EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 25, 1995

.1641

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Order. I see a quorum.

This afternoon I'm pleased to welcome as witnesses before the committee Mr. Brian Grainger, a consultant in ethics and conflict of interest, and Mr. David Nitkin from EthicScan Canada.

We welcome you both, gentlemen, and look forward to your presentations.

I note from Mr. Grainger that members of the committee have received a brief, which has been distributed.

I understand that you gentlemen have agreed that Mr. Nitkin is going to make a brief presentation first.

Mr. David Nitkin (President, EthicScan Canada): Good afternoon. I thank you for inviting the two of us to appear here today. I'm here as the president of EthicScan Canada, an ethics consultancy that offers ethics services primarily to the private sector, but also to a number of government agencies.

Instead of the traditional approach, which would be to tell you what you should be thinking and how you should be thinking it, I thought that, in the couple of minutes that are allotted to me, I would ask you a series of five questions. So let's call this an ethics audit, or an ethics quiz. No one will be tabulating your results, but quite frankly, it will help both Brian and me to be able to respond to your needs if we have a better idea of where you're thinking.

I would like to ask you five questions and you, just by a show of hands, to give me an idea of your answers to these five.

Question 1: I believe that a majority of Canadians perceive the level of political morality to be high in Canada. Those who would agree? Two. Okay.

Question 2: I believe that all MPs share a common perception or a decision-making framework in assessing the ethicality of any issue. Yes?

Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Excuse me. So we're getting a sort of questionnaire?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): It is so the two can assist us in -

Mr. McWhinney: Well, I think it would speed up parliamentary procedures if we got into the evidence directly. No? Okay.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): There are only three or four questions.

Mr. Nitkin: Question 3: I fully understand the notion of public trust in all its dimensions. Yes?

Question 4: I believe there are effective and sufficient and transparent rules already governing ethical conduct of Parliament. Yes?

Question 5: I have confidence that no MP is engaging in activity that might be judged to be conflict of interest. Could I have an opinion of the yes on that question? All right.

The purpose behind the questions was not an attempt to make any point that I wouldn't make with an audience of corporate executives, or with other government clients. That, quite honestly, is an attempt to gain a perception of what the group or the organization feels are its ethical standards at present.

.1645

If I can take your straw votes, I think the message I'm receiving is that there is need for enhancing ethical standards as they're perceived by the public; that there isn't the strong feeling that there is a common decision-making framework that would allow yourselves and other members to be able to appreciate the ethical dimension behind decision-making. And if I understand and interpret your vote, you have no grounds for being able to say whether or not your fellow MPs are aware of what would be appropriate behaviour or what would be conflict of interest.

With that understanding, the comments I'd like to make to you are very brief. First, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There are a lot of areas many other jurisdictions are looking at to be able to improve their ethical standards, and there is a lot of opportunity for you to adopt and include those kinds of standards in the material you're dealing with. So the first point is don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Secondly, it's important to draw a distinction between political morality and political ethics. Political morality might be akin to an allegiance to the party in power, as opposed to political ethics, which would be an allegiance to the Queen.

What we're talking about, presumably, and what I believe this committee is interested in, is moving from political mores, or what is established procedure now in the absence of full rules, toward political ethics, commonly understood as defined standards that would allow members to be able to appreciate the ethical dimension behind decision-making.

The third and final comment I would make by way of opening before this committee is that we have been able to make a business out of ethics consulting for eight years because an awful lot of government corporations are very serious about this issue. Sometimes they're serious about it because they believe themselves to be an ethical leader. At other times it's because they've been made to look bad in the press and this is an opportunity for them to be able to redeem their reputation. But the basic message here is whether it's being done for the ``right'' reasons or the ``wrong'' reasons, there's a lot of opportunity to institutionalize ethics by way of a code.

But if you're just looking for a code to provide all the answers, that's not what would be recommended by practitioners in this field in government or in the private sector. You need an awful lot of other things that are part of your mechanism. It involves training, case studies, some investigation mechanism, a considerable amount of reinforcement, if you're going to have confidence that the ethical standards of your institution are continually evolving and maturing as you make progress from political morality to political ethics.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Thank you very much, Mr. Nitkin.

We'll turn to Mr. Grainger.

Mr. Brian Grainger (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I welcome the chance to dialogue and spend some time this afternoon with members of the joint committee, and perhaps for us to learn a little from each other how a code, if a code, and why a code might be useful. Much as my colleague David Nitkin has mentioned, we've spent a number of years in business practices, business ethics, codes, and so forth. We would like to share a bit of our experience with you and we thank you for the chance.

In my experience, codes are primarily put in place to enhance accountability or create a level playing field in the values in an organization. I speak now primarily of the private sector, but I think public as well. That is to say, where there is evidence to suggest that clarity in role responsibility, matters of accountability, or standards of behaviour might be questionable, then a code to which all subscribe is or can be used as a method of achieving some commonality in workplace behaviour. Today, with the pluralistic and diverse workplace environment, codes try to support the notion of doing the right thing the first time.

The question before this committee understandably is, should parliamentarians adopt a code of conduct? There is little doubt parliamentarians are constitutionally a very special breed and independent body. Thus the accountability objectives of a code would seem to me, at least, perhaps of little effect.

.1650

There may be some marginal accountability gains from a code that sets mechanisms as the Board of Internal Economy or party discipline may fail to obtain. These gains from a code may be few and far between if the issue is accountability.

However, let's now look at a code that creates, perhaps, a level playing field. Such a code may - and I underline ``may'' - have some benefit to parliamentarians.

Many organizations today design and adopt codes to position themselves with their several publics - their employees, their boards of directors, clients, suppliers, media, etc. This is not always done simply as a reaction to some serious product problem, human resource problem or errors or foibles.

Very often in the 1990s codes are put in place to guide the many existing organizational policies, practices, expectations and rules. The code, in other words, attempts to knit - some might argue ``cobble'' - together a set of standards for behaviour in some modest and often simple terms that are easily understood in the workplace.

Many examples of such codes exist. Codes are often supported by orientation, education, ombudsman-style mechanisms and a full program of internal measures used to hold both management and staff equally accountable under such a code. Often in the private sector the codes and the supporting programs are entrenched in the company mission and policy instruments, the equivalent of a statutory entrenchment.

I am sure the committee members, through their own efforts and the excellent research staff they have available, have access to many of these codes or these inventories. Mr. Nitkin and I could also provide them.

I suggest that a code of conduct that is a simple clarion call for members of the House of Commons and the Senate might - and again I emphasize ``might'' - serve the public good and may remind those who enter Parliament of the expectations. I also believe a code would need the commitment of all current and future members. Quite frankly, as I mentioned earlier, it would need support from mechanisms such as the Board of Internal Economy. It would also need to be positively reinforced by party discipline and so forth.

A code is quite obviously not a panacea. A vague, codified set of principles offers little advantage. On the other hand, a lengthy, detailed document would potentially serve to tie the hands of parliamentarians.

A code, however, that is modest, or to use the words of Dr. Sissela Bök of Harvard, that offers a minimalist approach, could form principles and and address certain general issues you are all familiar with, such as gifts, outside employment, lobbyist activity, conflict of interest and so on.

While the private sector is a very different environment to that of Parliament, some of these issues that I just mentioned are similar and they do have to be tackled there as well. Codes do help that way.

In my view, although a code may be difficult for Parliament to craft and the benefits may perhaps be few, the task can be and should be attempted. For the Canadian public and parliamentarians, the exercise of tackling a code may well be more useful, dare I say, than the actual result.

In closing, I should touch on enforcement and compliance. Many codes fail because the initiative is not taken seriously. Nevertheless, in the enthusiasm and rush to create a code including awareness, orientation, education, etc., some codes emerge wrapped in complex and sometimes burdensome compliance and enforcement procedures.

The spirit of a successful code is based on the integrity of those who subscribe to it and the quality of the organizational leadership around it. While compliance measures are needed at times, the over-reliance on enforcement may undermine the utility and impact of a code.

I might mention that last year, during discussion of the Lobbyists Registration Act, I pointed out to members of that committee that there is one very excellent example of compliance and enforcement in the form of the American federal public service ethics program. Final Rule, as it's called, is 200 pages long and supported by criminal sanctions; $15 million per year and 95 staff attempt to monitor and keep this thing enforced.

.1655

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Thank you very much, Mr. Grainger.

Questions?

Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Whatever we do, I hope we don't spend $15 million and 95 staff in order to achieve our goals. That's the very least that can be said.

I'm just wondering if our witnesses are familiar with the work we've done in previous parliaments, namely, the ``Report of the Special Joint Committee on Conflict of Interests on the Subject-matter of Bill C-43''. We always have fancy names for our reports.

Mr. Grainger: I'm generally familiar with the work, Mr. Boudria. I wouldn't pretend to be familiar with all of its details, but I certainly have been following it as a result of this committee and the work I did with the Lobbyists Registration Act.

I'd be delighted to comment on particular issues.

Mr. Boudria: I don't want to refer to lobbyists. There's separate legislation for that. It wasn't covered by that report. It's been dealt with by this Parliament.

A couple of issues interested me in particular. One was the issue of spousal interests. In my own province, for instance, the Family Law Reform Act makes it clear that in virtually all cases the assets of one spouse are the assets of the other. Therefore, should there not be disclosure of spousal interests? On the other hand there is the age-old dilemma: isn't the spouse a fully independent person?

How do you reconcile those two? How is it done in the private sector, where such things are required? Maybe you could address that. At the same time, address the issue of the different tests applied to parliamentarians depending on what they do.

For instance, some of us are public office holders, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries; others, except for the chairman, who is a parliamentary secretary, are not. The rest of us are not public office holders; we're members of Parliament and Senators. There's another one right here substituting today, but he's not a regular member.

Sorry, George.

So we have two today who are right now subjected to a conflict of interest code even though the rest of us are not.

Finally, in the disclosure of assets, either by a spouse or by the affected member of the House or Senate, would you recommend that a public disclosure of assets be made? In the event that you answer yes, would that disclosure include just the types of assets? Or should it say 143 shares in ABC Company as opposed to just saying generally shares in ABC Company?

I'm sorry; it's a long question. But I only get to ask it once, because I have to leave for the vote.

Mr. Nitkin: I'll attempt the first and the last, if I can. In terms of spousal interest and independent person, most of the corporations we're consulting to in the private sector believe in full openness. This means that for all family members, particularly a husband and wife or a cohabiting couple, both of those sets of disclosure documents are made fully available.

An increasing number of corporations are moving to a position of designating what are called senior officers and actually requiring those senior officers to have their tax and other financial statements done by a particular firm or a group of firms. That information is then available and is fed to the same people that are linked into the accountability and ethics reinforcement mechanism.

I'm making the point here that you want widely cast inclusions when it comes to family members. Secondly, the private sector is finding that you need to try to make that information available in a standard format. Thirdly, the people who are preparing those financial returns have a link to the ethics office in some way. This helps in terms of walking the top.

.1700

With respect to public disclosure of assets, we have worked with some municipalities in Canada. We are currently working with the Ontario government, the Ontario Public Service, on a similar ethics code and values statement. The general approach that's being taken in those other political jurisdictions, because I have not done this kind of work before for the federal government here, is to try to set a certain level, a dollar level typically, above which those kinds of assets would be reported.

So there are different levels depending upon whether it's a municipal government or a provincial government, but once you approach or are above a particular level, those assets should be listed. It's a financial assessment criterion.

Mr. Boudria: Before the next person answers, I'd just like a clarification on that answer.

There's a difference between something being reported and being publicly disclosed. Should everything that is reported be automatically disclosed? In other words, if I have 145 shares of Bell Canada, the administrator of the rules would know that, but then should the public know that or should they just know that I have shares of Bell Canada? The Ontario government rules just say shares of Bell Canada, and no quantity.

What would be your recommendation in that regard?

Mr. Nitkin: If I understand the direction that concerns for ethics are taking in dominating the private sector, which is not only to be pure but be seen to be pure, the answer would seem to be that you're making it totally transparent. You're not only making the information available to an assessment or monitoring mechanism, but you're being totally transparent and making that readily, publicly available.

Mr. Boudria: For both?

Mr. Nitkin: Yes.

Mr. Boudria: Thank you.

Mr. Grainger: I just wanted to pick up on a part of those two questions.

The words I would use are indeed, Mr. Boudria, that the question of transparency would seem to be the direction. In respect to spouses or the family notion, there the notion is growing that for the integrity of that unit, family unit or whatever the relationship is, it's incumbent upon both parties to be as up front as possible with the executive of that organization, if we're talking about business. They need to know this up front before a downstream problem comes up and causes serious problems for that organization.

So they're hoping, by orientation awareness and other things besides just the code of conduct, to encourage people to come to the corporation with that attitude up front. Let's put it on the table, let's have it out here before we're three years down the road and something then happens. So there's much more of that.

On the question about the test and levels and cabinet ministers and so forth, ever since the code on conflict came out, I have been using it as a teaching tool. I have been pleased that many people I come in contact with immediately believe that all members of Parliament are functioning under that particular code. They assume it.

Now, that's an interesting comment, and I assure you it has happened again and again, and I think that's wonderful. I think it's wonderful that they see this code and they believe it represents what parliamentarians are working with. Maybe that's a message that we can go in that direction, in some respects, for all parliamentarians and we'll actually catch up with the Canadian public.

Mr. Boudria: Are you saying that most people who know of a code assume that it applies to everyone?

Mr. Grainger: They certainly think that one does.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Nitkin, in your comment you said that the net for catching relatives should be cast widely. How widely were you suggesting? Can you clarify that?

Mr. Nitkin: Ideally, what we have recommended to our corporate clients is that both sets of senior adults in the relationship should be covered. The interest and the concern on the part of corporate executives very readily extends to questions about family members. Obviously, the general practice has not yet been to make those onerous requirements of family members, but there is training in most of the corporate ethics codes that makes it very clear about what it is that related family members can or cannot do in terms of doing business with the enterprise, etc.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Who are related family members? Children?

Mr. Nitkin: You're talking about adult children, but you're also talking about brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law and other people who would be family related.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): When you say ``and others'', do you mean cousins, aunts, etc.?

Mr. Nitkin: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): So how long a list is it?

.1705

Mr. Nitkin: The easy approach is to say that it touches on so many people that it's impractical. The general way in which this is being approached is you're dealing with the members of the immediate family. So that would be husband, wife, covivant, children, but there are very specific instructions to those other categories of family relations.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Senator Gauthier, a question?

Senator Gauthier (Ontario): If the members want to ask questions, I can wait. You have a vote coming -

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): We have a vote.

Senator Gauthier: - and I don't have any urgent questions.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Malhi (Bramalea - Gore - Malton): Mr. Grainger, can you discuss some of the problems or pitfalls you have encountered in even existing codes of conduct in the past?

Mr. Grainger: Are you speaking now of codes of conduct that apply to the private sector essentially, what kinds of problems they run into?

Mr. Malhi: Yes.

Mr. Grainger: I think they fall into two categories.

In terms of acts of commission, most of the problems have to do with such matters as breach of trust within an organization, having to do with contracts and these kinds of things. That seems to be where most of the problem comes. The second most important problem on the commission side, rather than the omission side, is in relation to the taking of gifts or favours in order to accomplish something with another corporation or with a client, or whatever it might be. I'd say those are the commission side of the problems.

On the omission side of the problems, I think what most people find is that there are statements made by employees, chief executives, and/or at the bottom of an organization, that are incomplete, not full, not thorough, and later there are problems because the information the employees provided at any level was incomplete. It causes the corporation many problems.

So those are the kinds of problems that codes tend to pick up or fall within.

If I can come at your question in another way for a moment, codes themselves do bring problems. That is to say, there are always those who believe they should get on a very white horse and with their very wonderful armour and lance charge at everything in the department or the organization because they have the code on their side. That doesn't happen frequently, I would suggest, but it does happen. That's a different kind of problem.

So those are the kinds of things. I hope I've addressed your question properly. I don't know if I've covered all the things you had in mind.

Mr. Nitkin: I'll throw out a couple of others that you might want to think about in that context.

One of the important components of a code, increasingly so, is who someone reports to, if anyone, if they believe there to be an ethics problem. Many of the new-wave codes, as opposed to the command and control codes of the 1980s, where you're trying to empower employees from the most junior to the most senior, require that kind of clarification of, to whom can I go, am I protected if I raise a question, is someone presumed to be guilty if there is some kind of investigation mechanism?

When we do what are called ``ethics audits'', which are to go into companies and actually survey employees, as opposed to senior managers, as to what the actual problems in an organization are as opposed to what senior management may see, one of the major complaints we get is that companies are not walking their talk, that there are codes in place and employees would favour the kinds of reinforcements and positive enhancements that make a code living and meaningful. You don't want to focus totally on the code so that you have something written, thick, and stick it inside a drawer. What you want are the kinds of training and enforcement mechanisms that make the code live. That seems to be what a large number of staff members want to see.

The final comment is that it's very important that you address the relational issue within a company. For example, we did a major ethics audit of a large, important provincial ministry in Ontario. The deputy minister was delighted. He said, ``We have a wonderful code in place, and if anybody has a problem, they report directly to me''. When we did the ethics audit of all the public servants in that organization, everybody laughed. Everybody said, ``I have to be out of my tree if I think I can go directly to the deputy minister and say, `Excuse me; I think I have a problem'.''

.1710

Those kinds of questions of accountability and to whom you report suggest that very often you need to get a good blend of different people at different levels of responsibility so that you've addressed everybody's ethical problems within an organization and then can make the appropriate adjustments in a code.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Members, I recognize you're going to have to depart for a vote. I also have to vote, so I'm going to have to go.

Senator Gauthier: I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask you a simple question, and maybe that would resolve it. We have a very good series of questions prepared by our research staff. Couldn't we put those questions to our witnesses and have them answer them in writing for us? Could we agree to that?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Are the witnesses agreeable?

Senator Gauthier: It's not my fault if there's a vote in the House of Commons, you know.

Mr. Grainger: For the public good, why not?

Mr. Nitkin: This is how I make my living.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): The trouble is we aren't going to have a quorum because we're going to lose our senator. We have no other senator today. As you know, the rules require that we have six people and that both Houses must be represented.

Senator Gauthier: I'm just suggesting this because it's my son's birthday tonight and there's a party at my house. It's important I be there. You can understand that.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Yes.

Are there any suggestions?

Mr. Nitkin: If I've heard you, there's no one to talk to if we were to address these questions in the absence of some of the members. Is that correct?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Well, no. We can leave you addressing some of the questions with Senator Gauthier, if members are willing.

Mr. Nitkin: And put it on the record?

Mr. Rideout (Moncton): We'd better go.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Carry on.

Mr. Epp (Elk Island): We'll come back and join you.

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier: Increasingly, Codes of Conduct are being introduced into the private and public sectors. Although the individual environments may be quite dissimilar, what are the attributes that such codes have in common? You both spoke about your experience in the private sector; we, however, are in the public sector. Do you think the codes of conduct in the private sector are different from those in the public sector?

[English]

Mr. Nitkin: I'll make two observations.

One, I served for eight years in the Ontario public service, and I'm sensitive to one fundamental difference between the public and private sectors. Sometimes, for the common good or in order to be able to deliver government services, it's a requirement to have duplication or not necessarily the most cost-effective solution. That may mean a government presence in a number of small regional communities where it wouldn't be economically justified. So there is a difference between the public and private sectors.

Having said that, as I come to Ottawa, I recognize that some 20% of the people in this community are in effect federal civil servants. If you include other levels of government, the number rapidly approaches 30%. In that context, it's not inappropriate to suggest that in some ways Ottawa is a company town.

In that kind of perspective, the same kind of rule that would apply for a community having a code in its largest enterprise would apply whether it's a public-sector organization or a private-sector organization.

.1715

Mr. Grainger: I would add that my experience would suggest there are a number of attributes, Senator Gauthier, that should be looked for. One is that both private and public are expecting the staff or the employee or the person to do the right thing the first time - a very important notion. In all codes today, what Mr. Nitkin called, if you will, the ``new wave'' - versus the 1980s approach, the compliance approach I spoke of earlier - suggests that all these codes have in common their expectation that the person who is under this umbrella will do the right thing the first time. That's one common attribute. The other common attribute in all of them is a very strong reliance on the question of the basic integrity of the persons covered. It's a very strong commonality there.

The other attribute all these codes share is that they speak to the sense of trust in the organization. Whatever that organization is, they speak to that individual and the trust that is expected.

Those are the common attributes. Mr. Nitkin has already spoken about some of the differences.

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier: The committee has been advised to include general principles in its proposed Code of Conduct. Can you suggest some basic principles that it could consider? I know what your position is because you explained it in your brief. Mr. Nitkin was not as clear.

[English]

Mr. Nitkin: Generally speaking, the new-wave codes we're dealing with draw a distinction between a credo and a code. I'm going to attempt to address both.

The credo is the fundamental operational principles the organization is animated by. They make reference to particular stakeholders. So a government credo that deals essentially with the public trust would address such questions as, from the government's perspective, reputation; from the public's perspective, service; from the individual client's perspective, propriety; from the political party's perspective, truthfulness; from the general public's perspective, expectations of non-partisanship. Those are the principles, if you like, that would animate and structure a credo.

Once that's established, you would then move to a more detailed code and you would have to ask yourself what range of questions you expect to have covered. Is this conflict of interest? Is it gifts and hospitality? Is it questions of political contributions from corporations? Is it acceptance of speaker's fees and honoraria?

I've suggested four, but there are literally ten or twelve other categories that might be included in the code portion. They could be things such as financial transparency; whether or not members are required to sign the code as a condition of holding office. They could be questions about the use of non-public information for private gain not only during the period of office, in the case of a government official, but after. And so on.

So in answer to your question I've said there are principles, which would be contained in a credo statement, and then there is usually a much more detailed set of code statements, and there may be as many as fifteen or twenty of those.

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier: Is it enough to stick to general principles? Could this lead to confusion or a lack of guidance?

I will ask my next question because it is related to that one. Are there dangers in having too many rules to govern conduct? How can a balance be struck between too little guidance and too much?

.1720

[English]

Mr. Grainger: Senator Gauthier, you have in these two questions the very heart of this business. As Mr. Nitkin has pointed out, most codes today operate in a format or structure that lays out the key principles in very quick form. Some would argue they are value statements.

The next portion of that same code, if you like, or page would be the more specific items, some ten, twelve, or more perhaps, the things such as conflict and gifts, etc., that he mentioned.

There is a tendency, Senator Gauthier, for some of us to want to say it all in one place. That tendency, in my view, is dangerous. It suggests that it's all there.

Senator, the reason I believe this is a very difficult and dangerous thing to do is that once someone has such a code, it is then possible that the attitude may be that one may do it if it isn't in this code. This is very dangerous. That's why one page or two or three pages is one thing and a 200-page document is quite something else.

Mr. Nitkin: May I take a complementary spin on that same question about too many rules or too few rules?

My sense is that the kind of people we are now in the 1990s are people who respond to empowerment, to encouragement, and to decision-making rather than to rules. I don't think the question is whether we have many rules or not very many rules.

Here's a better question: Do we have the kind of training that will allow everyone in the organization to be able to reach the same conclusion when presented with the same problem?

It's very important to understand that much of the private-sector work going on in this area is an attempt to develop what are called ``sniff tests''. When you think about it, it's not an elegant term, but it is very descriptive. Most organizations are looking to empower employees not to salute rules but rather to identify a set of questions or sniff tests that would allow everybody from the most junior person to the most senior person to be able to look at a question and give the same answer in terms of, ``This is what we would do because this reflects the ethics of our organization''.

The sniff tests are individual to the corporation. Indeed, we've done about forty of these and no two companies have the same sniff tests. The purpose is in the context of developing a code of ethics to develop a sniff test that would allow the company to be able to say that if everyone asks this question they are able to provide the ethical answer, and it's one that the organization is encouraging in terms of how to define an ethical dilemma or a problem.

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier: Can you discuss mechanisms that have been developed elsewhere to ensure that the ethical climate intended to be fostered by a Code of conduct is reinforced on an ongoing basis? I do not know if I have made myself clear, but that is what I wanted to ask you.

[English]

Mr. Grainger: As you say, Senator, it's very much a follow up to the previous questions. I read with interest what the witnesses said, including the one you're speaking of. I understood the advice to be - and I'm almost in the same category today - to take a more modest approach rather than a long approach. I don't know that short is the right word. I would say it should be something that adequately expresses the wish of Parliament. It may take a page or two to do that. I don't think that's short, but I think it's what is adequate and necessary.

Mr. Nitkin: May I clarify? I submitted an article that appeared in the Corporate Ethics Monitor . It was translated into French as well. That article lists some twenty different mechanisms that are in use in the 1990s by public- and private-sector corporations to enhance ethical management. The title of the article is, Ethical Assurance Tools for Chief Ethics Officers. I would commend to the committee's attention the many examples that are given, with practical references to organizations that are applying these particular mechanisms, because there are many.

.1725

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier: Even if the Committee decided to de-emphasize??? the ``enforcement`` side of the proposed Code, it may be thought that some enforcement tools should be available in order to assure the public that the Code has real meaning. In a private company or government, where you have employees, enforcement would seem to be easier than with parliamentarians, who are not employees.

Have you any advice about enforcement in the parliamentary context?

[English]

Mr. Grainger: I have three thoughts on the subject. One is that while I'm obviously not completely familiar with the workings of the Board of Internal Economy, depending on elements of the code that may be a mechanism used to help keep things moving along properly with the code.

I personally believe parliamentary behaviour is also a reflection of some party discipline, if I may say so. I would assume party discipline might play a part as well.

Lastly, there may be some room for a committee, a standing committee, or an ad hoc committee of both the Senate and the House, that would help keep this thing fuelled and working properly; a place in which the code could be discussed and debated from time to time.

Those are the thoughts that come to me. The private-sector examples, which include such things as orientation, education, extensive video and other kinds of programs and documentation that are used, I don't think would be at all appropriate for the House of Commons and the Senate.

I offer those thoughts from someone who doesn't perhaps know enough about the inner discipline of the House and the Senate.

Mr. Nitkin: I can share a couple of dimensions on that, Senator. One comment would be that whoever is doing the enforcement, in the private sector we are seeing more and more examples of that person not only having direct accountability to the chief executive officer but also having direct accountability to the board. So someone on the board is designated as the liaison to the ethics officer. What that means is that if the ethics officer is reporting directly to the chief executive but the chief executive is the problem or the chief executive is not providing an appropriate answer, that person can go to the most senior decision-making entity within that corporation.

You know better than I do what the parallels in structure would be to Parliament, but there are two messages here. One is that enforcement is essential and the activities of the investigator or of the enforcement side of things must be independent, must be transparent, and must have the capability to move outside narrow considerations, whether they're those of a particular department, a particular party, to be able to provide a mechanism that is independent and is seen to be independent.

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier: Some academics have made the point that relying on an integrity based approach, that is, relying on members - and that could include senators as well - to do the right thing, only works if there are generally accepted understandings of what the right things are.

Recent research relating to members of the United Kingdom House of Commons, and earlier research on Canadian members has suggested, however, that there is often lack of agreement over the basic issues. If these research findings are accepted as accurate, do they indicate that a greater emphasis should be placed on rules than in the past?

[English]

Mr. Grainger: There are several questions in that one question. May I start with the notion of the differing issues and getting some agreement?

.1730

I made passing reference in my opening remarks to the value of the exercise of creating a code as being in itself a useful experience. It is because of that issue, if you like, mentioned here, of differing views and differing issues, that I even raised that. Once one struggles with a code in an organization, at least in my experience in the private sector, that does start to give people a handle on those things they want to see in common in that code. You start to break down some of the differences that are implied in this question.

The second point here is integrity-based. Integrity-based is not a different way of doing a code; it simply means that the code, when created and crafted, will rely generally on the integrity of the individuals under that code. It does not mean that there may not be a bit of an enforcement program around it. It just means the program essentially is based on integrity and not on an over-reliance on the kind of compliance that I spoke of earlier in respect to the Office of Government Ethics in the federal bureaucracy in the United States.

I think a major issue there is to separate the notion of integrity-based out of the question that there's one kind of code called integrity-based and one kind of code called compliance. They're both sets of codes; it's just a question of the emphasis and the nature of the enforcement mechanisms around them.

Mr. Nitkin: I have two observations. The first is, does everyone have the same sense of what the right thing is? Very often when we approach people in the public and private sectors at a senior level, they say, ``I can't be trained; if I don't have these values now, when I'm 40 or 50 or 60, then I'm never going to have them''.

I don't think that's true. I think we should accept the notion that most of us get our training about what is proper and appropriate and the right thing to do from our mom's knee. Very few of us find it comes from our dad's knee. When we learn about sharing with others, when we learn putting away our toys, when we learn to have an afternoon nap, those things we learn from our mom's knee, not from our dad's knee.

But our moms didn't give us information about how to file tax returns. Our moms didn't give us information about corporate contributions or about scrutinizing patronage appointments. I think it's fair to say that the notion that we are automatically going to pass through the portals of the House of Commons or the Senate and have a common vision about what's the right thing to do is not true. I think you can educate people in standards at any point in life, and ethical standards are so important that they need to be done on a regular basis.

The second comment I'd make is that I disagree that you need more emphasis on rules. Most people don't want rules. What people want is to be empowered to do the right thing. Clearly the message is that the code that you're going to be developing, should you decide to do so, should be very strongly linked to decision-making.

What you want to do is to clarify four questions. Who are the stakeholders? Who's going to be affected? A lot of decisions are made and the difficulties often are that we haven't perceived all the people who are going to be impacted by a decision. So ethical decision-making first of all asks if we have identified all of the stakeholders, not that we're going to keep everybody happy. We have to ask whether we have all of the players on the table in the policy we're developing or the program we're going to implement.

Second of all, have we identified what the business issues and the social issues are in this case, as well as what the ethical issues are? You must have, and the code must be linked to, clarification of what the ethical components within decisions are. That's fundamental. Otherwise, you don't get ethical decision-making.

Then what you need to do is to encourage a sniff test so that everybody in the organization, even from a different political party, heaven forbid, from the most junior clerk to the most senior person in Parliament, is able to say we are all working from the same script. We are asking the same questions and we can be expected to all realize the same answers.

To clarify what I've said, if you're trying to develop a new-wave code, you're looking not toward more rules, but toward more empowerment of the decision-making of everybody in the organization. That makes life easier. That means you don't have to decide whether this code should apply only to parliamentary secretaries and other Pooh-Bahs. It means it can apply to everybody inside Parliament, from the most junior to the most senior, because everybody will be working according to the same principles.

.1735

There will be the same sniff test for the organization. The federal Parliament sniff test could very well be different from the sniff test we're developing for the Ontario public service. It will be different for private corporations, each of which will have its own sniff test.

Senator Gauthier: Now that the members are back, can I ask a personal question? I read all the questions into the record up to question eight, inclusive. There are three questions -

Mr. Nitkin: I didn't deviate a word, for those of you who were concerned.

Senator Gauthier: I have a question to ask that has bothered me since the beginning of this meeting. You seem to differentiate between political morality and political ethics. I'm not much in English, but I'd like to know what difference you see between morality and ethics. You've heard of the word deontology; I take it you're quite aware of that. I like that word much better, and I think this committee should be looking at a code of deontology for parliamentarians rather than a code of ethics, a code of morality or political discipline.

But we'll get to that some day when this committee wants to hear me.

What do you think about the idea? Tell me what difference you see between political ethics and political morality.

Mr. Nitkin: I compliment the senator for picking up those comments, because you raise...at the heart of a very serious issue. In the ethics training we do, we draw a distinction between values, ethics, morality and the law. Let me quickly deal with the two you haven't asked about and then focus on the two you have.

Values are things that are important to us, but they don't necessarily have an ethical dimension. You can value a large home or you can value a Mercedes. So you shouldn't be confused that you're developing a code of values, because that's not what you're dealing with.

It's also clear that values are different from the law. Obviously, the law is legally determined behaviour, but the law may be an ass; the law may not exist; the law may not be appreciated by people; or it may be antiquated. The chemistry might not exist to be able to talk about whether something is toxic or harmful, so ethics is not the same as the law. We understand that.

If we've said what values mean and what the law is, then let's focus on morality and how it is different from ethics. Morality is culturally determined. Morality is what's right and wrong in the mores of the day; it come from the Latin. So the morality may be that homosexuality was a disease in the 1950s, but it's an acceptable lifestyle alternative in the 1990s.

Put another way, there are practices that a majority of parliamentarians may accept - for example, political partisan homogeny in the voting process - that may not necessarily be ethical. Put another way, mores are culturally determined norms of right and wrong, but they may not be ethical. There may be some element that is less than fully truthful; there may be some element that is fully less than respect for all persons.

Ethics, on the other hand, as distinguished from morality, are standards that are cross-cultural and cross-time. The point I'm making here is you want to move from a ``fudginess'' of political mores about acceptable practices - some of which may be ethical, others of which may be questionable - to a standard in your code that is political ethics. There you're dealing with things that are cross-cultural and cross-time. They can be understood as easily by people around this table who wear a turban as by those who wear a keffiyeh or a yarmulka as by as those whose heads are not covered and are fully practising some other religion or agnosticism, whatever.

The point is, you're talking about a standard that can be religious, philosophical, spiritual or intellectual, but it should be possible. I suggest you may want to strive toward a code that embraces political ethics, that is, cross-cultural and cross-time, rather than morality, which will change through time and is not the soundest basis for deciding what is right and wrong.

.1740

Mr. Grainger: Your questions and the comments were very helpful. I must add two further comments.

One has to do with cultural...or diversity and where we are today. In the work I'm doing, I find a lot of agreement with the values and ethics of Bart Simpson. Let me say that again: Bart Simpson's values are out there, and they're in charge.

Senator Gauthier: Who's Bart Simpson?

Mr. Grainger: Bonne question. Let me simply say that out there today, even though, I hasten to add, the words ``deontology'' and ``morality'' are wonderful, good words, as - dare I say it - an educator-trainer in the field of ethics I can get people to understand that values are, in effect, nouns, and you have a bunch of values. Ethics are verbs. They're action-oriented. But I have real difficulty at the highest levels, including the highest-educated levels, going in and talking about morality and deontology, partly for the reasons mentioned and partly for the sad fact that, encore, Bart Simpson rules.

Unfortunately, those are the values out there amongst many people, if not a certain level and generation. We have to deal in ethics and values. It's easier to deal in those.

Senator Gauthier: The Ontario legislature has a commissioner of integrity. They make a distinction. Do you think there is merit in looking at possibly copying that approach, rather than having an ethics commissioner or a morality commissioner or God knows what - a deontology commissioner? I think integrity encompasses a lot of things you've been saying. What do you think?

Mr. Nitkin: We developed the enhancing integrity courses that were offered to both the first-line managers in the Ontario public service and to more senior officers in the Ontario public service. I think there may be some need to apprise yourself of what's happening in Ontario in terms of the training and the standards in that area. I would suggest the language that was chosen - because I have somewhat of an insider perspective - dealt with some of the political sensitivities of the times. So the actual choice of the term ``integrity'' was very much borne out of an attempt to try to be gender-inclusive and culturally inclusive.

I'm not certain that the differences integrity would bring to the table in its actual applied sense in Ontario would be different from the very things we're talking about here in terms of political morality or political ethics.

Mr. Grainger: In terms of the federal government, the Senate and the House of Commons, I'm tempted to lean toward the notion of a working committee made up of members of both Houses that is almost a triumvirate, an umpire or an arbitre. I'm nervous about the notion of a ``Tsar of Integrity'' on Parliament Hill. Somehow I don't think that would bode well. I understand a commissioner of conflict of interest, but I'm not too sure I understand the commissioner of integrity as well. I like the word, though.

Senator Gauthier: Does it make a difference in the Senate and the House of Commons? One's a confidence House and the other isn't. Do you see a difference?

Mr. Grainger: In the two Houses? Senator, you wouldn't really expect a humble Canadian citizen to make such a statement in this House.

Do you mean in terms of the work?

Senator Gauthier: No, I mean in terms of the challenge we're trying to cope with here of finding a code. I don't like the term ``code of conduct'' because its meaning is so vague in English. It could be a code of good conduct, bad conduct, indifferent conduct. There are all kinds of ways of interpreting that.

I see a difference. I spent 22 years in the House of Commons. I'm showing my prejudice here, but I do see a difference between the House of Commons, which is a confidence chamber, and the Senate, which is not a confidence centre. The government doesn't need the confidence centre to operate; it needs its work to pass its legislation, but there's no such thing as a confidence motion in the Senate in the government. Do you see any difference there?

Mr. Grainger: If I can turn your question into one I understand in practical terms, I would like to suggest that what we spoke of earlier - the principles portion of, for the moment, the code - might well be the same, but on the code parts, or, if you will, the issue part, the specificity below those principles in relation to behaviours in one House or the other, you might be quite right.

.1745

Frankly, I hadn't given much thought to the question you've asked, but now that I've heard you say this, I think you're right. There probably is some benefit in thinking very carefully about how to craft the code.

Senator Gauthier: I'm sure Mr. Epp will follow up on that, because there is a difference, and a very big one. One is accountable to the public in an election every three or four years. You kick the bums out if you don't like them. The other one is named. That's a big difference.

Anyway, I'll let him handle that, because he knows it better than I do.

Mr. Epp: I find this intriguing, and in fact I have been studying ethics and human behaviour for about 56 years.

Indeed, my question two was, what's the difference between political morality and political ethics? So we're on the same wavelength there.

I want to ask you both: is there such a thing as an absolute code of ethics or an absolute morality?

Mr. Nitkin: I believe there is, but you're asking me for my personal opinion. I'm facing a major dilemma as a consultant, because I'm an observant Jew who does believe that the standards of what is right and appropriate are divinely inspired. I have to translate that into an ethics practice together with three associates and three researchers, in terms of what I say to corporations.

In answer to your question directly, do I personally believe in an absolute standard: yes. I believe in a standard that each organization can define for itself, which is cross-cultural and cross-time, which will empower all members of that organization to make ethical decisions in the light of how that organization structures its ethical practices. But I'm a student of history, and I know there are standards and practices related to child labour, related to women's participation in the workforce, related to attitudes towards minorities, related to the quality of the environment.

As a student of history, I think it would be fair to say that if corporations and private-sector organizations absolutely define a set of standards in one point of time, then twenty years later that standard will need to be updated. So it is absolutely correct to the circumstance. Over time, culture changes, needs change, the society becomes a different place, and you have to incorporate different values into the ethical standards.

Mr. Epp: Do you have a response to that as well?

Mr. Grainger: I share that comment to a great extent, but I can also say, from experience in private corporations, that coming a different way also works; that is, people do want, as I called it, a level playing field. I don't know if that's absolute in the sense you might be driving at, but there is this desire and wish to have something of a steady state or a stable state.

I'd be foolish if I didn't say to you that in the many years I've been doing this now in the organizations, very few people have come to the table with a position that says there's an absolute set. There are those who do, and they are part of the challenge of meeting or creating a code, but I wouldn't say that I've found a lot of people, for whatever reasons, who would subscribe to that view.

However, there is a need or a feeling that at least some things ought to make for a level playing field. In that sense, I believe people are looking for a bit of something that guides them, and if that's absolute, then it's absolute.

It has to be measured in the terms that Mr. Nitkin has just described, in terms of history and the 1990s, if you will.

Mr. Epp: First, whether you or I believe in the absolute of a source of morality does not of itself change the fact of whether or not there is such an absolute. I think part of our dilemma in this committee, in the public expectations, is indeed that difference, because of the different expectations. There are some who hold us to their sense of what is the absolute and there are those who don't - and I suppose there are some among the legislative people who also have different standards based on what their beliefs are.

.1750

I had a very interesting experience that demonstrated cultural values, and that was when I was teaching at the college level. This is really incredible, because it was a group of banking students I was teaching. We had a lot of foreign students in the place I worked, and a group of them cheated on their exams. They were very annoyed when I caught them, because to them, there was nothing wrong with it. It was just part of the way of climbing up the ladder. They needed to do it in order to get the marks, so they did it. They were very pragmatic about it. That really blew me. Of course I suggested their expulsion, because I said the last thing we need is bankers who have no sense of morality when it comes to handling our money.

But let me get back to the point. You said something about the ethics business over the years. I guess I'm referring mostly to Mr. Nitkin here. You indicated that people can get into ethics for both the right and the wrong reasons. I don't know if you discussed that when just the senator was here, but I'm really interested in your response to that concerning business and the consultations you do.

I think I know what you're talking about when you say people go into these ethics studies and into producing a code for the wrong reasons: it's to give the correct appearance, as opposed to the actual substance of the ethics. I think that's what you're saying. Would you care to elaborate on that?

Mr. Nitkin: Let me offer a couple of perspectives. One is an aphorism in the Talmud, which basically says if you do the right thing enough times, even if it's for the wrong reason, it becomes the right reason. That is fascinating.

We have dealt with corporations that have brought us in to repair a public image because they've done something egregiously wrong to the health of women or the environment. In those cases, the company will start to put in place a code of ethics, do some case studies or put in place some other mechanism - a newsletter, an ombudsman or any one of the other mechanisms that are referenced in The Corporate Ethics Monitor. They start out not necessarily believing it, but by beginning to think in this area, they become transformed. I've seen it too many times not to believe it. An organization that begins to play with ethical issues becomes more sensitive to them.

Can I say it transforms them from black to white? No. But it does give a sensitivity to and awareness of ethical issues.

The second observation I'd offer is you're not abrogating the responsibility of the student who didn't accept the mores of that day on the issue you're talking about. In a code, or whatever you choose to call it - and ``code'' may not be the best terminology to use - what you want to develop is an empowering mechanism that says these are the principles that guide our behaviour and they are a minimum standard to which we expect everyone to accept. They're our sniff test.

In the case of a major communications company, that sniff test is whether I would feel comfortable if the reasons behind the decision were on the front page of The Globe and Mail the next morning. For another of our clients, a major oil company, the sniff test is whether it is fair and honest and whether it would damage the company's reputation.

Whatever that standard is - whatever that sniff test is - it's appropriate as a minimum standard, but in the highest sense. But that also empowers the individual, be they a parliamentarian or a worker in the organization, to say, ``Even if I've satisfied the definition of the code or the credo, I still have personal concerns about the issue, so I still may not do something because it doesn't feel right to me personally''.

That's acceptable, but you do have a basic credo or sniff test that everybody is using, asking the same question in order to be able to derive whether this is ethical and whether it should be perceived as an ethical decision. That satisfies behaviour and also appearance.

Mr. Epp: In a Sunday class I taught, I used to tell my students that the difference between character and reputation is that character is what you are and reputation is what others think you are. I wonder whether perhaps a code of conduct is an attempt at creating a perception of a reputation we want to build rather than the real character. If we had real character, we wouldn't be here. I'm quite convinced of that.

.1755

I want to go to Mr. Grainger, if I may. I made some notes during his presentation as well.

I want to question you on something you said. Your printed notes say a code of conduct is a ``clarion call for members of the House of Commons and the Senate'', and it ``would serve the public good and remind those who enter Parliament of their expectations''.

But when you said it verbally, you substantially softened this. You said it ``might'' and then you said, ``I emphasize that it might''. Then you said, it ``may'' remind those, whereas in the written one you said it ``will'' remind them.

Why soften? What happened in your thinking? Or were you intimidated by us here?

Mr. Grainger: No. I've been thinking for some time that the purpose of a code for the House or for the Senate would certainly not be one dealing with accountability. There is nothing that the Canadian public or people like myself and Mr. Nitkin and others can bring to a code on the accountability side.

If you're not accountable now, Heaven help us. I was more concerned, therefore, in terms of the public perception, of what we sometimes we feel, that politicians, if you will, I say with respect, may not be held in as high esteem as one ought to or as they should be.

So I am saying if you have a code for that reason it might help; it may help. On reflection I hardly believe anyone including myself could say it ``will'' definitely help. There are no guarantees in this world today. We live in an extremely cynical environment. I cannot begin to tell you how, in many organizations, codes and efforts around codes take many months and years because people have to be convinced, as Mr. Nitkin was just suggesting, that this is going to be a real effort and not simply window-dressing.

Mr. Epp: In view of that statement and your softening of it and of your expressed reluctance to say this will solve our problems, toward the end of your presentation you said a code may be difficult for Parliament to craft and the benefits may be rather few. From that I take it that maybe your work in consultation with your private enterprise businesses that you go to and even your suggestions to us here are maybe just a scheme to make money, since you don't believe it does anything.

I'm being very hard on you, of course.

Mr. Grainger: No, that's okay. I'm paid enough that I don't need to worry about that. The fact of the matter is, most organizations who commit to this kind of exercise in the very determined way we've discussed here do reap clear benefits, as we have suggested. All I'm suggesting in terms of Parliament is that this is no easy thing to craft given the 280-odd members who belong to the most exclusive environment, or club, in this country.

The actual crafting may be difficult. As a result, it could be very hard for people to come to an agreement. I believe the exercise in itself is worthwhile. I believe it may have some benefits but it's a very difficult thing to do in an organization where there is a certain amount of - not uniformity, if you will - general understanding and consensus around certain practices and policies and so on - even values, if you wish - in that organization.

Crafting in that environment is one thing. Crafting in this environment would indeed be a challenge. I believe it's a challenge worth trying, but it will be a challenge.

Mr. Nitkin: I'd like to make two quick observations. I thank you for the pointedness of the question.

Some of what I interpret Brian Grainger to be saying is that not only is a code difficult to construct, but a code is a prerequisite for enlightened ethical decision-making and behaviour. It's not a determinant.

In other words, having a code will provide the kind of education and empowerment that will help make decisions more right. It won't necessarily guarantee the end product. Indeed, each month we report on an industry sector in a number of categories of ethical management, environmental responsibility, social responsibility, hiring and promoting women, involvement in repressive regimes internationally, etc. Not a month goes by when a company we're researching will laugh at one of its own foibles and say to one of our researchers, ``I guess we're pretty bad in that area, but we're probably better than the government''. That is a sad commentary.

.1800

I started out this session asking five questions, and I know there was some resistance to the asking of the questions, but you've already answered the question. When I asked whether you thought there's a level of public respect for this institution in terms of its ethics, there were not many supporters. When I asked whether you were comfortable with your ethics training, not very many people said they were comfortable. When I asked whether you had confidence about whether your peers could be engaged in conflict of interest behaviour, either you didn't know or you were concerned.

I guess the question is, why are you doing this? You've done this five or six times over the last ten years. The private sector feels this is so important that it's moving to second- and third-generation codes and it's getting on with it. But with the kinds of answers you gave to my mini-quiz, you don't need public perception to be the mechanism that says: This is why we should be doing it. It would be nice as a bonus, but I'm not sure it's going to change people's attitudes toward government.

We have come through a period in the 1980s when government was perceived as having the answers and was broadly respected. As we've transferred from the mentality of the 1970s through to the 1990s, it's not only that government doesn't have the moneys to make the programs work; it's that there isn't the respect for government. That's a problem, and I'll tell you why.

I'm not glorifying the private sector. We have very serious problems of ethics in the private sector. The private sector is behaving in a way that is antediluvian in many ways. In reinforcement of morale and corporate loyalty, in benefits being withdrawn and in the development of contingent workforces, the private sector in some ways has moved forward to take centre stage, because the government, willingly or otherwise, is perceived of as less beneficial to Canadian society.

Government has the opportunity of repairing its reputation, because quite frankly some of the corporate challenges and behaviours are uglier now than they were ten years ago. But if you're going to be credible at the table, if you're going to rein in those things about corporate behaviour and other stakeholders that you don't like, you need to be credible, not just for public perception, but among the corporate people you're dealing with, among the voters and to your own faces in the mirror.

If you've answered the way you have in terms of your own self-perceptions of where you're at, you need something in this area. The time to talk about it is long past. What you call it is less important than that you begin to have something that helps you feel comfortable looking at yourself in the mirror. Those other stakeholders hopefully will follow.

Mr. Epp: You said, though, that the exercise may be more useful than the code itself. Actually, when you said that, I remembered when I built a stereo many years ago. The hundreds of hours I spent building that and soldering it all together were way more fun than listening to it when it was finished. Maybe that's true here.

But when I look at the history, we went through this exercise well before I came here. This Parliament has gone through this exercise on numerous occasions. It doesn't seem to me it's been useful at all, because it keeps going through the same process over and over, and here we are doing it yet again. Maybe we should try to bring it to closure and see what happens if we actually complete it.

Mr. Nitkin: You've made the critical point, which is that the process is useful if you accomplish something. Then you build up certain skills, some self-confidence and a base for proceeding into the future. If this is going to be yet another exercise in non-accomplishment, then you have serious grounds for questions.

Mr. Grainger: I would add that question 10 of the questions being asked earlier seems to point to your very concern, and that is: What general advice do you have for the committee to help design a code of conduct? Certainly there are things that can be done and the committee can actually perhaps craft something as an exercise, if you will - my word - and see what happens, just around this very table. It would be really interesting to see.

.1805

Mr. Nitkin: Let me also offer an observation. It's a message specifically to your library staff, who seem to be very competent.

One of the ways to accomplish this is through a benchmarking process. So question ten asks, ``What advice do you have about designing a code of conduct?'' Much of the work we do with public-sector organizations, industry associations, not-for-profit organizations and the private sector is to stand on the shoulders of greats or not-so-greats.

There is a lot of information out there about what others are doing in terms of credos, in terms of codes, in terms of a whole range of details. What you should do, instead of attempting to reinvent the wheel, is have a very critical benchmark analysis that identifies what other jurisdictions are doing, but not so that you slavishly follow them. Some of the practices may be inappropriate, but you don't have to start from ground zero.

Once you have the determination to proceed and once you provide the guidelines, there are very effective mechanisms, one of which is a benchmark analysis that will give you a whole bunch of material. Indeed, most of the clients we deal with are impressed that there's more on the table that they can hope to put into their first code.

This is very important. A good benchmark analysis will identify lots of opportunities and lots of categories, not all of which you will implement at your first go-round. But you will attempt to make some progress in this area, hopefully toward a set of principles, which I'm calling a code, hopefully toward more detail in terms of practice in several categories that we're calling the code elements, and also toward a decision-making sniff test or a way of empowering everybody about how you apply these principles in practice, so that everybody is reading from the same script and has the same set of principles.

Once you've done that, it's easier the second time and third time. Most organizations find that if the benchmark analysis is of high quality, they have enough ammunition to take five to ten years to implement all of those ideals.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to dominate the session. If any of the others have questions, I will now defer. If they don't, I would like to have more time.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Mrs. Catterall.

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): I'm trying to come to an understanding here. You talked about ethics as something that's unchanging over time and space and cultures. That being the case, it would seem to me that somebody, somewhere, has unearthed all these ethics and ethical principles long ago and we don't need to do it again. They're in some little vault, waiting for us.

Now, why is this a major problem for us?

Mr. Nitkin: I don't think it's a major problem for us, but you're talking about the kinds of questions that have preoccupied humankind for generations, if not for centuries.

For example, a principle that everyone can agree to about respecting truth is something that no matter what culture you're in, there's a basic element of cooperation, of assuming that somebody is going to be truthful unless they prove themselves to be otherwise.

It's the application of that ethical principle in the reality of the day that may very much vary. In a time of medieval society, there are people who are not empowered to hear the truth, who do not have the same social status you do. In a more current industrial society, there are questions about power and influence that are related to information, so truthfulness is defined differently.

Today we still don't practice fulsome truth. It may be that a philanderer, if he's guilty in one case of cheating on his spouse, may determine that it is better for the relationship - that was one flaw and it's in the past - not to bring that up because it will only damage the relationship irreparably.

So the definition of respecting truth will vary with circumstance, and so even if there is that principle of truthfulness, how it's going to be related to the current behaviour of the organization is something that you attempt to clarify and define in a sniff test.

The principles haven't changed. It's how they're applied that's critical.

Ms Catterall: So is the philanderer who lies violating ethics or morals?

.1810

Mr. Nitkin: I would argue that he's violating ethics. But if you had a cultural standard of the kind we have now, where one-third of all marriages apparently end in divorce, the mores today may have a different attitude toward what is acceptable or not acceptable in terms of extramarital relationships.

Ms Catterall: After some of the witnesses we have heard I am really trying to figure out if and why a code of whatever kind is necessary. I don't have to ask myself questions about.... The minute I can't get up in the morning and look at myself in the mirror, I'm out of here. If I find myself even having to contemplate doing things that would interfere with that, I'm gone.

As you talk about morality, I'm even beginning to wonder whether we can do anything useful with this if morality is as changeable as it is.

Mr. Nitkin: One wag commented that politics is too important to be left to politicians.

I think this is very important. If your question is whether you must have a code of ethics, I think you raise a question about what form and what shape and what content it will have.

Is it important to do so, so that we establish a basic set of standards? I don't think there's a question. Is it important to do so in the sense that Brian Grainger talked about, in terms of a minimum standard so you can feel comfortable in the assurance that everyone is working from the same script and there is a set of behaviour that would allow the organization to vomit out somebody who violated the principles of your House of Commons and your Senate? I think that's important. If you want to try to influence public perception, which is extremely negative about political ethics as it's applied in Canada....

For all of those reasons, I don't deflate the importance of the anxiety and the questions you're going through, but I say you do need to finally produce something. The time for talking about this has passed, whether you decide it's a credo, a code, a sniff test, a manual or something else. There are lots of mechanisms we can talk about.

Some organizations come to us and ask for a code, and we end up not giving them a code even when they ask for it, because it's not appropriate to their circumstances. They still would benefit from some ethics awareness and sensitivity.

Given the answers that I got from this committee at the start of this meeting, you need that. I think you know you need that.

Mr. Grainger: I'd like to go back to your very interesting comment about the difficulty of the task, the sharing of values or the sharing of ethics.

For almost six years now I have been struck by the fact that in every exercise I've been involved in none of them have taken less than three, four or five months in organizations, even when the organization may be wonderful and may have its act together, so to speak. It may have a lot of things going for it, but the folks in the trenches don't share what's going on.

They have a different perception. Maybe it's the wrong perception. Maybe it's not based on all the facts. There's something fishy in Denmark and they've all finally agreed that they have to talk about it. The talk is ethics. The result may not be a code.

From that you can understand what I'm saying. It's true that it's not always appropriate. What seems to be necessary today, in the 1990s, is this discussion we're having.

Maybe in this case it's necessary to go beyond discussing. But certainly people are doing it out there in the business world, not to make me rich by any means, but because they have to do it. They have to do it. They're not doing it only for their good looks or anything like that. They are doing it because the people in the organization cannot seem to dialogue about some basic things like trust, honesty and integrity, where the harassment policy fits in, if it does - all that good stuff.

.1815

I could give you all sorts of good reasons, but it basically comes down to the fact that they need to bring people together, and this is one of the most important vehicles available today to do it. If not a code, a discussion on the ethics of that organization seems to be critical.

Ms Catterall: I think I'll stop there, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): I've been listening with great interest. As a natural-born teacher, it really bothers me that I missed the test at the beginning, so maybe we'll do it some other time. I must also actually compliment you on your clarity of expression and thought. I'm following along quite nicely and learning quite a bit.

One of the problems I have is that I believe we do have several scripts that govern us. Maybe I'm repeating stuff that I've missed at the beginning, but we have the traffic code, we have the Criminal Code, we have all of these things, and then we have the magnifying glass called the public view. I personally believe that by the time we get to this level, we've been scrutinized pretty closely. We're representing large communities that have checked us out pretty thoroughly.

Ms Catterall: Even though you didn't know they were doing it.

Mrs. Parrish: I often didn't know they were doing it.

I do get concerned when you talk about the fact that we are desperately in need of some sort of code. With politics being strange people doing strange things, they really do cut each other up.

That is, the purpose of political parties...in my perception in the House, is that there's one particular group that's taking great pleasure out of making the other group look immoral, unjust, domineering and unfair. So if we brought in this code, first of all we'd be pandering to that. We'd be saying, ``We are slime buckets, and therefore we need to be controlled''.

Secondly, we'd be pandering to the one weapon an opposition party has on a darn good government like ours, saying, ``You know, you're right, and all those things you're saying about us are absolutely correct''. How do we stop ourselves from actually giving credence to a theory like that by in fact sitting down...?

And I wouldn't sit here for five minutes to do a manual. It just would be absolutely unheard of.

Mr. Nitkin: My first comment is the bad seed comment. That is, if you don't have some form of rules or consensus - and you said there are traffic rules and other kinds of rules - or if you don't have Parliament rules, then you're subject only to mores, i.e., I feel this person should leave the House; I feel this person has exceeded what is appropriate behaviour.

You do need some kind of standard-setting that is Parliament-specific so that this organization can say for its own health and well-being that this is unacceptable or inappropriate behaviour.

That's what the public is reacting to. They are is reacting not only to the idea that somebody is being seen to be bad, but to the fact that the organization has no way of dealing with it. Indeed, there are no standards, and it is in that absence of standards that you get the criticism.

Mrs. Parrish: I don't want to get into a debate, Mr. Chairman, but in fact the Speaker of the House has very firm rules. We have guidelines. We have huge books full of guidelines that govern our behaviour in the House, in our offices, in our budget processes. We are very carefully regulated from morning until night. I don't really believe there's a lack of rules to govern our behaviour, nor do I believe there is a lack of appropriate things to do to somebody who stands up in the House and uses an incorrect term.

Mr. Nitkin: You're the best person to know what the needs of this organization are. I therefore want to make it clear that I'm trying to give you an answer, and what I'm hearing you say is that you think you are ruled a lot.

My response is to try to say that an organization needs to be able to purify and cleanse itself when somebody acts in ways that don't necessarily contradict the rules but may contradict what is appropriate ethical behaviour. The rules may not address that particular theme.

I'm not interested in more rules and I don't think the public is looking toward more rules. What I think the organization of Parliament would benefit from is a clarification of what are the basic credo principles, the basic sniff test that we expect to be passed.

.1820

Mrs. Parrish: What you're saying hasn't addressed my question, that the political situation we find ourselves in on a year-to-year basis, with an opposition and whatever, is one where they will continually accuse us of being immoral.

I'm not implying you.

Mr. Epp: I'm not going to attack you, I just want to ask you a question. Were you in the previous Parliament?

Mrs. Parrish: No, but all parliaments behave like that.

Mr. Epp: When the Liberals were in opposition, and when they criticized the morality of the then-governing Conservative Party, how would that be justified?

Mrs. Parrish: I did not say it was justified. I said it is a product of the type of government we have.

Ms Catterall: It was...[Inaudible - Editor]...behaviour.

Mrs. Parrish: That's right, and that was illegal behaviour.

Ms Catterall: It was...[Inaudible - Editor]...on the basis of existing rules.

Mr. Epp: Okay. Because there is certainly a public perception out there that they were not all that honourable, or at least some of them.

I'm sorry for interrupting.

Mr. Grainger: Can I pick up on on several elements of your question?

I certainly am not, and I don't think Mr. Nitkin is...nor can I find in the blues any evidence that a bunch of people have come here to push a code. But the exercise you're involved in has to go beyond asking questions of people like ourselves. Is there any way at all in which you can spend some time to take all of the stuff you are obviously aware of in those scripts and summarize it on one piece of paper? Can you show to the Canadian public what all this therefore represents, that at the bottom line, ethical behaviour is such and such - the word that was used was ``credo''? Would we have harassment policies today if we had left the scripts alone?

Mrs. Parrish: The question to ask through you, Mr. Chairman, focuses on the point at which we are merely pandering to everyone's deep, dark belief that we are slime buckets. At what point are we addressing a legitimate concern?

Mr. Grainger: The member must realize that certainly no one here would suggest any of that kind of language to describe the people who work in these Houses. I certainly did not come here to do that, as members in this committee and others who know me personally would attest.

But maybe it's that the House of Commons should start thinking about whether or not the rules that are in use in the House constitute appropriate behaviour all around. In a sense, that's not my business. As a Canadian citizen, however, I would suggest that you might want to think about whether or not the Canadian public really wants that any more. Who does want that?

Mr. Nitkin: Party discipline is an example: you must vote according to the policy that's set by the party you represent or you risk being ostracized in ways you had better understand. I would argue that this is a serious ethical problem in terms of parliamentary procedure. And I'm not the first person to suggest that.

If your question is centred on the idea that you have lots and lots of rules, yes, you do. Are some of your mores or practices ethical? A question could be made of that. Is this the forum and the time to do away with party discipline, for example, because it is less than ethical and people's principles are compromised or they have to sacrifice the constituent needs locally for the broader national picture? No, I don't think this is necessarily the time.

Mrs. Parrish: I would like to interrupt the witness just for a second, Mr. Chairman.

I would hope that we're not going to go off on a side-bar discussion of block voting and voting according to party, because I don't agree. If I sit here while he says it's unethical, that means I may be tolerating what he's saying.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): When he gives his answer, Mrs. Parrish, just because you don't object does not mean you agree with him.

Mrs. Parrish: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nitkin: Your body language was very clear. I understood clearly that you did not accept what I was saying.

Mrs. Parrish: I don't play poker.

Mr. Nitkin: This is an interesting exercise for me personally, because when I appear before groups, these people are willing advocates. They honestly believe they need some assistance and some help because they have self-defined a problem. I think Brian Grainger and I are both saying that if you don't feel you have a problem, let it go and have the courage of your convictions to say, ``We ain't slime buckets, we're terrific, and this is why we're terrific, so shove it''. You're the ones who have asked us to appear here and to give you some comments, and we've tried to do so. I think the last thing in our minds is to suggest that you should have a code.

.1825

We have consistently conveyed over the period of time we've been meeting with you this afternoon that organizations benefit from clarifying their ethical values. Organizations benefit from empowering everyone from the most junior to the most senior person in the organization because it solidifies morale, it solidifies self-trust, it builds organizational confidence, and it results in a more productive workforce.

Most of the government agencies we are consulting with now are experiencing very fundamental down-sizing. Dealing with ethics can be a very profound way of easing the burden of survival guilt, such as asking why person X was let go when they, person Y, are still there; or of easing the question of how someone can trust any longer an organization that no longer accepts responsibility for their professional development or their job security.

Mrs. Parrish: Can I ask you to come back to a focus on my question? If the basic nature of political activity in Canada today is one party crucifying the other - calling us hogs for taking pensions or whatever - how do you address that in a code of conduct? How do you make it all-powerful, covering all moral groups and covering all time when, in fact, the nature of the game in this country for the last twenty years has been to undermine the other party or the other people or the other players?

Mr. Nitkin: I think it's addressed in a credo because - and perhaps I'm being naive - I never understood the purpose of Parliament as being a place to provide a venue for one political party to undermine another. I thought it was to govern in the best lights possible so that we would have an enlightened, just, fair, viable society. If I'm wrong -

Mrs. Parrish: Have you ever been to Question Period?

Mr. Nitkin: Not only have I never been to Question Period, I don't even have a television set. So I'm a nerd twice removed.

Mrs. Parrish: Good for you.

Mr. Nitkin: I think I'm responding to the pain you're expressing because I think what you are saying is that there are some ugly dimensions to the realities in Parliament. That message comes through loud and clear.

You have to decide whether or not being involved with these considerations is worth the effort. All I can say is that if you are saying to yourself, ``I'm never going to convince the slime-bucket, negative crowd out there'', you may very well be hitting on the truth. I think, however, there are a lot of other good and justifiable reasons for doing this, and those reasons relate to the role that government can play in dealing with rapacious and badly founded corporations; in terms of providing a social safety net for the increasing numbers of women and children and, increasingly, single men who cannot afford to survive; and all of the other positive attributes of social justice, environmental integrity, etc., that are necessary.

Even this process may help clarify what it is you are all about as a politician. It may hopefully focus on some deeper standards than the political name-calling that may occupy the day-to-day raison d'être and provide a solace that we're here for a bigger reason.

Mrs. Parrish: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

Again, you've described all the good benefits of working on a code of conduct. At this time in our history, is there any chance or any danger that there is a downside to us coming up suddenly with a regulation or a code of conduct or even a general set of principles? Doesn't the fact that we're creating it confirm the public's beliefs?

Mr. Grainger: I have never dealt with any organization in the last six years that believed that going into a code exercise - or just the exercise of discussing ethics, for example - was somehow branding them or labelling them in some way. Perhaps unfortunately, if anything they actually thought it was buying them credits - perhaps credits they frankly didn't deserve because of serious product problems, or other serious problems. So quite often, it goes the other way. I'm not saying it isn't possible for someone to assume the kind of approach you just described, but I think it's hardly likely.

I'd like very much to point to an excellent example of the whole matter of conflict of interest, and it comes from the public office holder's code of ethics on conflict of interest. I'm not close to all of this, but people I know through my work tell me it has been a godsend to many people, and the issuing of it by the Prime Minister was just an excellent piece of work. Do you know why? Because it gave guidelines and standards and didn't pander, in my humble opinion, to the lowest common denominator and did not create the feeling that because you had such a code, or you were working with the ethics counsellor or whatever to work out whatever these questions were, that was somehow undermining.

.1830

That's the example closest there is to this House, frankly. There isn't anything else I can cite. I hope my anecdotal understanding will be shown in the evidence over the next year or two coming out of that office, but that has been one of the finest things on this type of issue that the Prime Minister has been able to put in place, and I congratulate him.

Mrs. Parrish: I would like to thank the witnesses. Despite my body language and my accusatory tone at times, I've thoroughly enjoyed this exchange. I think you've done a terrific job today.

Mr. Nitkin: I would like to make an observation. Your question was, are there negatives? Yes, there probably are. The organization could face the fact that it might not be able to walk all of the talk in its credo; the organization could face the realization that there are some people who are skating on the ethical margins, that there are some behaviours that are really unacceptable and they may cause some pain to an individual who is guilty of illegal, if not immoral, behaviour.

But having said all that, in my opening statement I said the principle that most organizations follow is not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You could probably define a reason or two for why you shouldn't engage in the process, but, short of the Messiah coming, I don't expect perfection tomorrow.

In that reality, I think starting the course, travelling the path, doing it for the first time, or doing it for the second or third time, makes it that much easier to feel comfortable with yourself and satisfying all the aspirations we have for good, enlightened government and justice in Canada.

Mr. Epp: I wonder if either of you has written a book or a text and whether it's available in bookstores. I would like to buy it.

Mr. Nitkin: You will pardon this commercial message, but you asked. In 1992 EthicScan produced a double best-seller, called The Ethical Shopper's Guide to Canadian Supermarket Products . We have negotiated a three-book contract with John Wiley & Sons, which will see three books on the subject of organizational ethics in the next two years, the first of which will come out in February. I would be happy to make the titles' names available to your research staff.

Second, for seven years we have produced a regular publication in this area called The Corporate Ethics Monitor , which has garnered a number of very positive kudos.

Third, EthicScan is currently at work with Westmount Marketing, and Motion Picture Enterprises, on a series of eight videos, which will appear in the summer of next year, on enhancing ethical management and decision-making within Canadian organizations.

Mr. Grainger: The work I've been doing relates mainly to the development and design of ethics programs in corporations and companies, but I'm also the chair of the International Network on Ethics in the Public Service, which has held the largest single meetings of people involved in this field for the last decade.

I will be chairing, as the first Canadian to do so, the international meeting in Brisbane next summer.

As well, I have developed papers around any number of issues.

I should also mention, though, that there are a number of excellent Canadian documents, such as Kernaghan's The Responsible Public Servant.

I, as well as the ethics counsellor of Canada, probably have the largest single repository of codes in Canada - examples of codes, inventory of codes. I have already said to the research staff that all of that is certainly available to the committee at any time.

Mr. Epp: I think we should quit, Mr. Chairman. I could go on for another four hours, but I'm sure no one else would be interested.

.1835

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I'm sure they'd all be interested. It's a matter of how long they can sit, Mr. Epp.

Ms Catterall: I could take another half-hour as well, Mr. Chair, but I think a number of us are looking toward 7 p.m.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Thank you.

I want to thank the two witnesses for their attendance today. I know by your answers you've stimulated very greatly the members of the committee. We appreciate that. Thank you for taking the time to come and appear before us.

I declare the meeting adjourned.