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

[Dr. Paul Thomas]

That is a precise number that I would not be able to give off the top of my head; however, I can say I believe the CIJA program welcomes several interns per year, and they have been inoperative since 2018. I believe, as was mentioned, that the Ukrainian program had three interns per year. The Tibetan program as well, I believe, had three interns per year.

It would be approaching 20 or more who have not been able to take part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

Ms. Blaney, go ahead for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wonder if I could ask Mr. Fogel to just talk about the long-term impacts to his organization of not being able to have this program running. I understand that there used to be a stipend that was included, so I think that's another part that's important to talk about, as well as the accessibility of these types of internships for members of our country—young people who may not have access to the resources to be able to participate.

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll respond briefly. For the record, let me first suggest, further to Dr. Thomas's comment.... We organize 10 to 12 interns per year. Others, as he suggested, have different numbers. We were able to both recruit and fund the stipends for 10 to 12, depending on availability.

Through you, Madam Chair, let me say that our allowance for the individual interns really speaks to what Dr. Dance referenced earlier, which is ensuring a level playing field that everybody has access to across the country. We've had interns from all provinces and all regions, and it is an extraordinarily expensive undertaking when one considers that Ottawa's not home. They are coming specifically for this program, so it's not a long-term plan. It's not even schooling, where one can project for two, three or four years and make appropriate arrangements.

It wasn't compensation. It was an ability to ensure that everybody had equal access to the program, and they responded well to that.

However, I will conclude that, in addition, we have felt that it was part of our mandate to instill a sense of responsibility to community and to Canada within our own constituency, and the parliamentary internship program was a vital part of being able to translate that into something real.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you. That brings us to the end of our time.

On behalf of all committee members, I want to thank you, Mr. Koffler Fogel, Dr. Dance and Dr. Thomas, for joining us today. If you have any other information you'd like to submit for the committee to consider, please do not hesitate to submit that in writing directly to the clerk. We hope you have a great day, and thank you for your service.

We will suspend the committee now for about two minutes, because we don't have to do all the sound checks. They are ready, and we will start with the next panel at 12:25 on my clock, which currently reads 12:22.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

With that, we will start the second round. We will endeavour to end the meeting by 1 p.m., the normal time, so to our guests today, I would ask you to keep your introductory comments to 30 seconds, because we have received your submissions.

I would remind members that we will most likely get through only the first round of six minutes each for each party, to ensure that we respect everyone's time.

I would like to welcome our second witness panel: Kathryn Stone, Mary Dawson and Duff Conacher. The witnesses will address the committee before answering members' questions.

Mr. Conacher, go ahead.

[Duff Conacher, Co-Founder, Democracy Watch]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition, which it coordinates and which is made up of 30 citizen organizations from across Canada, welcomes the opportunity to present to the committee during this long-overdue review of the code, with the hope that the committee will finally recommend key changes that will make the code effective in preventing and prohibiting conflicts of interest and unethical gifts and favours.

Unfortunately, the previous times the committee has reviewed the code since it was enacted in 2004, it has either added more loopholes or done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties and little to strengthen enforcement.

Democracy Watch will file a written submission with the committee soon, to give you all the details concerning its proposals for changes, which I will summarize, hopefully, today in the brief discussion we're having—but may not even have a chance to do that—and the reasons the changes need to be made. We'll also respond to the six recommendations of the Ethics Commissioner, some of which are flawed and which overall are much too weak.

As in all areas of law reform, the devil is in the details. I'm sure we'll not be able to cover all of the details today, but I'm happy to be invited back to testify again, to clarify or answer questions about any of the changes that Democracy Watch will recommend in its written submission.

Overall, the MP code needs to be strengthened in several significant ways, because it contains huge loopholes and flaws that in combination mean it really should be called the “almost impossible to be in a conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I thank you for your comments, but as you'll get to know, I try to run a really tight ship, and we welcome your submissions.

Madam Stone, we will go to you for brief introductory comments.

[Dr. Kathryn Stone, Commissioner, House of Commons, United Kingdom Parliament, Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm honoured to be invited to be with you today.

Being elected brings enormous responsibility and huge privilege. It affords power and authority on those elected to change things for those who elected them. Using that power and authority for the greater good rather than personal gain is vital to preserve trust and confidence in the democratic process.

Perhaps all parliamentarians should be made to ask, “Why?” when they are offered something, and, “What are you expecting in return?” The code isn't simply a guide to work out who has done wrong; it must be an educative, informative document to enhance greater understanding of the expectations of what right looks like and what should happen. Standards matter, and how we reconcile our public and private lives matters too.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Dawson, welcome.

[Mary Dawson, Former Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The first thing I want to say is about the opening statement that I gave to the translation people. I've made some changes to that, and I found an error in one of my comments, so I would like it understood that I would like to replace that, and I'll do that this afternoon.

I note that I was the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for 10.5 years. I was appointed the first one under the Conflict of Interest Act in 2007. The responsibility of the commissioner is both the Conflict of Interest Act, which is public office holders, and members under the members' code.

First of all, I note that 10 of the 23 submissions I made in 2015 were accepted, so I appreciate that. I also note that three of the recommendations made by Mr. Dion repeat some of the ones that were rejected that I had made previously.

I have a few comments on some of the others. One of the other ones that Mr. Dion suggested, early mandatory training, is a very good suggestion. We did have a regular practice, anyway, of discussing obligations with new members, but I think the regular mandatory training would certainly focus properly on that.

I think I will stop now, because I've run out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much for recognizing our limited time and jumping on those issues. We look forward to hearing more.

We will now enter our first and only round of questions from each of the parties, starting with Mr. Duncan and followed by Mr. Turnbull

Mr. Therrien and Ms. Blaney will then be up. Everyone will have six minutes.

Mr. Duncan, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you, thank you to our witnesses.

Ms. Stone, I follow U.K. politics quite closely. I've been interested in one of the topics that our Ethics Commissioner has asked us to discuss and look at in our review, and that is extra employment income or other work by members of Parliament.

I understand that this quite an issue that you and the U.K. government are struggling with right now. Could you give us a background or perhaps a quick summary of the issue and where you see some of those conversations or new rules going regarding extra work by members of Parliament who are elected?

[Dr. Kathryn Stone]

Through you, Madam Chair, I'd like to say that those of you who have watched events in Westminster will note that we've experienced some turbulence of late, and that's probably an understatement. It's all linked to standards matters and behaviour around the registration of financial interest and additional roles in particular.

We are currently, as are you, in the process of reviewing our code of conduct and trying to establish whether, for example, it should be a limitation of ours that members of Parliament can work in other roles, or a limitation on the amount of money that can be earned.

The consensus seems to be falling around whether or not there is a conflict of interest. Of course these questions arise out of the case of Owen Paterson, MP, who was found by.... The committee agreed with my conclusion that he had been lobbying on behalf of an organization who paid him.

These questions are very live and very real for us at the moment. The conflict of interest point is very, very important. Of course, the line between what's acceptable, what isn't, what's public and what's private shifts and sways as we go through, but I'm sure it's a live interest for you too.

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

For sure. Thank you.

Just for context, of the 650 members of Parliament in the U.K., do you have an estimation on the number who make a supplemental income for work, hours or income? Do you have a certain number who've declared to you already? How many would have that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

As a heads-up, if we just say “through the chair”, I will stay quiet.

Ms. Stone.

[Dr. Kathryn Stone]

Through you, Madam Chair, we concluded recently that there are about 189 members of Parliament who have additional roles. Some of those roles include working in accident and emergency departments in hospitals, working as nurses or working as social care workers throughout the pandemic. Many other MPs have additional incomes, small amounts, that come from completion of surveys for public opinion polls, and so on.

Certainly it's something that we are looking at across the piece in the House of Commons to ensure that we address the conflict of interest point.

For me, if you earn more money and spend more time on an additional role, then being a member of Parliament becomes your secondary role rather than giving a primary consideration to the people who elected you to be a member of Parliament.

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

Could I ask the same question of Ms. Dawson, for her view? She outlines this in her submission, about needing to tackle this issue perhaps.

Is there any advice that you would have or say? I note here that you leave it to the assessment of the committee, but from your experience, are you finding that this a growing problem in Canada, with extra income by members of Parliament or other jobs they take?

[Mary Dawson]

I'm sorry. I missed your first question. Could you repeat it?

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

It's just to get your views from your experience and your time in the office. Were you finding this a growing problem for members of Parliament, having supplemental work and a growing conflict of interest in that work?

Any experience you have from your time as commissioner would be appreciated.

[Mary Dawson]

I'm not clear on what supplementary work you're talking about. I'm sorry.

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

It's if somebody would have extra income from another job—for example, they practised law on the side or were a real estate agent.

Did you have a lot of experience with that in your time, and do you see it as a growing problem?

[Mary Dawson]

I never had a huge amount of problem with that. The suggestion that Mr. Dion has made is that they have to get his approval before they....

They're effectively reversing the onus of proof there as to whether a member can be involved. That might create a problem for some members in certain circumstances if, to keep a job, you have to do it quickly or something, but I understand that one must be very careful that there are not conflicts with the time taken by the other outside activities.

I'm sorry. I missed that point the first time.

That's my general opinion.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Dawson, to you as well, I just want to have your view on the definition of “friends”. This is something we've struggled with in hearing and trying to define as best as possible or in as much detail as possible.

It's one thing to list family and family relations, and so forth; there are some complications with that. However, on friendships and the definition of friends, and what constitutes that and timetables, can I get your views in terms of trying to define that?

Is that possible? How do we get that balance between understanding where the issue comes from and the openness or the interpretation of that being a real challenge, perceived, legal or otherwise?

[Mary Dawson]

That's a fun question, because actually, early on in my time as commissioner, maybe the first couple of years, I had occasion in one of my reports to try to figure out whether somebody was a “friend” or not.

I submitted a general description of what a friend is and it included ideas like having mutual regard beyond mere association. There's a paragraph. You'll find it in one of my early judgments. The interesting thing about that is that it has been picked up across the country by various provinces, and I think the current office continues to use that as a general approach.

The other anecdote there perhaps with respect to friends is that I had one case, way back, where a person was going around saying he was a great friend of some other guy. The case turned on whether he was a friend. I actually found that he was only an acquaintance.

I think that definition is not a bad one. It seems to have stood the test of time in large measure and has been used, so it's worth digging that one up. I've forgotten. I can't quote it exactly.