Evidence of meeting #37 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ethical.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
We talked a little this morning about the changes to the guide and the different stages it has gone through. Can you tell me how long you've been developing or working on this guide? It was revised in 2008?
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
The current edition is from 2008, and revisions to the guide come about in one of two ways. Either the Prime Minister asks us to sit down and revisit it, or we suggest to the Prime Minister that it may be time to revisit it because certain things have changed. Normally when there is a change in Prime Minister, they want to take an examination of the guide, as it is their statement to their ministry of their expectations. Those are typically the triggering events for when changes can occur to the guide.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
Mr. Siksay is next. Then I have Madam Simson.
I have one more Conservative slot. Does someone else want to fill it? All right, you can let me know.
Mr. Siksay.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Wild, you mentioned that annex H was a new addition to the guidelines for ministers and ministers of state. Can you tell me why it was added? What was the thinking process? Was there anything similar to it in previous editions of this guide?
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Ms. Boyd may want to jump in here if I get a little bit off track, but annex H is basically a culmination of practices that have been developing around advice provided to public office holders on political activities. The desire was to get it all down in one place, thus annex H was born.
I don't want to suggest that there was a complete vacuum before annex H, but there was nothing written down that had been coherently thought through and articulated in one place, setting all of this out. That's what annex H basically represents.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Annex H doesn't really deal with ministers and ministers of state, except to exempt them from the provisions of annex H. Is it to guide them on how to deal with the public office holders who work in their departments? I'm still curious as to why there's a new edition to this guide, since it really only exempts ministers and ministers of state from the provisions of the annex that's being added.
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
As much as anything else, it's about finding a place where you can speak to public office holders. This guide is disseminated and is part of the orientation sessions we hold with new appointees. I understand it is primarily directed at ministers and ministers of state, but it does speak to all public office holders in various forms.
Annex H is very specifically targeted at non-political actors--ministers, ministers of state, and so on. But the importance of annex H is to ensure that everyone has a clear understanding of what the rules are. That's why it was made public. We chose this document to put it in. I guess one could argue that we should do it as a stand-alone, or something like that, but this was the vehicle we chose. The only other aspect is that annex H speaks to ministers and makes it clear that government property and public servants should not be used for partisan political purposes.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
It doesn't say that. The clear statement is:
It should be noted that these Guidelines do not apply to those public office holders whose roles and functions are necessarily of a political partisan [nature]...
It doesn't say “except for using your office for political purposes” or “your department for political purposes”.
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Annex G gets into that, and again, it's how the two operate together.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
I want to ask another question on a different topic. It seems clear that it's the Prime Minister himself who is responsible for the application of the guide and the provisions in it. Is there someone who assists him? Is there a staffed position that would assist in that? Is there someone who would advise the Prime Minister on that?
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I think the Prime Minister is free to seek advice from wherever he wishes on this, whether it is his staff, whether it is the Privy Council Office, whether it is outside, independent people.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Would a minister or a minister of state seek advice directly from the Prime Minister? Or is there someone who would advise them on any questions they would have about being in conflict with the provisions of the guide?
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
It may depend on exactly what provisions we're talking about. If a minister has questions about how the cabinet system works, he may actually sit down and have a discussion with his deputy minister about that, or the clerk, but if we're talking specifically about the standards of conduct, one would expect that those are the questions that a minister would engage the Prime Minister or some of the Prime Minister's staff in.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
What are the possible consequences of a breach? Is firing or resignation the only consequence? Are there other possibilities?
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I don't think it is the only consequence. There is an ambit of consequences from the informal to simply having a discussion, saying “Don't do it again”, ramping all the way up to the ultimate of either a firing or a resignation.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
To your knowledge, has the code been operational in any way? Since they were issued, has anyone been disciplined under the provisions of the code, specifically in that period?
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I don't know either way.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
With regard to consistency of the application of the code, is that entirely up to the Prime Minister? In one case we've seen a minister resign, or maybe pushed to resign over missing documents. In other cases we've seen ministers who may have been involved in having received a benefit of fundraising that may have taken place in a government agency that has connections to their office, or as a result of lobbyist activity by those who are registered to lobby them, and yet there is no resignation in that case. Is consistency an issue? Is that solely the Prime Minister's jurisdiction, to ensure consistency in the application of the provisions of the guide?
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
It is absolutely up to the Prime Minister to determine in any given case what are the appropriate consequences.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Thank you, Mr. Wild and Ms. Boyd, for appearing before the committee.
I'm looking at page 31, under “Standards of Conduct”, specifically to “Ministerial Conduct”, which states:
Ministers and Ministers of State must act with honesty and must uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are maintained and enhanced.
I bring this up because I'm specifically referring to a Globe and Mail article this morning with respect to the abuse of the ten percenters, the MPs' franking privilege. Today's Globe and Mail states:
One sent out by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and other Tory MPs shows a picture of a little girl, with text that says the Conservative government worked to stop criminals who target children, while the Bloc Quebecois “prefers candy sentences.” A headline said: “Your Bloc MP voted against protecting children.”
I'd like to ask both of you, as an opinion, how much trust, integrity, objectivity, and impartiality did the conduct of this minister instill in the public by signing and sending out this message across Canada? I ask for your opinion.
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I don't have one. It is not for me to opine upon any specific circumstance or set of facts in terms of the application of this particular guide.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
In other words, it is the Prime Minister who actually sets the pace in terms of any kind of conduct. That is the only recourse. The public has no recourse for the abuse of their funds and for ministers signing messages like this, other than electorally. But at that point we could be bankrupt, with all the money that's going out the door in terms of these kinds of flyers. That is the only recourse the public has.
10:20 a.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I think it depends on what one is talking about. If you're talking about... Again, I don't want to talk about specific facts per se, but there are many systems in place in government to protect against fraud or fraudulent use of funds, those sorts of things. In terms of whether or not a given exercise of judgment crosses a line in terms of a standard of conduct, such as the one here, ultimately it's for the Prime Minister to judge whether that conduct is sufficiently egregious to warrant asking for a minister's resignation. Ultimately, parliamentarians and the public will hold the Prime Minister to account for that decision.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
You can only do that electorally, so it could be several years, you'd agree, before you have the opportunity to do that.