Information & Ethics Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

Colleagues, it's our 38th meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

We have two orders of business before us. One is a carry-forward item from the last meeting, as we did not get to it because of the debate we had on another motion. I'm going to suggest we get the matter on the table.

There have been some discussions, and I think what we will be doing is to have the motion moved. There will be a ruling on admissibility, and then if it's the agreement of the committee, we will suspend consideration of that motion until our next meeting so we can hear the witnesses who traveled to hear from us. That way, we can sort of start fresh on our other process of this motion.

Is that agreeable?

Mr. Hubbard, are you prepared to move your motion?

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I read it into the minutes last time. Should I do that again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, please.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Circulated back on May 29—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I understand the procedure you have set out. I don't, quite frankly, understand it or where you got your authority to do that.

However, if Mr. Hubbard makes his motion—and you're obviously allowing him to do that—and you rule that motion out of order, and you are challenged, we will be obliged to proceed with this today unless there is unanimous agreement that we don't proceed today. If that's the case, I trust you will be explaining to our guests why you have brought them this long distance to hear a motion they have nothing to do with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I hear you, and this is—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I think you're dead wrong in doing what you're doing, sir. I don't know where you have the authority to do what you're doing. In fact, that might be a good start: you can tell me where you got the authority to do what you're doing on this issue, particularly when initially I got a notice on Thursday, I guess it was, or maybe it was Friday, that we were going to be hearing the representatives from the Canadian Bar Association.

I then got another notice that at 5:30 today we were going to be dealing with Mr. Hubbard's motion. I then got another saying that this thing has been cancelled, and now, out of the blue today, when we arrive, we're dealing with it. It's just a continuation of a bizarre series of events of the ethics committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. Let me see if I can respond, just so everybody knows.

At the last meeting, as we were debating the prior motion of Mr. Martin, it appeared to me very late in the meeting that that matter was not going to be completed. I was also very well aware that we had scheduled witnesses who had to travel here, and I requested that the clerk give notice of another meeting, at the call of the chair, to continue the committee business.

As it turned out, we did in fact complete that item. I forgot to tell the clerk not to call that meeting. He followed his instructions; it was my mistake. But I don't want the members to feel there are any other things. I have already indicated to Mr. Hiebert that unless the committee agrees otherwise, our meetings are as regularly scheduled, 3:30 to 5:30 Tuesdays and Thursdays, until the committee decides otherwise.

In regard to this matter, I understand that once we get started and should we get into the situation you described, the committee can give its consent to say that in the best interests of all, and our witnesses, we should hear from them today—they're here, they've travelled here—and that there is a logical point at which we may suspend the proceedings or the debate on the matter before us, to be continued at the point where we left off, at our next meeting when we have a little bit more time to deal with it.

That is my proposal to the committee. If the committee wishes to do otherwise, I will certainly entertain any proposals. But in the meantime, I would ask Mr. Hubbard to move his motion.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

I move that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election, in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for certain election campaign expenses, in order to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank you for ensuring that it's on our agenda today. I was disappointed on the last day that we didn't deal with it. I thought it would be a quick vote by the committee. I certainly don't want our witnesses not to be heard today.

I'm sure there's widespread support across Parliament and across the country to attempt to resolve this issue as soon possible. It's been brought up in the House on a number of occasions. I recommend that we look at it and vote on it. But if it's a matter for debate, I think we should hear from the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

I have spent some time in consultation on this matter and I am prepared to rule on the admissibility of the motion.

I don't have to explain to members that the matter relates to an issue in which Elections Canada has found that a political party engaged in some practice that Elections Canada claims was an attempt to circumvent the national advertising spending limits of the party and that a number of candidates were recruited to participate in those actions.

You may recall that the mandates of committees are under section 108 in the Standing Orders. Indeed, our specific mandate is laid out in Standing Order 108(3)(h), subparagraphs (i) to (vi). As with the Mulroney–Schreiber case, subparagraph 108(3)(h)(vi) states that our mandate would include “the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives which relate to...ethical standards relating to public office holders”. That's extremely important, and it's one of the reasons I wanted to be careful about this. As members know, public office holders are cabinet ministers, secretaries of state, and parliamentary secretaries, as well as Governor in Council appointees, of which there are some 1,200 or 1,300.

The motion before us ultimately asks us to determine whether these actions as alleged or described by Elections Canada and the actions of public office holders related to this meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders.

The question I had to wrestle with, colleagues, was that at the time of the election, there were candidates; there were no public office holders involved. However, once the election was over, the government formed, and public office holders appointed--ministers, etc., and parliamentary secretaries--one further action took place: the filing of election expenses returns by all candidates who ran in that election. Therefore, there was a formal obligation under the Canada Elections Act to file a return and to make all necessary declarations in accordance with the law.

In this matter, 67 candidates who participated were identified by Elections Canada. Of those, 17 became members of Parliament. They were elected. Of the 17, 10 are currently or at the time had been public office holders.

The four parliamentary secretaries are the Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Status of Women, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

The ministers or secretaries of state who were named by Elections Canada include the Minister of Public Safety; the Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip; the Minister of Transport; the Minister of Canadian Heritage; the former foreign affairs minister; and the Secretary of State for Agriculture.

Colleagues, this motion and our mandate can only relate to public office holders. You will find the code on the Ethics Commissioner's website. It's a 34-page document that, pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, must be provided by the Prime Minister.

I want to just cite a couple of quotations from this document. One is a comment from the Prime Minister:

Our government must uphold the public trust to the highest possible standard, and this responsibility falls uniquely on all public office holders, beginning with Ministers.

Under the objectives and principles of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, under “Ethical Standards”, it states that:

Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.

As well, under the caption “Public Scrutiny”, it requires that

Public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

I also note that there is a compliance obligation, in addition to specific compliance, that required measures provide that “the Ethics Commissioner may impose any compliance measure, including divestment or recusal, in respect of any matter or asset”, liabilities, and so on. This relates to conflict of interest. It would appear to me that conflict of interest is not what we're talking about in this matter. But it does provide a model when there is an issue such as a subsequent event.

It also says, under section 9, that within 60 days after appointment, a confidential report is required. A further report is required 120 days after appointment. The report shall include a description of all outside activities in which the public office holders were engaged during the two years prior to assuming office. It also must report all their assets and direct and contingent liabilities. I stress the contingent liabilities, because as you know, under the Canada Elections Act, when a candidate is an official candidate, the surplus or deficit is the responsibility of the candidate, not the party and not a riding association, and so on. In fact, the full disposition and responsibility are the responsibility of the candidate.

As a consequence, depending on the circumstances of an individual candidate, there may be some implications with regard to how this matter with Elections Canada is resolved by the courts and how it impacts persons. There may be some consequences to certain persons, depending on how that ruling comes out.

Finally, paragraph 15, which is related to outside activities, affirms that “Public office holders' participation in activities outside their official duties and responsibilities is often in the public interest”. It goes on to list prohibited activities and so on.

Now, having said that, colleagues, it would appear that there are issues of public interest here. There is no question that public office holders are involved in terms of filing their obligations under the Canada Elections Act and in terms of claiming expenses that relate to the matter Elections Canada has alleged and on which it has ruled, which is now being challenged in court, as you know. I won't elaborate any further.

So the question of interest, as I see it, can involve such things as whether the public office holders knew or ought to have known that their actions in regard to this matter may have been in violation of the Canada Elections Act and whether the conflict of interest code appropriately handles this kind of matter. We know that it handles conflict of interest. It certainly does not specifically deal with an alleged infringement of other acts of Canada, such as the Canada Elections Act, and whether that would require reporting disclosure and possible recusal of any parties involved in such a matter on votes or debate, pending the resolution of the matter. This is not specifically clear. An item the committee may want to consider is whether there should be amendments to the conflict of interest code.

We don't want to impugn any member or party in this matter. This is a very serious matter. But there is also the matter of whether or not there are any actions the public office holders should have met or may have met to meet ethical standards that are expected of them.

It may involve an assessment of whether or not due diligence was taken by them and by others who are jointly responsible for their elections return, whether or not they exercised a duty to make necessary inquiries of officials, experts, or Elections Canada, seeking rulings on matters that may have been in question, and whether or not there was an obligation or duty to report to the Ethics Commissioner and maybe even recuse themselves pending the resolution of the matter.

Also, as I indicated, under section 8 of the code there is a confidential report--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a minute. I'm going to finish. I'm just now finishing.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

A point of order. Recuse themselves from what, exactly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

In the conflict of interest, recuse themselves from the matter with regard to voting or debating, participating in debate on that matter.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

On what matter?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

In the code, under conflict of interest.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I didn't know there had been a vote on this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

In the code under conflict of interest.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Has there been a vote on this matter?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, that is the code.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Okay, but there has been no vote on the matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

This is a bit.... Let me finish. I've got only a couple more sentences.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'm curious as to what they're supposed to recuse themselves from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'll take your questions, but let me finish.

Again, there is a matter for consideration of the requirements under section 8 of the code, the confidential report, where there are subsequent events that involve a public office holder that may have some bearing on the assessment of whether or not they have met the highest ethical standards, which has been asked for by the Prime Minister in this document that he is required to submit under the Parliament of Canada Act.

Accordingly, it would appear that this matter warrants consideration from an ethical perspective on standards, duties, and obligations. Accordingly, I rule that the motion is in order.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Chair, you didn't answer the question I posed to you.