Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Madam Dawson and your team, for being here today. Thanks for your work on our behalf. Thanks for your efforts at outreach to the different caucuses to help us try to understand the code and the complexities that are there.
I think you will find a great degree of agreement on much of your report, and probably some concerns on other parts.
By the very fact that I'm going to recommendation number 9 might imply that I'm not too concerned about some of the ones prior to that, although some of my colleagues might be. I'd like to ask some questions regarding recommendation 9. Before I do that, I would like to read a bit of the preamble in your report, because it is important to understand where I'm coming from in my question later on.
You indicate:
The practice of sponsored travel, where an individual, an organization or a country funds travel by a Member to attend a particular conference, promote a regional company or interest or visit a region, is permitted under the Code and is specifically excluded from the acceptability test under the gift provisions. There is a striking paradox here, whereby an inexpensive gift from an organization seeking to influence a Member would not be acceptable, but a trip to a foreign locale sponsored by the same organization would be permitted, without question or scrutiny.
It is that last part with which I would take issue. It would be my contention that it is subject to scrutiny, because currently for all foreign travel there is a pretty stringent requirement that the member who has engaged in that travel needs to file a report within a certain period of time after he returns. In that context, it's certainly open to public scrutiny.
You go on in the last paragraph to indicate:
Adding an acceptability test would put to rest any concerns over whether the sponsored travel could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence a Member in the course of their duties. If travel is acceptable under the new test, the current practice of making a public declaration and providing supporting documents should be continued.
I certainly endorse that.
My concern with this recommendation is that it appears to put a very subjective evaluation on what foreign travel might include. I would be interested in having some input from you as to what kinds of criteria you would implement to have an acceptability test that would go actually further than what is currently there with the public being able to scrutinize the fact that a member travelled to country ABC for a certain purpose.
I'd be interested in your feedback on some of those initial questions.
You indicated earlier, to be fair, that you're happy to provide draft language. Maybe I'm getting ahead of that, but I want to be up front with my initial concerns about this issue because it does seem to be very subjective and may be difficult to get a handle on.