Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Ménard, go ahead, please.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Section 22 of the draft we received stipulates the following: “Although the Commissioner has no power to compel the production of documents or witnesses, [...]. This is the part that interests me.

As you've gone about conducting your inquiries, have you ever felt that you lacked the authority to compel the production of documents or witnesses so as to wrap up your work? Obviously, I'm talking about compelling reluctant witnesses to appear or else they will face sanctions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Benson, go ahead, please.

[Robert Benson]

Thanks for the question.

This is something that has come up in the inquiries that we conduct.

Again, if I can draw the distinction between the public office holder code, which is not this one.... Under the public office holder code, the Ethics Commissioner has the power to summon or subpoena information; under the member of Parliament code, he does not.

In conducting investigations, if the allegation raised leads us to try to obtain information from government departments or organizations, we have great difficulty getting that information. Under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, we are not an investigative body under those acts that would allow them to release it to us, and we don't have the power to summon or subpoena, so we can't get the information. So if in relation to a particular situation the path of the inquiry leads us to a government department, they react as they have to, but they cannot provide the information to us. So we end up against a bit of a roadblock there.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Then I would I be correct to summarize the situation by saying that you need this authority?

[Robert Benson]

We made the comment in an issues and challenges paper that the Ethics Commissioner should have that authority.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, we'll move to Mr. Lemay, then Mr. Reid, and I have no further names on the list.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have two brief questions for you.

Firstly, in the draft guidelines, you make a distinction between “in private“ and “in camera”. Why not simply use the words “in camera? Everyone is clear on what this means.

Secondly in section 35 of the draft, you note the following: “Any attempt to obstruct an inquiry may also be treated as a contempt of the House of Commons”. What exactly do you mean by “any attempt to obstruct”? Are you referring to a journalist who goes too far?

[Bernard Shapiro]

I haven't got an answer to the second question because I haven't thought about it very carefully and I haven't looked at the material recently. Perhaps Mr. Benson can help.

Relative to the first question, I think you are right: huis clos would be a better way of phrasing it.

[Robert Benson]

In relation to the second part of the question, in formulating section 35 of the draft policy, we went to the U.K. or Westminster model, and this is one provision they have specifically in there. In the conduct of inquiries in the British Parliament, any attempt to obstruct an inquiry process is considered contempt of Parliament—or can be, if it's reported. Obviously the House would have to consider it.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

This is a very brief follow-up. I ran out of time in my earlier questions. Regarding the information about family members and place of employment, I gather you feel beholden to continue putting out this information until you get contrary instructions from us. Would that be correct?

[Bernard Shapiro]

That is correct. My concern has always been focused on the members themselves and not the members of their families. We hoped to use the family information to help advise the members about where a conflict of interest might arise and therefore how to behave appropriately. That was in fact what we suggested. It was not acceptable to the committee, and I await further clarification.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I might be able to arrange for some of our colleagues to send you advice that we might want you to do otherwise. That's the sense I have, but we'll keep you posted.

Thank you.

[Bernard Shapiro]

You're welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, members of the committee.

Dr. Shapiro, I appreciate very much you coming out on short notice to present before the committee.

Mr. Benson, thank you as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, we were going to move to future business, but given that not all the whips are here today, I propose that we use the next meeting to deal with future business.

Are there any concerns with that? It's simple enough.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

We might want to have a little discussion. It's up to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's entirely up to the committee. We were going to talk about a subcommittee. Do you want to deal with it right now? Okay.

Then what I propose is we give our witnesses one minute to step out of the room.

So I encourage folks to please leave the room if you're done.

We'll have a one-minute recess for the witnesses to leave.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, in resuming our meeting, there are two items I would like to deal with today. First, if I could skip to the draft letter, which I handed out at the last meeting, we would like to send that out to our colleagues to get some input on our broadcasting issues. May I now have approval to send that letter out?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you. We will send that letter out.

Yesterday the steering committee met and discussed in some detail the issue of security on the Hill. Following up on that meeting, the steering committee was of the opinion that we should set up a subcommittee to properly and appropriately look into matters of security on the Hill.

Indeed, the suggestion was made that there would be three phases to this. The first phase would be trying to understand exactly what the situation is at present. I propose that we set up a subcommittee to do exactly that and then bring that information to the main committee. We would probably encourage the subcommittee to continue on to look at what security is available and what else we should do. Ultimately, we would end up with a report.

I would like a bit of discussion, if we need to do that, but ultimately I would like to hear from members as to who would like to sit on the subcommittee. I see Mr. Preston's hand up.

Mr. Godin, we need you on this committee, sir. You're in? Thank you.

We have two members. I will be sitting on the committee, and there will be one member per party. Monsieur Guimond and Monsieur Proulx. I'm very pleased. Thank you very much.

Is there any other business that we need to attend to today?

Mr. Hill.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

First of all, I apologize for not having read through this letter that we've already agreed to send, which basically explains the guidelines. Having not recently read through it and just going by memory, I raise it in the context of what happened today.

My understanding of the guidelines for the televising of committee meetings is that we have certain televised rooms where CPAC provides a feed from those cameras to all networks that utilize them on a non-biased basis, if I can call it that.

If those are the guidelines we've been working with, perhaps the chair could explain to me how it transpired that we had these two cameras in the room today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

All I'm able to explain, Mr. Hill—perhaps, Jamie, you can explain a bit further—is that when I got into my office this morning at 7:30, there was a note that the CBC would be in this room. I called Marcel, and I called your office as well; I called Mr. Godin's office. That's as far as I can explain it. I got the notice this morning at 7 o'clock.

How does it happen that we don't get better notice and that there aren't specific rooms set up?