Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 20th, 2006

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to return to your report, on a matter of clarification. On page 12 of your June 2006 report under “Parliamentary Relations”--it may have been that I wasn't at a lot of the committee meetings early on, as I was somewhere else--and I think you referred to this in your opening comments, the final sentence says:

The Office submitted a proposed process to the Committee on the conduct of inquiries in relation to public office holders pursuant to section 72.08 of the Parliament of Canada Act for that Committee’s review and feedback.

This is fairly important, and I don't recall ever getting that.

[Bernard Shapiro]

We did bring it to the committee. It was a result of questions raised at the committee.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I asked the clerk and we don't know where it is. We've never seen it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I have the same question in the margins of my notes on your report. Where is it?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

If it came here, Canada Post must have lost it, because I don't think we've seen it.

[Bernard Shapiro]

I doubt we sent it through Canada Post, although it's possible.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I'm trying to add some humour to it, sir. I'm just telling you that obviously you're looking for committee feedback, and the reason why you haven't had any committee feedback is because I don't think we've received it.

[Bernard Shapiro]

That's possible. Clearly you haven't received it for sure. I think that's true. But anyway, we will re-send it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

You don't have to. Mme Rondeau-Parent has told us that it is this document, which all of us have in front of us as today's paperwork. So if we haven't received it before, we have it effective today.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Is it dated May 4?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

It is dated May 4, 2006. That's the document.

Mr. Shapiro, am I correct that this is in fact the document you're referring to on page 12?

[Bernard Shapiro]

That's correct.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

That's my question. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

All right. If I might, Dr. Shapiro, I'll refer you to pages 5 and 6 of your annual report. There you're talking about the Prime Minister adding the twelfth point. Am I right?

[Bernard Shapiro]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's the same thing you're talking about on page 4 of your opening comments today, correct?

[Bernard Shapiro]

Yes. Well, it's the same type of thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

It's the same type of thing. There's a very interesting statement on page 6 about a legal opinion you received. It was that the part about the public using a parliamentarian to raise a question--which Mr. Peterson asked about--was, according to the legal opinion you received, ultra vires. I don't see any mention of that legal opinion in your remarks. Is that an omission, or have there been further discussions, further legal opinions? Could you bring us up to date?

[Bernard Shapiro]

No, there have been no discussions or further legal opinions. What was being referred to here is that the Prime Minister could not change the code to do something that was not made possible inside the Parliament of Canada Act. The Parliament of Canada Act made it necessary to go through the MP--unless they changed the act; then the Prime Minister could change the code in order to be appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

All right, but then I'm not following, because subsection (4) at the top of page 6 of your report indicates that it would have to be brought to his--meaning your--attention by a member of Parliament. Is that right?

[Bernard Shapiro]

That's right; that's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Isn't that what the Prime Minister is saying?

[Bernard Shapiro]

That's correct, but the issue that came up is the issue that Mr. Peterson raised earlier this afternoon, which was whether we could change the code so that a member of the public could approach the commissioner. The legal opinion was we could not, unless of course the Parliament of Canada Act was changed in the first place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I hate to belabour this, but I'm still confused. Your report says, “This addition to the duties of the Ethics Commissioner”; I presume you mean by “this addition” the addition that members of the public, through their parliamentarians, could bring issues to your attention. Am I right in that? These additional duties of the Ethics Commissioner provide a way for individual members of the public to request investigations.

You sought a legal opinion, and the legal opinion said that it would be ultra vires. You say the legal opinion, in your view, still stands as the advice given to you by whomever you hired for that purpose.

[Bernard Shapiro]

I've obviously not been very helpful in responding to this question. I'm going to ask the deputy commissioner. Hopefully, he can state it in a way that's clearer to you.