Evidence of meeting #6 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-2.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I'll ask Stephen Tsang to respond to the question.
4:30 p.m.
Stephen Tsang Director, Strategy and Policy, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Mr. Chair, we have been working hard with the law clerk and counsel to the House of Commons on this particular project. We have provided some input, and many discussions have taken place over the last several months. I understand from the law clerk's office that the law clerk is waiting for the outcome of the Bill C-2 deliberations before he issues a report to this committee.
Some of the issues that were raised have been covered by Bill C-2. That's why I think there's some hesitation in terms of when he should present this particular report. Some of them have been included in Bill C-2 already. So that's behind the standing of the status of this report.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
I have a supplementary, Mr. Chair, if I could.
Could you give us the general nature of these ambiguities, just for the benefit of the new members of this committee? What's being investigated?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Strategy and Policy, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
For example, the issue of under what code a member of Parliament can request the commissioner to conduct an inquiry--there are two codes involved--and things of that nature. Also, some clarification vis-à-vis at what stage the commissioner should give the person being inquired about an opportunity to comment on the report.
Those are more procedural questions.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
So perhaps at some point, then, after Bill C-2 has passed--presumably when it's passed--there would be a report coming, later this year.
4:30 p.m.
Director, Strategy and Policy, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I would expect so, but the law clerk is going to be doing that, I hope.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
You have a couple of minutes. Are you finished?
Mr. Wallace.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Yes, I was going to say, my learned colleague from Burlington might have a....
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I have two questions that are completely unrelated.
As a new member of Parliament I've actually called your office a couple of times with ethical questions, and I do appreciate the responses I've received.
I have one question for you--and I know this isn't the right committee, so you don't have to chastize me for that; I know it's under the House affairs committee. It's on the use of electronics--websites, blogs, and so on. Do you think we need, as a Parliament, rules and regulations on what can be said by a member of Parliament on these things, whether they're paid for by the public purse or not?
It's a basic question for you.
4:30 p.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I certainly haven't thought about it, so I'm not going to respond, except to say in the most general way that relative to members of Parliament, the fewer limitations there are on their capacity to express their views, the better off we'd all be--I think. But whether in this particular case, relative to electronic communications, something special arises, I haven't thought about it and I just don't want to respond.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
The response I got from your office, just so you'll know, is that no, there are no regulations around it. That is what the response has been.
Thank you for coming today, by the way, and I'm sorry I was late, Doctor, but correct me if I'm wrong. Your position on the FAA has been that there really should still be an ethics commissioner for the Senate and an ethics commissioner for the House of Commons.
Is that an accurate statement?
4:30 p.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
That is not the case.
What I have said on this are two things. First of all, I don't have “religion” on which administrative structure is used in order to realize the objectives of any particular piece of legislation. Any administrative structure will work if people are committed to making it work. That's how I feel about it.
What I said when I was appearing at the Senate committee that may have led you to make this comment was that I can easily imagine one, which is what has actually been proposed, working. I can imagine two, which is what we currently have. And I can imagine three, which is where you'd have a different one for the House, a different one for the Senate, and a different one for public office holders.
If we're talking about synergy or efficiency, clearly one has more to offer than any of the other alternatives I've mentioned. On the other hand, some people feel that's not an important value, that the important value is a sense of ownership; therefore, I want my own--whatever “my” is.
So any of these things can be made to work, including the one that's proposed in the bill, and I don't have a strong view about which--
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Commissioner, you indicated during your presentation that your Office has identified various areas of action for 2006-2007, specifically the merger of Executive and Legislative Affairs.
Briefly, can you tell us how responsibilities are split between these two directorates and if, in your opinion, a merger will result in staff cuts, given that earlier, mention was made of the average salary level which was rather high? Could a merger eventually lead to staff cuts with a view to achieving greater efficiency?
4:35 p.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I think the reason for doing it in the first place has to do with the enormous overlap of process that occurs between the two. First of all, there are people who are public office holders and members of the House of Commons, or in one case the Senate. On the process for dealing with the codes, although the codes are slightly different, it seemed to us that we'd get much more synergy if we had a single group working on this so they could learn from each other. People would be able to deal with both sides of the operation--public office holders and members of the House. We thought it would be a better human resource, both training and option, relative to efficiency and relative to how we could use information in a way that would serve all these ends at the same time.
It is possible that the fusion will enable us to make some savings. We'll have to wait and see whether that will turn out to be the case. Certainly if we can, it will be better. There's no doubt about that. But it remains to be seen. We're trying in a number of ways to sort of flatten the structure of the office, so as to empower more people inside the office to do as much of the work as possible in any particular case.
So that's the thinking we had. It was a result of the review we had done by the external operation review people. That is what they suggested, and that's the direction we're moving in. We've begun to do it to a modest extent, and we're finding it very useful as a way of having better employees and more efficient employees.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
You've stated that the primary aim of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner is to preserve and, if possible, strengthen the public's trust in our system of government and in our institutions. As we know, this is also the stated aim of Bill C-2.
In your opinion, how much progress have we made on this front? According to public opinion, we generally catch the small fish, while the big one manages to get away without any trouble. Nonetheless, are you optimistic and satisfied with the progress made?
4:35 p.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I'm optimistic without being satisfied.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
