Evidence of meeting #77 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
You used the language in the text of “other investigation”. For example, there could be a professional society investigation. Do you mean it to be that broad, or only criminal?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
I take your point, and I see the danger if we were to say “any other investigation”.
It says:
...require the suspension of an investigation or inquiry in the event that the same matter is the subject of a criminal or other investigation.
Legal Officer, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
Yes. I was going to clarify that this was a recommendation and it was accepted by the committee that reviewed our act.
Legal Officer, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
I must have worded it badly.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I might come back to the issue of whether that needs to be nuanced. One of my concerns is that this automatic obligation can actually end up burying something because of how long external investigations take sometimes. That is my concern.
I want to talk about exit disclosures. I found that very interesting. What is the exit disclosure about? Is it about what you currently have at that certain point in time, or does it include what you are moving on to?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
It's about what you have at the point of leaving.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay.
My next question is about appeal. One of the things we've been discussing amongst ourselves is whether there should be a better form of recourse for members to appeal beyond the commissioner. Is there any such thing in the act, effectively or clearly in terms of written procedure, and do you think that's a good idea?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
Our act is very clear. There is no appeal.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Have you given that any consideration? Is there no appeal to the legislature itself, either?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
No.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
No, it never has. As a collateral from your point, though, and this is important, in British Columbia we cannot punish anybody. We cannot decide that they will be fined. In your code, you can. All we can do is make a recommendation to the House about a penalty. If the House decides not to accept our recommendation, that's fine. If the House decides to accept the finding that leads to the recommendation, it also has to accept the recommendation.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
In that stage of the procedure, does the member get to speak to the thing, either as a matter of the general House procedure or as part of the act? That would be a built-in kind of appeal, but if they don't get to speak, then....
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
Yes, and I share your concern. The fact is that there is nothing in our act that guarantees a right of audience to the member. I note the provisions of the code, and that's why I am a fan of the code. I think the fairness of that is manifest and is something that we need.
Legal Officer, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
Can I just add something there, too?
The member does have an opportunity. If during the process the commissioner thinks he is going to find against the member, the member can make further submissions to the commissioner. That's before the report is released. There is no appeal after it's released, but during the process there is an opportunity.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
That's a good point.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I am going to get to my sixth point, which is a structural point about statute versus the code in the form that we have. There is a separate distinction between a statute-like, detailed language, although you've indicated that your act is a fairly simple document, in your language, versus a more general, common-sense language that not only MPs but the public can understand. You could have each kind of language in either kind of document. Do you have any sense at all of whether you prefer statute versus code, and great precision versus being closer to general principles?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
I think that most members, and most members of the public, would prefer precision to vagueness. If that leads you to conclude that it must be in a statute, that would be going too far, as far as I am concerned. But I think precision is necessary and certainty is the guidance that members need and the public wants.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Lamoureux, you have seven minutes, please.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you. I have a number of questions.
First, welcome to both presenters.
In regard to having things done in a timely fashion, you first get elected as an MLA, or a member of Parliament in our case. There are certain expectations that you have to fill out applications or paperwork, and so forth. You mentioned that you meet with them on an annual basis. There is an annual requirement for us to provide updates. Do you find it is an issue at all for you in terms of receiving those documents? You made reference to the 30 days, or 60 days, whatever it was. Do all of them comply?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia
Yes, we insist on that. We have a fairly careful process of making sure that we monitor the requirement of the 30-day material change form coming in. What we do is make the information public by filing it with the clerk. Your code, as I understand it—this is a bit tangential—basically requires the person to file, but it's the making it public part that we consider to be equally important.