further forward than it was before.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Might I suggest Thursday morning instead? I believe nine committees are scheduled to meet tomorrow, along with the JIP and perhaps, the Board of Internal Economy. It's extremely difficult finding some spare time and it's not just a matter of finding substitutes, when we've worked so very long on this process. I realize that this is not overly political, but this is still our work and we want to be involved up until the very end. Could we possibly have the meeting Thursday morning at 9 a.m. or at 9:30 a.m, rather than sometime tomorrow afternoon?

» (1725)

[English]

The Chair: My concern is on the matter of privilege, Jacques. We've always scheduled for Thursday. We already have a meeting on Thursday.

Mr. Jacques Saada: We have a meeting on Thursday at 11 o'clock. Is that right?

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Okay. I'm suggesting to you that instead of meeting tomorrow afternoon, we replace this with an earlier meeting on Thursday morning instead.

The Chair: Okay. l look around, colleagues, and see complications everywhere before us on this matter.

Lynn.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Then we get into another problem. I'm in conflict with a meeting on Thursday morning because of scrutiny and regulations.

I think your plan is a good one, Mr. Chair, in terms of what you're saying. There's always going to be conflict. I think you should proceed.

Mr. Jacques Saada: The conflicts addressed here are issues for all parties. They are an integral part of this committee.

The Chair: What if we were to start at 4 o'clock, given that the whips' meeting is at 3:30?

Mr. Jacques Saada: The whips' meeting can be earlier, but if we have a Board of Internal Economy to which all whips must attend, it will need to be a little later. Maybe we can find that out before we confirm anything.

The Chair: Does anyone else here know about the Board of Internal Economy?

Mr. Jacques Saada: We'll check it right away. It will take only a second.

The Chair: Colleagues, if you could leave it to me, our one possibility is tomorrow evening. I was trying to avoid that if I could, given what we, and everyone else, have done in this committee.

If you could leave that with me, I'm still going to try for tomorrow afternoon. I may adjust the time to fit in as best I can with the possible meetings the whips have to face.

You know, Jacques, during the year we've gone to enormous lengths in this committee, because of the whips, to avoid complicated meeting times, and so on.

It's the final week, or it appears to be the final week. I will do what I can.

Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chair, is it possible to have enough members here to have a quorum, even if some of us are not here? The intent is not to make radical changes; it's just to get approval to send it off.

The Chair: No, it certainly isn't. Perhaps that isn't the code.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have no difficulty with that.

The Chair: Because we're trying to incorporate our own colleagues' suggestions, that's really all it is--and the colleagues from all parties, by the way. There's an interim document, but, by the way, that's not an excuse for stopping it. It is a useful interim document.

I will do what I can for tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening.

I purposely ignored Carolyn Parrish.

Carolyn Parrish, go ahead.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I want to respond to what Mr. Epp said.

I've been very quiet this meeting, but I've been listening. We've gone through this a few times, but I was also on a joint Senate and House committee many years ago. And it's been a long time coming and we've gone through it a lot.

Mr. Ken Epp: I was there too.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Exactly, and like everything else that seems to happen in Ottawa, it takes its time and the time has to be right.

I think we've made good progress, Ken, and I think if a further parliament wants to amend it more, at least we've laid the foundation. Perhaps it's not perfect. I think it's a really good step, and I'm glad to see that at least we've taken that step, because look at how long we've waited for it.

Mr. Ken Epp: I agree with that, Mr. Chair, even to say that we're farther now than we were before, but not nearly as far as we should be.

The Chair: Sorry, Ken, please continue.

Mr. Ken Epp: I've finished.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: He wasn't listening.

The Chair: We've just heard that the Board of Internal Economy is at 4:30 p.m., and I'm going to flesh that out. We either go the way Gerald said, in other words, we start at 3:30 p.m., we get an hour of the regular members, and then get some substitutes and proceed....

We will meet at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow in this room, because we get preference on rooms anyway, no matter how many committees are meeting, and we will proceed in that way.

And I do urge the parties, when the whips have to leave, if they can have substitutes.... We may not need them, as long as we can maintain--

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I may not be able to get a substitute tomorrow, but I will come to the meeting as soon as the Board of Internal Economy meeting is over.

The Chair: No, you come here at 3:30 p.m., Gerald, and go to the board at 4:30 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, that's fine.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 p.m. tomorrow.