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.