Evidence of meeting #5 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay, that's essentially what we'd use as our template. And I assume the recommendation is in the report that was tabled by you in January, which is at tab. 4. I assume that is what you're looking for us to--
11:20 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Right. That's correct.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
All right. That's good.
I have three things. Is there any other thing, or only those three at this moment?
11:20 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
There is one very big thing, which came up at the end of my opening remarks, which is the inquiry process. There was some concern last year, I think quite legitimate and appropriate concern, that the process for inquiry was not adequately detailed and adequately outlined so people could understand what the process is when an inquiry gets launched. We've done a lot of work in this area--trying to get ready for the next meeting of this committee actually--and we've provided quite a detailed process for you that we would like to discuss and find out if it's acceptable or not, if it needs to be changed or whatever.
Meanwhile, I should say we are using that process for the inquiries that are currently ongoing.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay. That is very recent. The date on here is April--
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Turning to the disclosures that are made public, the actual part that's produced by you, you came to the committee and indicated that you would like to put these on the Internet. They are currently publicly available during normal office hours at your office. At this point.... I apologize, I should have checked this myself at your website before coming here, but are these currently available on the Internet, or are they not?
11:25 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
They are not. They are for the public office holders but not for the members of the House. This was a matter that came up last year, and we did canvass the members of the House to ask them whether they thought this would be an appropriate next step. They were not, in fact, interested in taking that next step, so we haven't done so.
I should say that you don't have to come to the office. Upon request, we will fax a page or two or more of the public registry to someone who requests it.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
There was a concern that was expressed to me. It may be based on a misapprehension but it was expressed to me by two separate members of Parliament, both of whom have children who are now of working age but still quite young. This may or may not be a correct fear. If it isn't, then I'd like you to let me know. Their fear is that they have to provide information regarding members of their family who are dependent upon them and live in the same residence, which obviously means their teenage children. This includes information on their place of employment. There was fear that this information would become publicly available, which clearly can't have any influence on conflict of interest but which could, in their minds, represent a bit of a threat to their children.
I'm not sure if that's actually a correct fear, or if it's something that actually can't happen, but I thought I would ask the question to find out whether it's a possibility or not.
11:25 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
The requirement is in the legislation that we do make available, without specifying numbers, for example, income over $10,000. Any asset or liability over $10,000 has to be included. It's referred to but its amount is not referred to. The same would be true for the member. If you have a mortgage, we don't refer to the amount of the mortgage. We only verify the fact that there is one.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Actually, the real question is not so much whether it is disclosed to you. It is whether the place of employment would wind up being publicly available on the parts of the disclosure that are made public. I don't have any children, but let's say, for the sake of argument, I had a 17-year-old son or daughter who was working at a local convenience store, gas station or retail outlet, whatever the case may be, and earning a sufficient amount there to qualify. As things stand now, would that information become publicly available?
11:25 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
It would. Our understanding of the legislation is that we have to provide both the nature and the source of the income. Therefore, it turns up on the disclosure summary.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I was looking through the summary. The regulations under subsection 25(1) of the code--
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay.
Under subsection 25(2) of the code it mentions certain things that may be excluded from these disclosures. I'll simply read paragraph 25(3)(l), which says that the items that can be excluded include:
(l) any other asset, liability or source of income that the Ethics Commissioner determines should not be disclosed because (i) the information is not relevant to the purposes of the Code, or (ii) a departure from the general principle of public disclosure is justified in the circumstances.
At this point, I am encouraging you to consider that particular piece of information as qualifying under the second of those two descriptions I just gave to you. It would be a move in the right direction if you'd be willing to consider that.
11:25 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I'm certainly willing to consider it, for sure, and I'll let you know.
Mr. Benson would like to make a comment as well.
11:25 a.m.
Deputy Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
During the last Parliament the issue was raised before this committee that Dr. Shapiro was going to take the position that the information we obtained from spouses, common-law partners, or dependents would be used only for the purposes of advising the member. The initial intention was not to disclose it.
The committee members reviewed what had been done in the formulation of the member of Parliament code, and it was the intent, as expressed to us at that time, that they wanted disclosure of spouses, common-law partners, and dependants. As a consequence of that discussion from this committee, we disclosed fully on spouses and dependants.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
We're going to have to save it for the next round.
Thank you.
Monsieur Lemay.
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Benson, for agreeing to come here today and for answering our questions.
You've sent us a draft dated April 5, 2006 on the conduct of inquiries.
First of all, can you tell what guidelines the Ethics Commissioner applies to determine if there is a need for him to conduct an inquiry?
11:25 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I can't really respond to that question in a detailed way because it depends on the context in which the information arises or the issue arises.
The reason I would decide to commence an inquiry would be because the information that came to me, one way or another, seemed to me to be convincing enough that an issue of public ethics was at stake and should therefore be investigated. It's a very vague response, but that is in fact what I do. I ask myself whether or not the information is sufficiently convincing and sufficiently substantive to make an inquiry worth while.
I try not to do this often because one of the difficulties that I find we work under is that the launching of an inquiry all by itself creates problems for the people about whom the inquiry is launched. Irrespective of the outcome or irrespective of any wrongdoing, clearly that's the case. It's the sheer mentioning of something.
To choose another context, it's as if one accused a kindergarten teacher of some sort of sexual harassment. Whether or not it's true, damage is created by the sheer mention of the possibility.
I try to do it quite infrequently, and I have done it quite infrequently simply because of that.
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Judging from the number of journalists in the room today, it's clear that they monitor very closely the actions of the Ethics Commissioner.
Before you even announce your plans to conduct an inquiry, would it not be advisable, strictly from an information standpoint, to contact the MP or the minister concerned to let him or her know what you're intending to do? You might have some questions concerning the information you received. I don't know if I've explained myself clearly, but the lawyer in me feels that simply saying that you have received information and that you will conduct an inquiry could cause more harm than anything else.
In short, shouldn't you raise the matter first with the member or minister concerned?
11:30 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Mr. Benson will answer that question.
11:30 a.m.
Deputy Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
In the conduct of inquiries, again the code requires that this activity be conducted in private. If information is coming to our office, we're not making it public. If it's being made public by some other means, then that's not a matter under our control. But if information is flowing to our office in relation to the conduct of a member, then it has to satisfy the test, as Dr. Shapiro said, that it's a matter of whether he's sufficiently satisfied or whether on reasonable grounds he believes there is an alleged breach of the code having occurred.
As we've gone into the inquiry process that we've submitted to the committee here, we're not putting the members against whom potential allegations are being made or alleged in the position of having to defend themselves or prove their innocence. First of all, the standard has to be met that there's a threshold, that the information available crosses the threshold, and that there's an allegation that warrants being looked into.