Evidence of meeting #37 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ethical.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
I don't think I can agree with that in minority Parliament situations. But in a typical majority Parliament situation you'd be on a four- to five-year clock, yes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
Mr. Wild and Ms. Boyd, I think this has been helpful to the committee, for its knowledge. There is that one little thing about annex H, which does not apply to ministers and ministers of state and people who are in political life. It's annex G that is really the guideline to ethical conduct.
These annexes, G and H, apply to all other public office holders.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Correct.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
This document is a guide, called A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State. Why would it exclude all those other public office holders?
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Do you mean just in terms of the title? I mean, it's just a title.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You told us when we started off that this document is the Prime Minister's guide. He is solely responsible for upholding whatever it says in here, and it's his decision whether something happens. Yet in here are ethical guidelines for public office holders beyond ministers and ministers of state.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Right, but those public office holders are all public office holders where the Prime Minister recommends their appointment to the Governor in Council. Again, it's part of the layer of appointments the Prime Minister has responsibility for.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, I understand that, and I think you're quite right. The title sort of gives me a problem because it tends to be restrictive when in fact it's not. It is a fact that should a public office holder other than a politician—an order in council appointee, say—be found to be in breach of some aspect of annex H regarding political activities....
No, there are no more speakers. Mr. Allison, you know we're finished. The chair is just trying to clarify for the committee.
Who is responsible for advising the Prime Minister about an alleged breach?
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel, Privy Council Office
Perhaps I can just clarify one point that you referred to earlier. The reason annex H is also included in this particular guide is that ministers do have portfolio responsibilities, and as Joe indicated, ministers do make recommendations to the Governor in Council with respect to appointees. Ministers do have to understand what the obligations are of the public office holders because they are the ones who are not only putting forth the recommendation, but should there be some type of a breach, the minister would also have to be involved with respect to a need to terminate an appointment, for example.
Public office holders serve either during pleasure or during good behaviour, so there is a process that would involve, obviously, the minister making a recommendation to the Governor in Council. They do need to understand what their obligations are as ministers vis-à-vis making Governor in Council appointments. I just wanted to clarify that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
That's helpful, so that everyone understands that the other public office holders, other than the politicians, are subject to the Conflict of Interest Act and to the bylaws and operating policies and practices of the agency or authority to which they have been appointed.
That's great. We're done.
Thank you kindly. It has been very helpful. You're excused, because we have some other business to attend to now.
I don't want to suspend. I want to just move right on to make sure we have time to deal with the issues still before us. We'll circulate for all members copies of both motions that are outstanding in our committee business, in case members don't have that.
Colleagues, the first motion, by date of notice, is Mr. Poilievre's motion, which is before you. I won't read it.
Mr. Poilievre, would you care to move your motion?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay.
The second item is a notice of motion by Mr. Del Mastro. I would like to advise the members that when I received the motion I asked for the clerk's advice. I also asked the Auditor General to examine the motion and give me some information as to the rules of the game under which she operates. I have, in both official languages, the response from the Auditor General, dated November 13. She says:
Dear Mr. Szabo:
Thank you for your letter dated 9 November 2009, informing me of the motion before the Committee, to request that my Office “conduct a full audit of the sponsorship program to determine which federal Liberal riding associations received stolen funds, and to clarify for Canadians who received the missing $43 million dollars”.
I wish to inform the Committee that we do not have the authority to undertake this audit as our mandate is limited to federal departments and agencies.
Further, my Office has already conducted a full audit of the sponsorship program, the government of the day commissioned a public inquiry and the RCMP has investigated this matter.
I hope that this information is helpful....
We can circulate copies of this to the committee.
For information purposes only, the committee's mandate is included under Stand Order 108(3)(h). We have dealt with this before, but the first five subparagraphs under (h) refer to matters related to the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The only part of our mandate that remains would be subparagraph 108(4)(h)(vi), which says that we can propose, promote, monitor or assess “initiatives which relate to access to information and privacy across all sectors of Canadian society and to ethical standards relating to public office holders”.
The motion by Mr. Del Mastro refers to an investigation and asks the Auditor General to conduct an audit. We are not authorized to review her work or specifically direct her to do anything, and the Auditor General says she cannot do that because it's beyond her mandate. Also, in regard to determining which federal Liberal riding associations have stolen funds, we have no responsibility for political institutions and associations.
The clerk's opinion and advice is that this motion is out of order--
November 17th, 2009 / 10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
You never even gave me the opportunity to speak to my motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Excuse me, would you just hear me out?
Having consulted with the Auditor General and reviewed the Standing Orders under which this committee is authorized to operate, I have to concur with the opinion of the clerk that this motion is beyond our mandate as laid out in the Standing Orders. Accordingly, I'm ruling the motion inadmissible because it's out of order.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
There has been a challenge to the chair. The challenge is not debatable. We must put the question now, and I would like a recorded division, please.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
On a point of order, does the challenger get to state their reasons?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
It's not debatable. This is a challenge to the decision of the chair. It's not for discussion.
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
The chair does not get a vote on a challenge. In a tied vote, the chair's decision is sustained.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 5)
That's dealt with.
Mr. Poilievre, would you like to address your motion?
