Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2015

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

One of the possible changes would be to allow citizens who witnessed something to write directly to the Ethics Commissioner so that she could launch an inquiry.

[Peter Milliken]

Why, to declare...?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It would be so that the Ethics Commissioner could launch an inquiry. Presently, only members of Parliament or the commissioner herself can launch an inquiry if ethics are not respected.

Do you think that the general public could also contribute to this by writing directly to the commissioner so that she could launch an inquiry, if necessary?

[Peter Milliken]

If she decides to do so, this decision is up to her. That being said, members of a committee like this one or other MPs could certainly share anything that they consider to be a problem with her. She could then launch an inquiry. This issue concerns her, and it's not necessarily the case for the others. It may be the case for some, but regardless, if she receives the information and decides that an inquiry should be carried out, she can do so now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Lamoureux, seven minutes from you, please, or for you, or with you, or however.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

It's always a pleasure to see you here, Mr. Milliken.

I do have a couple of thoughts that maybe we can try to develop further.

On the issue of evolving and where we're going from here, I know we talked a lot about the whole issue of proactive disclosure, as an example, and how things have changed over the last couple of years on that particular file. There seems to be an appetite from the public to ensure that there's a higher sense of accountability, transparency, and so forth. I think in good part that's what's driving the need for parliamentarians to look at this. When I compare us to other levels of government, we're actually doing pretty well, and I think that's worth noting.

Having said that, I'm interested in your role as the chair of the Board of Internal Economy. I suspect that you might have been approached—I don't know, because I've never been on the Board of Internal Economy—and you might have had some disgruntled members of Parliament who were upset with regard to things they were not able to claim, or with things of that nature.

Can you provide us any information with regard to that sort of rapport with MPs about how they are spending their money and maybe feeling frustrated because of things being denied or because of appeals? Can you provide us with any information at all on that?

[Peter Milliken]

Well, I won't go into detail, because anything we got was confidential, but yes, a member submits a claim for expenses, as you all do. I don't anymore, but I did. You put in this claim, and the officials of the board and the staff of the board examine these claims and decide whether they're allowed or not, in accordance with the rules of the board.

Sometimes a member was very annoyed with the ruling from the staff person because they disallowed a particular claim and the expense was not permitted. The member would come to the board. The member would ask to appear and would come and argue that he or she should be allowed to make this claim because blah, blah, blah. The board would hear the claim and make a decision.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Were there occasions when the board agreed with the member and allowed that claim to proceed?

[Peter Milliken]

It may have happened once or twice, but it was pretty rare. Usually the person doing the enforcing was very knowledgeable about the rules and practices of the board, so they were almost always correct. I think there might have been one or two cases in the years I sat on the board where we did allow the member's appeal and say yes, okay, in this case we will let it go because we're satisfied that it's not improper for this reason.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Do you feel that it was a mechanism such that members of Parliament at least would have appreciated having the opportunity to go before the board to make their case?

[Peter Milliken]

Yes, and I think it was important that we allowed that. Some members get themselves into difficulty with things that go on. I won't tell you the details, but I remember a case where a member had to pay back a whole lot of money. The board said that the member had to pay back the money. The member had made a big mistake and obviously hadn't read the rules in the manual, and the person who had allowed the claim, for quite a number of years, in fact, hadn't realized certain facts that were evident in the document, because all the facts weren't there. A mistake had been made, and the member had to pay for it.

Yes, you could say the member was at fault because he hadn't read the rules, but on the other hand, the officer didn't realize who was who on the claim form either. There was a mix-up and it led to real difficulty, and the member had to pay back a whole lot of money.

But the board heard the appeal and had the discussion with the member. I wouldn't call it a happy discussion, but it did happen, and the reason for it was made very clear.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Fraser, the commissioner from B.C., came and made a presentation to us. He talked about how he welcomed participation from the party apparatus in terms of the caucus. I believe it was the party whips.

Because you've worked in an all-party atmosphere where there is a sense of cooperation, could I get your insight? Do you feel that there would be any benefit to encouraging the commissioner to meet jointly, not individually, with the caucus chairs, for example, or with the party whips of all three parties just to review and have that informal discussion? Do you see any value to something of that nature?

[Peter Milliken]

Possibly, or with the board; the board does make a lot of the rules governing members' pay and benefits and all that sort of thing. They might at some point be interested in forcing declarations, if you like, from members as part of the bylaws of the House on gifts or something. The board does have all-party representation there, so it would be a useful group, in that sense, that they could talk to.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

One of the examples he made reference to was the fact that someone was actually quite upset with the decision he had made. Ultimately it was passed off to another commissioner in another jurisdiction just to provide input.

Is there any value whatsoever in providing a member of Parliament the opportunity to appeal? How do you provide that sort of an opportunity? Maybe it's to the caucus chairs, or the party whips, so that they can raise it in that general discussion.

[Peter Milliken]

Do you mean the decision of the commissioner?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes. Let's say the commissioner makes a decision saying, no, you can't accept x because it would appear to be a conflict. In camera a lot of MPs came forward indicating situations that had arisen in which they weren't necessarily comfortable with the ultimate decision. But there is no appeal, per se.

[Peter Milliken]

Right. I can see where you might want an appeal, or at least in some cases you'd think there might be some reasonable disagreement as to whether or not disallowing a gift because it apparently creates a conflict is something that might be argued about. I can see that, especially if it's a fairly small one.

I can see why there might be some desire for an appeal on it, but I haven't heard of any problems with this issue, at least with these issues at the national level. When I was here, I don't remember hearing particular complaints or anything from the commissioner, and certainly not from members about what the commissioner was doing. It was fairly low-key and non-controversial, as far as I'm aware. But I don't pretend to be an expert in this area.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You have some first-hand experience in terms of working with independent officers of Parliament. If you reflect on those types of discussions, do you think they could be intimidated by having informal joint meetings with House leadership, whether it's the caucus chairs or party whips or something of that nature?

[Peter Milliken]

Do you mean on an annual basis or something?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I mean on an annual informal basis.

[Peter Milliken]

No, I don't know why that would be difficult for them. I think they'd probably enjoy it.

I did have an annual lunch or dinner with the group of them when I was Speaker. I think that's about the extent of my involvement with them. But sure, I can understand why it might be useful to meet with people who are dealing with members and who are advising members on stuff like this, because members sometimes go to the whip and say, “Hey, is it okay that I keep this gift that I was given by so-and-so?” when it's a big issue that they're talking about in our party or whatever. I can see why it might be useful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Reid, you have four minutes, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'm very glad to have you here, and I'm glad the bells aren't ringing. Thank you for your persistence in coming back here, notwithstanding the impediments we have thrown in your way.

Mr. Lamoureux's questions caused us to drift a little bit away from the MP code of conduct and into the operations of the Board of Internal Economy, but it makes me think of something that is worth stating. In dealing with the Board of Internal Economy, there have been issues that have arisen that I've had to ask questions about. In fact, when you were Speaker, I remember sending a number of these questions through you. You passed them on. Also, in dealing with the commissioner and her interpretations of the MP code of conduct, the thing that is most beneficial is having nice clear lines and being told that you're either inside or outside the line. You may be close to the line, but you're either inside or outside, and that clarifies the matter.

Because as uncomfortable as it may be to have to pay back some expenses that you thought were okay, it is a great deal better to have that decided by a board and then to just get on with business than it is to have that decided as the result of a public embarrassment, which has the same financial result but a whole series of other problems, which as elected people we all understand. I just throw that out as an observation.

I want to ask you this question, though, relating to the problem of clear lines. I'm turning now to the conflict of interest code that is in the appendix to the Standing Orders. I think you're the only person in this room other than me who was actually in Parliament when this came into effect under the Chrétien government.

I have the sense that the drafters of this code made what amounts to a drafting error. That is to say, they took items that should have been in a sort of preamble, such as “whereas we want to seek the highest levels of conduct for members of Parliament, therefore the following apply”, and they included these sorts of preambular statements, which were grandiose and aspirational but also undefined, as operational parts of the code.

I'll give you an example from subsection 14(1):Neither a Member nor any member of a Member's family shall accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the Member in the exercise of a duty or function of his or her office.

There's no definition of value, so any number—right down to zero, presumably—counts. Later on, under one of the subsections of this particular part of the code, we see that you have to disclose only if the gift is valued at $500 or more. You can see the obvious incompatibility of those parts.

I'm just wondering, because you oversaw the operation of this for some time, whether I am the only one to identify this. Or was this a problem you saw arising during your tenure as Speaker?

[Peter Milliken]

I don't remember it being a problem. I didn't hear about it.

As I say, I was aware of the limit on gifts over $500, which you had to declare. To me, that was not that unreasonable. If a gift is worth that much money, you should—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

No, it's the other way around. I certainly think we can all agree that $500 is, if anything, a high limit. The question is, if we have a situation in which we're not supposed to receive a gift at all, but we're not required to declare it unless it hits this larger amount. The basis on which you accept or reject is the motivation of some third party that gave it to you, not your own potential passing of some objective standard.