Okay.
Evidence of meeting #7 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commissioner.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #7 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commissioner.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
The operating assumption always has to be that the commissioner is acting in good faith. I would assume that he or she would not have prompted the inquiry, that it would have been stimulated from an outside source, and there are obligations that the commissioner must fulfill in order to carry out the responsibilities assigned to that office.
That has to be borne in mind even if in the end the findings are rejected by the House. The findings could be rejected for all sorts of reasons that do not necessarily attach to the report itself, so that has to be borne in mind when issues like this are brought forward.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you.
Good faith very much forms the basis of this discussion.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
On a point of order, Madam Chair, there is major feedback.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
I only hear it when I'm talking, although I'm not hearing it right now.
Let me continue and if it—
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Okay. Maybe this is my last question.
Given that good faith forms a big part of this discussion and one of the recommendations is further education to be provided by the commissioner, here's a hypothetical question. If a member of Parliament, in answering questions on his initial disclosure statement, were to say that he wasn't sure how to answer that question and the response he received was, “Well, just answer it”, do you think that would be an example of good faith?
11:50 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
If one is not satisfied with the answer that one receives, I would follow up with a request for more clarification, I suppose.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
What if you did that multiple times and the answered continued to be, “Just answer the question”?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
We have run out of time, unfortunately, Mr. Maloney. We look forward to your coming back and visiting us at PROC again. Thank you for being here with us today.
Mr. Therrien, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Madam Chair, I'm getting some feedback.
As a result of reports that found a conflict of interest, I imagine there were some debates in the House.
How many were there?
11:50 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Unfortunately, we do not have this quantitative detail. It may be information that we could provide to the committee, or through the commissioner. There have been a few, but I don't have the exact number.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Madam Chair, since I'm going to ask my questions in quick succession, could we ask the witnesses, when they don't have an answer—which I don't hold against them at all—to provide the answer in writing later on, in the near future?
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
All right.
If the witnesses think I'm going too fast, they can just ask me to slow down. I don't think that's very complicated.
Firstly, how often has a report that found a conflict of interest prompted the House to debate the issue? In those cases where a conflict of interest was found, what consequences were applied? Were they those recommended by the commissioner?
How many times has a report that concluded there was no conflict of interest led to a debate in the House? In those cases, there is no time limit on discussions in the House, is that right?
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
All right.
Finally, did these debates last more than two hours? Did people take the time to properly unpack the issue to understand the causes or to understand the reasons why the conclusion was reached that there had been no conflict of interest?
When it comes to what activities we are and are not allowed to do outside of our work, is there a way to sort that out?
What would help us distinguish between things we can do and things we shouldn't do? Is there a trick to making sure we don't cross that line?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
We'll let the witnesses respond, but, first, can you tell me if you're still hearing feedback?
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Yes, I'm still hearing feedback.
Could the witness answer my last question?