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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. I deeply apologize that the way we structured ourselves meant you didn't get to read out your statements. It is important, even if we can read them.

I'm really fascinated by this discussion, and I'm going to come first to Dr. Dance. It's always good to see her and I've enjoyed our time together. One of the things you said in your write-up for us is that, in your view, the advisory opinion resulted in more unpaid people working for MPs. There's that concern of making sure that people have the resources and protection when they're here in this very unusual work environment. Could you talk about the concerns that you have and how this doesn't really address it?

I will also probably come to Dr. Thomas after that, because one of the things that was really interesting to me was the talk about how there's no registry of intern programs. If we're going to make a recommendation, how do we move forward with one that's going to acknowledge how important it is to make sure that people who are working in this environment are protected and paid? That's absolutely essential. I have real problems with free labour when people are working their butts off for us. How can we capture what all those programs are and make a safe pathway so young people can...?

I've had two young people from the PIP and I've learned a lot from them. They've opened my eyes and helped me get amazing projects done. They bring such energy and engagement. We need to have more diverse voices in this place, and one of the ways to do that is to open the doors in this particular way.

Through the chair, if you can respond to all of that, I would really appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Dance.

[Anne Dance]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There are a lot of things to say around unpaid labour on the Hill. One of the things I did when I was director was to try to widen the pool of applicants to the parliamentary internship program. We surveyed alumni from the last 10 years. We figured out where there were gaps, and we tried to really recruit and find ways to get more people to Ottawa.

One of the answers I found when I went to Saskatoon, to Regina, and when the interns did recruitment in different parts of Quebec that hadn't had good representation, was that people asked about the cost of living in Ottawa. They weren't saying things like, “Oh, I'm from Alberta; I don't speak French; how can I do that?”

We figured out solutions. We offered them free second-language training over the summer, but people were really worried about the cost of moving to Ottawa, and ours is a paid program. People who want to volunteer, who want to get that Hill experience, who maybe want to go into public policy or politics some day but really want to see what it's like in Ottawa, are just not able to do that. It's expensive.

When it comes to who gets to Ottawa, who gets these experiences, what I saw with the decrease overall in internships, paid internships, which anecdotally is my experience but it sounds as though Dr. Thomas and Dr. Fogel pointed to specific examples, is that there's still going to be the same demand in MP offices for that labour, for those people to come in and do work. It's great that people will do that, but they're probably going to be less representative of the country. There are probably going to be fewer people from the Prairies. We need to do more recruitment in the Prairies, always, but it's really expensive for them to think about doing that.

On paper, unpaid volunteers are still covered by all the measures on the Hill, but I've talked with colleagues who teach at universities in Ottawa; they have volunteers who go in, and there isn't necessarily the same support, the same advice, the same knowledge of the Hill to help steer them through the dynamics that they might encounter.

That's the first answer.

I think I answered both of your questions, but I appreciate them, through the chair.

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

Thank you for that, Dr. Dance.

Dr. Thomas, I really appreciate the work you did in recognizing that there is no registry of intern programs and those pathways. I understand the commissioner is trying to measure outcomes from each office, and I agree we should not be calling brilliant young people “gifts”.

With this work that you've done in looking at the lack of registry for intern programs, do you have any recommendations about better pathways and different ways of using language as opposed to referring to a “gift” of a human being?

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

I would strongly suggest that Parliament would benefit from some sort of registry with regard to what internship programs are operating. This relates to Dr. Dance's comment that it would be helpful to ensure that interns have solid workplace experiences.

To give you a very practical example, I am usually in contact, like Dr. Dance before me, multiple times a year with people saying, “Oh, I need a reference from someone who has a parliamentary intern,” or the House of Commons administration itself saying, “We've been contacted by a parliamentary internship program; is it one of yours?” Because we are the largest and longest-running program, we have become in some ways the de facto keepers of that knowledge as to which other programs are there, but it is challenging because some will come, some will go, and the standards vary greatly.

There are also, at times, different extents of experiences promised that may or may not be delivered. There are American programs such as those at the University of Michigan and the University of Kentucky that place interns at Parliament.

What I would suggest as a potential model is what they do in the United Kingdom with their all-party caucus system. It isn't saying who should be involved but just that there needs to be a declaration that this exists. There needs to be some recognition that if you are claiming to be an internship program that places young people with MPs, there is a place where you have to declare and also say what the source of the funding is and what other activities you have. It would greatly promote the transparency without necessarily putting House of Commons officials into the position of being arbiters of what kind of program is beneficial.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for that exchange.

Now we'll enter the second round. Because time is limited, we will go through the first four speakers of the second round, starting with Mr. Duncan for five minutes and Mr. Fergus for five minutes.

Mr. Therrien and Ms. Blaney will have two and a half minutes each.

Mr. Duncan, go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, I'm going to pass my time over to Mr. Morantz, if that's okay.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan and Madam Chair. All my comments will be through the chair.

As I'm listening to the conversation, I'm reminded of the saying that we hear a lot as parliamentarians, that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It strikes me that that's exactly what's happened here. The Ethics Commissioner is of the opinion that the downside risk of the internship program outweighs the benefits of the program, and I respectfully disagree with that.

Mr. Fogel, one of the things I found interesting is in the Bélanger letter. The letter says:

[T]he Ethics Commissioner expressed his view that “any intern services provided to Members free of charge by a third party are benefits as defined in [paragraph 3(1)(b)] of the [Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons]....”

Now, in the Gowling legal opinion that you obtained—you haven't looked at that—what they found was that the same section did not apply. It says in fact that the legal opinion found that CIJA's internship program did not place MPs in a conflict of interest under the code. Under that same section, paragraph 3(1)(b) defines a “benefit” as a “service or property, or the use of property or money that is provided without charge or...less than its commercial value”. But then in bold print in your submission, it says “other than a service provided by a volunteer working on behalf of a member”. You clarify in your remarks that the interns are not paid a salary, that they are reimbursed for living expenses.

I'm just wondering how we square that circle, because it seems to me if you take into consideration the Gowling opinion, it really is in stark contrast to the opinion of the Ethics Commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Fogel.

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

Madam Chair, I'll try to be very brief.

When it comes to the issue of volunteers, it was a predecessor committee of yours, PROC, some years back that excluded volunteer contributions from those things that could be understood as gifts or benefits to a public office holder. It wasn't Gowling's interpretation. It was the House of Commons committee itself that made that distinction.

If I'm trying to understand Mr. Dion's struggle, though, I think that it goes back to some comments that both Dr. Dance and Dr. Thomas made. It's the idea of somehow achieving a degree of transparency and accountability for what takes place on the Hill, so that there's an ability to track, monitor and evaluate. I would suggest if I could, Madam Chair, that there is actually a very easy fix to this. Much like is undertaken with respect to sponsor travel, which is exempt as well for its own compelling reasons, having the participating members register the volunteer, including identification of the source of sponsorship, and publish that every year would address the issue of transparency in a complete way.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you. That was actually my next question, because I think the legal opinion is pretty clear. With the greatest respect to Mr. Dion, his interpretation is incorrect, and the benefits of this program far outweigh any risk of undue influence with respect to members of Parliament.

I'm not on this committee. I was asked to sub in five minutes before it started, so I'm learning as quickly as I can. I want to suggest that the committee consider taking up Mr. Fogel's suggestion to have a specific stream for sponsor interns. I think we could right this ship and start seeing the benefits of this program again.

CIJA interns are not just in the Jewish community. They're from the community at large. I know many people in my own community, not just in the Jewish community, have fabulous careers in politics and law and many other things. The benefits of this program need to be reinstated and protected as we go forward.

That's just a comment, Madam Chair. I don't have a further question. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That was excellent. We welcome you to sub in and be part of this committee any time. Thank you for your contribution.

Mr. Fergus, you have five minutes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I would like to thank our witnesses for their presentations today.

I must admit that I am especially interested in this issue. When I read the Ethics Commissioner's decision, I arranged to meet with him to express my disagreement, without talking about it with other groups concerned, such as the parliamentary internship programme, the PIP, or the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA.

I think that the commissioner's interpretation is wrong and that it will take away from young Canadians the opportunity to have an extraordinary experience on Parliament Hill. Organizations such as the PIP and CIJA, among a number of others, are doing whatever they can to ensure that their interns are non-partisan. That is extremely important. Their interns are doing exceptional work. They are also not the only ones. There are many of them.

I don't usually reveal the content of my conversations, but the commissioner gave me some advice. According to him, since I am a member, I can have the legislation amended if I want and if I can convince my colleagues of my point of view.

What changes do our witnesses think we should make to the legislation to enable those kinds of clearly non-partisan activities that give young people an extraordinary experience?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Fogel, as I know you have to leave in seven minutes, I will ask you to answer first.

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

Through you, thank you to the member for his kind remarks.

If we go back to the core issue of transparency and accountability, we have our answer, as another member mentioned, about the path forward. Public office holders should receive, or we should craft, a handbook on internships for the benefit of all members of Parliament, so that they can be aware of the different issues—the separation between whether it's a registered lobbyist or it's another special interest group and their activities—and the expectations of the intern once she or he goes on the Hill. The issue of transparency is not a complicated procedure to enshrine and put into place.

With the rest of it, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We've been running an internship program for 20 years, and PIP has been running much longer. They have worked wonderfully, with great outcomes. I can assure you that there is no benefit to us in terms of any kind of translated return from the MP. It's almost insulting to think that the provision of an opportunity for an intern is going to skew the normal engagement of public office holders with their constituencies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Fogel.

We're quickly running out of time.

Dr. Thomas, go ahead. Then we will hear from Dr. Dance.

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I must confess that I am not a lawyer, but I think some clarity that the services of an intern participating in a non-partisan program would not be considered a gift would be helpful. There could be a separate space created in the conflict of interest code for such items.

Again, I cannot say that all programs have operated with equal effort to ensure that interns are not placed in awkward situations. There have been programs in the past, and I can provide further research to the committee, where interns were expected to advance particular interests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

The committee would welcome those details as part of some of the information we consider.

Thank you, Dr. Thomas.

Go ahead, Dr. Dance.

[Anne Dance]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the member for his question.

I think rule clarity is important. Interns are not gifts.

For someone to be aware of all the parliamentary internship programs, they would need to have access to a registry similar to the one described by Mr. Thomas.

Clarity and training for assistants and members are very important. As members' assistants work a lot, I find it strange that they are not provided with training.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Dance.

Mr. Therrien, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like Mr. Thomas to clarify a very short paragraph. As he did not have time to finish his presentation, I will give him time to explain why he decided to add this paragraph.

He said, “Second, the mechanism for the oversight of internship programs established by the 2018 advisory opinion is awkwardly structured and confusing for both MPs and those operating internship initiatives.”

I would like him to explain this in his own words and provide us with potential solutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Thomas.

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I included that because of specific experiences that our host MPs have had when they were not aware that such a requirement existed. An intern was placed with a member of Parliament, and the member of Parliament had read the conflict of interest code, which does not mention interns. The member was not aware that an advisory opinion had been issued, because the advisory opinions had been removed from the commissioner's website. The only way I could find the actual text of the advisory opinion was to go to the Internet archive and see what the website looked like in 2018.

We also have an additional challenge with the parliamentary internship program, given that it is delivered in partnership with the House of Commons. Often members assume, quite rightly, that perhaps we should not be covered in the same regard, given that we have direct support. The interns are written into the members' bylaw, so there is a bit of confusion as to how we are at the same time both an external and an internal program.

Greater clarity, at the very least just making it so the advisory opinion is available to members to read, would be a great first step. Then from there, having greater clarity as to their duties—I think Dr. Dance mentioned training—would be very helpful in this regard so that it's not reliant on the internship programs to educate MPs about it. Those who might want to create a program—I've been approached by several people—had no idea of this because they couldn't find it either, so people could inadvertently contravene the guidelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 10 seconds left, Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

How many people a year do you think have been unable to get an internship because of the rule implemented in 2018?