Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 15th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number eight of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the review of the conflict of interest and ethics code for members. The committee is meeting today to continue this work.

I would like to remind all participants that no screenshots or photos of your screen are permitted.

Before going into a couple more comments, I understand that Mr. Duncan might have a friendly suggestion.

Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

May I suggest, in the interest of time, that our witnesses provide a 30- or 60-second introduction of themselves and their roles? We have their opening statements. Anything else they want to provide, they can provide in writing so that we can maximize our Q and A.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Are there any concerns with proceeding in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm seeing none.

Thank you for that kind suggestion.

I will remind members that we all know the public health guidelines. I understand that you've received them, so I'll take a nod to confirm that I don't need to share this.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

I would remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

I would now like to welcome our first witness panel: Shimon Koffler Fogel, Anne Dance and Paul Thomas. Each of them will address the committee before answering a series of questions.

Mr. Fogel, go ahead.

[Shimon Koffler Fogel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

To act in good faith, I will limit my comments to the following.

We have submitted a number of different documents that we think are relevant to your committee's consideration, including some legal opinions that we have obtained over the last number of years. I think that really does accurately reflect our position.

I will say only this. We collectively have to be looking to every opportunity to excite and engage young people in the political process in public service. At a time when, increasingly, we're met with cynicism and disengagement, these kinds of programs are vital in providing a platform to excite, inspire and engage young people. We very much want to play our part in moving this objective forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Dr. Anne Dance, you have the floor.

[Anne Dance, Former Director, Parliamentary Internship Programme, As an Individual]

Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me to share my opinion.

I submitted my opening statement, so I'll just summarize my recommendations.

First and most importantly, members reviewing the code should consider the impact of the advisory opinion on the accessibility of the Hill as a workplace. In my view, the advisory opinion has resulted in more unpaid people working for MPs. MPs have the right to staff their offices however they want; however, only a select group of people can afford to work for free and move from other regions of the country to do this.

Second, the current advisory opinion does nothing to address the numerous unpaid interns working on the Hill, many with advocacy aims. If the goal is to address conflicts of interest, perhaps this should be a consideration.

Third, members' staff should be offered training on these measures and on any new measures, including advisory opinions.

Fourth, there should be clearer and more transparent communication about the code and the advisory opinion.

Fifth, I recommend changing the language around paid interns. Characterizing young professionals as gifts is misleading and inappropriate, especially given the educational component of many internships.

Thanks so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Dr. Dance.

Go ahead, Dr. Paul Thomas.

[Dr. Paul Thomas, Director, Parliamentary Internship Programme]

Madam Chair, I want to thank the committee for inviting me to testify today.

I am Paul Thomas, and I have been the director of the parliamentary internship program since July 2020.

The parliamentary internship program is a unique educational initiative that's jointly delivered by the Canadian Political Science Association in partnership with the House of Commons. It's been operating since 1970. The structure was based on a report by the committee's predecessor back in 1969.

I would like to echo Dr. Dance's comments. The 2018 advisory committee had a number of impacts on the operation of internship programs. My three main points are as follows.

First, there should be a mechanism to ensure transparency in the operation of these programs, but the system created by the advisory opinion has primarily served to limit access to quality paid internship opportunities at Parliament, without necessarily achieving the desired gains in transparency.

Second, the mechanism for oversight established by the opinion is awkwardly structured and confusing for both MPs and those who operate internship initiatives.

Finally, access to internship experiences with MPs would be enhanced through the creation of a specific mechanism to ensure the transparency of internship programs rather than attempting to govern them through the existing provisions within the conflict of interest code.

I apologize to any members who read my prepared remarks and find typos therein; I thought it was for translation purposes only.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much, Dr. Thomas.

With that, we will start the first round of questions for members. They will be six-minute rounds. Please, members, keep them tight.

We'll start with Mr. Vis, followed by Ms. Sahota, Mr. Therrien and then Madam Blaney.

Mr. Vis, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We touched upon this in the last meeting. Addressing the elephant in the room, I'm a parliamentary intern alumnus, and I'm very, very proud of this program. This program gave me and young Canadians across the country one of the biggest legs up we could ever hope for. It brought together diverse Canadians from all sorts of different backgrounds and geographical regions of this country, to learn and experience this place in a way that is unimaginable except through the parliamentary internship program.

I am here because of the parliamentary internship program and friendships with people like Anne Dance especially, and her brother, Mark, who was in the program with me.

I believe that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was wrong when he made this ruling. I'd like Anne Dance, if she could, to comment more extensively on the point she made—that young interns are not gifts.

Anne, can you elaborate on that point, please, and the significance of that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ask the questions through the chair, Mr. Vis.

Dr. Dance.

[Anne Dance]

Madam Chair, I'd like to thank the member for that question and his comments.

I was an intern in 2008-09. I think there are two aspects to the problem of how troubling it is to have young people referred to as gifts. One is that when you're a young person working on the Hill—I think it has improved since 2008-09—there is innuendo and there are comments. When you're a young woman, there are comments around being a young person on the Hill. Fortunately, with the parliamentary internship program, there are agencies; there are options.

The interns choose the MPs. They interview the MPs and they choose who they want to work with. There's an understanding that should the MP not behave appropriately, they will not be chosen by another intern. Fortunately, that doesn't happen. There was a connotation around “intern”, especially in 2008-09, that was particularly strong.

I also think it's not accurate or appropriate to refer to somebody as a gift to an MP. It's an exchange, a relationship between the intern and the member of Parliament and their staff. Often I find that the MPs say, “Oh, I learned all about this other region of the country because I had a chance to work with them. I'm an Alberta MP, and I got to work with somebody from Nova Scotia. Now I know a lot about Nova Scotia and I visited Nova Scotia.”

I don't think it's accurate or appropriate, and it's misleading and troubling for people who are trying to gain this educational experience.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Dr. Dance. Thank you for your contributions to this program, and your expertise on Parliament as a workplace as well.

Dr. Thomas, you mentioned “limited access” and that the opinion of the conflict of interest commissioner did not achieve its desired gains. Can you please elaborate on that point?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Vis—

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

That's through you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I would hope so.

Dr. Thomas.

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the honourable member for the question.

There are two points that I would make in this regard. If the goal is to increase transparency around who is placed with members of Parliament, using the existing mechanism of regulations on gifts creates two major problems.

The first is that the commissioner's opinion focused extensively on a juxtaposition between paid interns and unpaid volunteers, without considering that intermediate category that Dr. Dance touched upon, which is the unpaid intern, those who are systematically recruited and placed in specific MPs' offices but are unpaid. Even in the remarks to the committee, again, the commissioner's focus was on the salary paid. It creates a situation whereby certain organizations that might favour certain policy objectives could continue to place people with MPs despite this.

The second challenge is that organizations that are advocating can continue to provide paid interns, provided that they don't register to lobby. For example, GreenPAC is an organization that seeks to improve policy around the environment through the achievement of a greater proportion of environmental advocates in public office. It endorses candidates, but it does not register to lobby. It clearly has a public policy goal, but because it doesn't register, it's allowed to operate internship programs, whereas Equal Voice, which seeks to promote women in Parliament, cannot run an internship program because it does register to lobby.

You have these odd juxtapositions of transparency that are being placed through the use of the existing mechanism.

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

Just quickly, Dr. Thomas, the parliamentary internship program has sponsors, many from the private sector, that work in conjunction with the Canadian Political Science Association. The Political Science Association is a non-partisan organization that has broad respect across this country. Do you believe it is appropriate for private sector companies to encourage youth participation in Canadian politics by working with such an organization?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Through the chair, Dr. Thomas, with a quick answer.

I would just say to Mr. Vis that Mr. Barrett is a master at going through the chair, so he might have some pointers.

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

Through the chair, thank you.

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, I believe it is appropriate. I would point out that the Canadian Political Science Association has been there for the 52 years that the partnership has been set up. We also operate the same kind of program at the Ontario legislature.

Having an independent body that is accountable to a board ensures high academic standards. I would also point out that, in both cases, with the Ontario and the federal programs, this is implemented jointly with the host legislatures to ensure that quality control.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Dr. Thomas.

Ms. Sahota, you have six minutes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, through you, to the witnesses for their short but informative presentations and the statements they provided.

I wanted to ask all the panellists this, I guess. From what you've heard since this advisory was made public, to your knowledge, which programs have been affected and which have not? The PIP, as we know, has been able to continue; however, CIJA and a lot of other organizations have been impacted. Can you shed some light on how many internship programs have been affected?