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.
May 9th, 2006 / 11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Commissioner, based on your experience in office, can you tell me what percentage of your time you spend on conducting inquiries?
11:50 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I'll give you an estimate.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
11:50 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
There are huge differences from time to time. Sometimes you're doing nothing else for a week except that, and then you don't do it for another three or four weeks. If I were to think of the office as a whole, I would say that somewhere around two-thirds of the resources we have are spent dealing with disclosures and compliance arrangements for both public office holders and the MPs. I would say that relative to the amount of energy and time we give to inquiries, it might be--depending on the season, so to speak, because it varies enormously--somewhere around 15% or 20%, something like that. I think it's roughly the same relative to my own time, if you're thinking about me personally. It's both my own time and the office's time, and I would that say so far it's been around 15% to 20%.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Do you feel that you have enough staff to carry out the duties assigned to your office?
11:50 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I would say that for the current functions the office has, the only place where there is what I would call a gap between the people resources we have and the job is in the area of the inquiries; that is, it is starting to take up more time than we expected and require a different kind of talent from what we had. We've tried to solve that problem partly by outsourcing, partly by contracting with people to do specific jobs. We'll have to monitor that carefully in the future so that we can know. If in fact our experience tells us that we can expect three inquiries a year, that's one thing. If our experience tells us we can expect a dozen and a half, that will be a totally different matter, and we'll deal with that in the budget estimate process as we go along.
So far, I have to say--I don't want to be critical--that we have received the resources we have asked for. There has been no difficulty in getting the resources we've needed so far.
We never know what the future holds for us, but for now, we have enough staff.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I'd like to take up where my colleague seated to my right left off.
First of all, I was very pleased to hear you state your guiding principles. As someone who practised criminal law, I know full well the harm that some accusations can cause. Therefore, it's important to tread carefully until we have proof.
Regardless, when someone asks you a question about a complaint filed against a member or some other person, wouldn't it be better for you never to comment ?
To quote Voltaire:A lie repeated often enough will end up as truth.
I don't think his intention was to encourage people to lie, but the fact remains that some people apply this adage. Resentment can lead to accusations being levelled against a person. The damage can never really be repaired. I've seen first hand the fallout when some professors were the target of false accusations.
In my opinion, you've given some excellent examples and I'm pleased with that. However, I feel certain that if someone were to put this type of question, you would respond: No comment. Would it not be better for you to say that you never comment before an inquiry is actually concluded?
11:55 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
You might be right. That would be a far more appropriate answer.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
You stated that sponsored travel referred to travel paid by a third party or by an organization. What about families that are relatively well off? It's possible that as a parent, one might like to take one's children on a trip. That could even with older parents when their children are grown and are well off.
Do you believe that these trips paid by family members should also be disclosed?
11:55 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
No, we make a distinction between gifts and gifts from family or close personal friends. If you have either a grandfather or a father who wishes to pay for something, we consider that a gift within the family, and it doesn't have to be declared as sponsorship.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today.
First of all, I want to say that I was very pleased to hear your statement, Dr. Shapiro, in your earlier response to Ms. Redman, I think, that you realize perception becomes reality when you deal with political sensitivities and you deal with members of Parliament.
You'll recall appearing before this committee in the last Parliament, dealing with one of my colleagues, Deepak Obhrai, in a very sensitive situation, and what readily became political reality once you had confirmed with a journalist that an investigation was under way.
I was pleased to hear you say that you recognize today that there is a reality and that you would now proceed differently by basically saying “no comment”. If a journalist phoned you and asked whether it's true that so-and-so is being investigated, you would say “no comment”, rather than “yes” or “no”. As others have noted, simply by making the statement that yes, you are looking at this, immediately that particular member of Parliament is branded, for lack of a better term. I was pleased with that.
But I want to follow up on something else that I think I heard you say. In reference to a question from the opposition, you made a comment about being interviewed on a talk show. Do you believe that it's part of the mandate of the Ethics Commissioner to appear on talk shows?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Okay. Did I misunderstand your earlier statement?
11:55 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I was searching for an example with which I've had considerable experience, which was talk shows. Not recently, I'd have to say, because I haven't done them, but I've had lots of such experience. It produces an enormous consequence that is unintended by everybody, which is why you try to avoid it in a sensitive place like this.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Okay, I guess I was just a little concerned when I heard that statement, that perhaps, by your own admission, you'd do things today in your office differently from how you did them a year ago.
11:55 a.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
We might. I hope we learn from experience.
Noon
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I think it also depends on the type of show you're talking about. For example, I would not agree to appear on a talk show of any kind that has the call-in kind of arrangement. It's just not right in this particular context.
On the other hand, I think we do have an educational function to try to help make Canadians understand that there is a program, and that it's moving forward and developing over time, etc. So I might agree, for example, to be interviewed, but not about the kinds of things most people want to interview me about, because that would be inappropriate.
Noon
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
And that might be about who is and who isn't being investigated.
Noon
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Saying anything about a specific person would be wrong.
Noon
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Okay. I appreciate that.
You made earlier reference to the fact that there are different guidelines, if I can call them that, pertaining to ministers as compared to those for members of Parliament as compared to those for public office holders. I think it's becoming better known that there are different guidelines, depending on what occupation we have and what job we have in a given time.
Do you see some specific problems with those differences in guidelines, especially in those categories--cabinet ministers versus members of Parliament? We talked about that earlier. Madam Redman made a comment about that in connection with the disclosure statements and how much we have to disclose. The other level would be public office holders and public servants.
Noon
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I'm not going to make any comment about public servants. I haven't thought about it carefully, and I don't wish to comment on it.
In terms of differences in standards, let's say, or in guidelines for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, etc., as compared to MPs, I have no problem with the fact that there are differences. I think the responsibilities of these people are different. The occasions on which conflict of interest might arise are very different, and I have no conceptual problem with that distinction.
I think there is likely to be in the future--although I may be wrong--pressure to eliminate the distinction, simply because people find it easier to keep one thing in mind rather than two. And you can sort of understand that, but I have no difficulty with the distinction currently made.
