Thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to join this committee today to further explore the role of this committee in relation to what's in front of us, with the amendments and the motions that have been moved.
I'm going to start with a bit of background. When I was a city councillor in Toronto, one of the roles I fulfilled in David Miller's mandate was to appoint an ethics and integrity commissioner. As we were formulating that office, one piece of advice we got from several different bodies across the country—municipal, provincial and federal and people with experience—was to be very careful about setting up politicians to investigate politicians. There's a political theatre and a political process for that, but when you set up investigative bodies with competitors—with colleagues investigating each other—it very quickly becomes something that is unfair, both to those who are accused of wrongdoing and to those who are asked to participate in the investigation of colleagues. It's impossible to divorce the ethical standards from the political behaviour. This doesn't give us good, strong ethical governance structure. It doesn't give us good, strong investigative results. It doesn't give us clarity on what's been done wrong, what's been done right and what needs to change in terms of the rules and regulations to make sure that democracy and good governance are protected.
The motion that's in front of us is understandable in terms of its intent to get information from private citizens transferred to the Ethics Commissioner, so that the investigation of the situation we find ourselves in can be appropriately done and reported back to Parliament. The findings can be done through an independent system, which a previous Parliament wisely set up and put together. I think that's a really important principle.
I think there is a gap in the way in which it operates because of the issues that have been raised here, such as family members' roles in the conflict of interest guidelines, which family members, to what degree we understand family members' behaviours and how that impacts us as public office holders. I think we need clarity around that. It's critically important, even without this issue in front of us, to maintain the confidence and trust Canadians have in the governing process.
When we set up a parallel investigative process, it is not unlikely that this body could reach very different conclusions from the Ethics Commissioner. That calls the role of the Ethics Commissioner into question immediately. That's not a good situation. For those of us who rely on the Ethics Commissioner to clear our names or to deliver findings to us, it is not a good situation to undermine the integrity of that office while that office is doing critically important work on our behalf.
I'm very reluctant to set a precedent in this committee, which does not have a mandate to investigate any member of Parliament for any reason on a particular issue. To suddenly say that this committee would then have the power to compel any member of Parliament to attend and suffer the political consequences if they decline the invitation sets a really dangerous precedent. It sends this ethics standing committee off in a whole new direction it was never intended to deal with.
We set up the Ethics Commissioner not to depoliticize what was happening, but to give us clarity in a political setting. From there, how we choose to respond to the Ethics Commissioner is where this committee's work begins. At that point, I would assume, having read previous Ethics Commissioner reports on individuals, that the relevant information as to where the rules were broken, which rules were broken, why they were broken if they were broken, what rationale existed to frame the rules the way they were and what proposals may be required to change that is where the work of this committee starts.
It doesn't start by investigating the individuals simultaneously, regardless of who that individual is. It is very clear, if you read the full mandate of this committee, that our job is to evaluate those reports and to make recommendations to Parliament on what changes need to be made to guidelines and conflict of interest regulations so that Canadians can have confidence in Parliament.
I have complete support for Member Angus's motion to request that this information be forwarded to the Ethics Commissioner. That's fine. I think it's massively premature to call the Prime Minister, in this case, in front of this committee while that ethics investigation is under way. I think that is a flaw in the way the amendment is drafted.
I also think it assumes a conclusion to the Ethics Commissioner's investigation, that somehow we can start asking the Prime Minister questions in real time while that investigation is under way. Clearly, it's like doing the investigation and the trial all at the same time. I don't think that's an appropriate way to proceed.
I do support the motion, as I said, the amendment in the spirit of Mr. Angus's motion, but I am very concerned about calling politicians from the House, any MP from the House, in front of the ethics committee every time there's a political point to be made. I think that sets a very dangerous precedent, and I can't support that at this time.