Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 10th, 2022

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this opportunity.

Through the chair, I'd like to thank both of you for being here today and sharing this with us.

One of the things that I don't know we spend enough time doing, as parliamentarians, is having public discussions about the way we govern ourselves, the rules that are put into place and how they are followed and how important those things are to our democracy.

I really appreciate what some have said about the idea of public trust and how we continue to use the structures that we have in place to engender public trust across the country. That is always something that I'm very interested in talking about.

I have a philosophical question in a sense, Madam Chair, but I'm looking at some of the things we're going through right now. We have processes. Are those processes clear enough to the rest of Canadians? Are there ways whereby we could do better?

There are two different parts. There's this internal part and there's the commissioner's part, but there's an intersection. I wonder if I could have that moment of conversation in the context of public trust, Madam Chair.

[Charles Robert]

I think really it's a question of outreach that Parliament perhaps could engage in to explain more clearly the ethical boundaries that guide you. It could more openly explain your role in terms of what you do as a representative of your riding and of your political party, and how you, in some sense, expose yourself to the standards that have been put in place.

Years ago you would never have reported your expenses. Now you do, largely because you want to make sure that your electors and the general public can trust that you are spending the moneys that are allocated to you for your parliamentary business.

We are going through an incremental development whereby members seek to demonstrate more and more that the work they are doing is in fact fully in accord with ethical standards and representative standards. This engagement and having a review allows you to see where we are and how it measures up to expectations.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you for that.

One thing said earlier was that some of these are voluntary compliances and some are structures put into place and finding that sort of space in-between....

Thank you so much for this presentation. This is not how my brain normally works, so I apologize in advance if my questions are.... I trust that the members here will clarify.

In one of the points, there was talk about avoiding the risk of ambiguity. It was talking about the commissioner's recommendations, the report automatically becoming orders of the House following a concurrence report, and whether the provisions around the effect of the adoption of the commissioner's report in the House ought to be clarified.

I'm really interested in that. Can you talk about what that ambiguity could be? What could we put forward as a recommendation that might clarify that ambiguity?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Thank you.

I think this is a situation where, if there's been a breach, the commissioner's inquiry may have an individual recommendation in terms of an apology or correction or whatnot. In the same report, there can also be a recommendation that the code be amended because now an issue has been identified that warrants that.

If the House is adopting that recommendation or that report from the commissioner, is the House in fact deciding to change the code? Should that be done automatically by the House adopting the code or should the House want to send it here for discussion?

It's really to clarify that. Is it as simple as saying that you endorse the code and, therefore, whatever is in there becomes an order of the House or are there procedural mechanisms that ought to be there?

To your earlier question, I just want to point out that in the very first section in the code—the purposes section—one of the first ones is to “maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of members”. That's exactly what you're referring to and, absolutely, outreach and information go to that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you for that answer.

Right now I just want to clarify this, as there isn't a clear process. If a report comes from the commissioner and it has recommendations for change, what has happened in the past? Is it just something that sort of slides by and doesn't really attach itself to anything or does it actually have a process?

[Philippe Dufresne]

There is a process for that report to be debated, voted on, adopted and concurred in by the House.

What we're raising is whether that concurrence will always result in the full adoption of all the recommendations. What if the House wants to adopt some, but not all?

We're just flagging that so that if the committee feels this is something that would benefit from clarification, there may be procedural amendments that would just make that clear. If there are code changes, for example, should it be treated differently?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Okay, that's really good. It makes sense to me that we would do more study before that actually gets.... Okay.

Thank you.

I believe that's my time, Madam Chair. I really appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You know your time very well. Thank you, that's excellent.

Before we enter round two, I'm going to give a friendly reminder that comments are addressed through the chair. As two great, strong people of the House, you know how that works. I'm here just trying to maintain some order, as you do, but it's just a part-time gig.

Round two for this committee will be Mr. Vis, followed by Mr. Maloney, Monsieur Therrien, Madam Blaney, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Vis, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to Mr. Robert and Mr. Dufresne for being here today.

I have two specific questions. The first is in line with some of the previous questions about the spirit and application of the code.

Mr. Robert, you mentioned earlier that we're incrementally looking at how we apply this code, how we conduct ourselves as public officials in our communities and what the public expects of us. Under the code, there are very strict provisions about reporting income below and above a $10,000 threshold.

Are we going to a place under this code where...? This is a case that could come up quite regularly. Say a member has passive income from investment properties exceeding $10,000. In the public's eye, the public may view that member as being in a conflict of interest with the spirit of the code if they were to vote on any changes to laws related to the taxation of property, capital gains, the appreciation of assets, etc.

Are we going to a place where members may be recusing themselves from certain votes in the House of Commons to be in compliance with the code? I reference this point because it's a common practice at the municipal order of government in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Through the chair.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Through you, Madam Chair.

[Charles Robert]

Madam Chair, I think the issue might be better answered or supplemented by a comment by Mr. Dufresne because, in fact, it's a legal question in the main.

From my point of view, I would be tempted to say that, from looking at what they do at Westminster, you admit that you have maybe an interest, basically because of a prior career that you had before you were elected a member. You simply say that you want everybody to know that you were formerly the head of a company or the head of a union of one kind or another, so they can at least understand the framework that might inspire your comments, and this is where I think Mr. Dufresne would be more helpful.

The idea of reporting your income streams is a private issue between you and the commissioner. It is not something that is, in fact, public knowledge.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There are obligations in the code, as was indicated, for reporting sources of income, and that is.... With the commissioner, there is a publication of that information. I don't believe that the specific amount is listed, but the general sources of income are.

Then on the notion of voting on matters of general interest, general changes versus the private personal interest, there is that distinction. In situations where it gets close, I think this is one where it would be worthwhile to seek advice and ask if you are here advancing constituents' interest or general evolution of the law? Is this something where I can have such a direct benefit that it's a different type of situation? If you get close to that line, it's a good idea to seek advice.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Dufresne, through you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, the spirit of my question again is: How does the public perceive us as members of Parliament? That's the basis behind that.

I was very interested, Madam Chair, in the opening testimony of Mr. Dufresne when he referenced the parliamentary internship programme. Let's address the elephant in the room. I'm a former parliamentary intern. I am the token Tory in the program, and I'm very proud to be so. It was one of the best experiences of my life.

It is a unique program. It is the only legislative program in the House of Commons run by the Canadian Political Science Association, but let's not forget that it's funded by some of the biggest organizations that lobby Parliament Hill.

I think that's a good thing, because it gives young people.... Well, I'm still young, but it was 12 years ago or so that I was in the program, and it gave me one of the biggest steps up in my life. When I heard the second point in the opening remarks that the member has or may have official dealings with the organization placing the intern now or in the future, I would be remiss if I didn't raise this point, because it almost seems as if I'm in some type of conflict of interest with the parliamentary internship program, given my past dealings with the Canadian Political Science Association, the social sciences and humanities organization that funds part of the funding through the Political Science Association and all of the requisite organizations that put funds into the pockets of interns.

I would love some clarification on that, both for personal and existential reasons, Madam Chair. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We might have a headline out of this committee. If at any time members choose to go in camera, let me know.

I am going to pass the floor now over to Mr. Maloney. Perhaps we can get a comment on that after.

Mr. Maloney, you have five minutes.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you know, I'm not a regular member of this committee. I'm pleased to be here to discuss this very important topic. I only wish I had been here when the commissioner appeared before the committee on this issue.

Through you, I have a number of questions. I thank both of our witnesses for being here today and for what they contribute to Parliament as a whole.

Mr. Robert, I'm glad that you mentioned that Parliament has the exclusive right to regulate its own internal affairs, because in my view, many of these six recommendations are an overreach and intended to usurp that rule. However, I will leave that there.

The focus of my questions is this: I view the office of the integrity commissioner as being there to help members of Parliament. Unfortunately, as Mr. Turnbull suggested earlier, it has been weaponized politically and we've seen that time and time again.

As you quite rightly point out, the purpose of the code is largely reputational. I want to address this “protect” versus “prosecute”.

Do you agree with me, first of all, that the job of the integrity commissioner and that office is to help members of Parliament?

[Charles Robert]

If Mr. Maloney is asking me, I would say definitely yes. That's the reason it was put in place and that's why you're supporting it by this exercise.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

Let me ask you a question. One of the members mentioned earlier that when reports are tabled in the House of Commons, often on commissioner's reports there might be a concurrence motion, for example.

Let me give you a hypothetical. In a scenario where there is a report from the commissioner and he makes recommendations saying to apologize to the House of Commons and the individual who's the subject matter of the report does so, and then subsequent to that the House of Commons overwhelmingly votes to reject that report, do you think there should be an obligation on the commissioner to then apologize to the member or respond to that in anyway?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Through the chair....

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

That's through the chair.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Through you, Madam Chair, I think the commissioner fulfills his functions under the auspices of the House, and this committee and ultimately the House have authority to make recommendations and requests. Therefore, it would be up to the House to decide what's appropriate in a given circumstance.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

Through you, Madam Chair, would you agree with me that given the context where we're saying this is largely reputational, the absence of such a provision does have a negative reputational impact on members of Parliament in that scenario?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I think there is the ability in the code to make certain findings about whether a given matter is frivolous. There is the ability in the code for the House to draw conclusions and make any changes it wishes to make in terms of the code or its application. I would leave it at that, but the clerk might....