Subcommittee on Disclosure Forms under the Conflict of Interest Code Committee on May 10th, 2007

[Melanie Mortensen]

Okay.

Section 5 says:

A member does not breach this Code if the Member's activity is one in which Members normally and properly engage in on behalf of constituents.

This section is quite general, it permits quite a bit of discretion--and that's appropriate--but when you look at section 8 on the next page, it indicates:

When performing parliamentary duties and functions, a Member shall not act in any way to further his or her private interests or those of a member of the Member's family, or to improperly further another person's private interests

These two sections together may be a bit confusing, so if there is an opportunity to more clearly designate what the parliamentary functions are and what are those constituency functions are, and to identify clearly where there are constituency functions that may in fact be parliamentary functions....

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Is it as simple as saying....

Oh, sorry. Actually, Mr. Goodyear was ahead of me.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I don't believe I was, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Could it be as simple, then, as making section 8 subject to section 5? Would that or the reverse be logical?

[Rob Walsh]

Mr. Chairman, the problem here, in my view--and members of Parliament sitting around this table who are experienced and acting on behalf of their constituents would know better than I would--is that I don't know if there's any easy way of distinguishing between what a member might do in a certain set of circumstances on behalf of a constituent and whether that is not furthering someone else's private interests. A person's dealings with the Government of Canada in the member's ombudsman role, where he's seeking to help a constituent deal with a private interest of the constituent, is arguably a problem, given section 8, but he's only doing what every member of Parliament does on behalf of his constituents. So that's the nature of the clarity problem here.

Private interests as such aren't defined well. They're defined in terms of furthering of private interests as the offence, but are we really talking about commercial interests? Are we talking about pecuniary interests as opposed to immigration problems or passport problems? That's the problem, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Right. I'll go to Mr. Goodyear in a second, but I do notice that in section 8 when we're dealing with someone other than a family member, the word “improperly” is added in. So that may have some significance.

[Rob Walsh]

Sorry?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Section 8 says, “a Member shall not act in any way to further his...private interests or those of a member of the Member's family, or to improperly...”. That does, to some degree, give a bit of insulation, I would think, with regard to constituents.

[Rob Walsh]

Some members might argue that if they have a large industrial interest in their riding, they should further the interests of that industrial interest in their role as members of Parliament, in seeking consideration of that constituent's interest with the government. So “improperly” certainly is.... We need some indication of what the word “improperly” means in every context. That's part of the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I see a whole bunch of hands up, but Mr. Goodyear was first. Then I'm not sure if it was Madame Picard or Mr. Owen.

Okay, let's start with Mr. Goodyear, anyway.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I guess the way I'm interpreting this—and it's left open to interpretation by somebody else, and I'm not the Ethics Commissioner—is that I certainly would fight very hard for individual interests and corporate interests and whatever other interests are in my riding. That's my job. I certainly hope somebody else would see that as perfectly proper, whether it's for the veal industry or the auto industry. I certainly hope this would be deemed to be normal.

So personally, I don't have a problem with either section. That is all I wanted to say. I'm happy, as you pointed out, Mr. Chair, with the word “improperly”, but I can appreciate what Mr. Walsh is saying, that it could be up to interpretation. I don't have a solution.

I just wanted to make that comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Owen, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I think the distinction may be in the actions of the member of Parliament on behalf of a constituent. If the MP is affecting that person's interest in a legislative sense, then that's in a general sense and it's not a problem; that's the partisan role, and we should be playing that role.

On the administrative side, the executive side, an MP, I believe, has the right and duty to influence the administrative or executive side within the rules. That presupposes that the executive is actually running a proper administration, where you have objective criteria, transparency, and accountability, and such.

So the distinction would be, for instance, in whether an MP is furthering the private interest of a person in an immigration matter by going to the IRB or to the minister and saying, look, I want this person to jump the queue or I want to bend the rules. On the other hand, furthering someone's interest in being treated fairly or according to fair rules, or being treated fairly by seeking to have the rules changed to become fair, I think that's just fine. I don't think that should get us into any trouble, and I think that is our role.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

All right.

Would you like to carry on, then?

[Melanie Mortensen]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think what we've identified here in this conversation is something that may seem reasonably straightforward but can always be improved. If this is what the members see and would like to have in the code, so that there is this distinction between their constituency role and their parliamentary role, and there is indeed something improper, and if it can be more clearly spelled out—if that's what the members wish to do, and this committee wishes to indicate that for the House's approval—then that's something that will permit a commissioner more guidance as to what is indeed appropriate.

On the earlier question about the staff, I have no comment at all about how the staff has proceeded in the past, but it is a staff that has had a certain experience with respect to public officer holders, prior to the role with respect to the members of Parliament, and there's a difference in terms of what the duties and functions are as part of that role. I think this code does reflect that, but there could always be a little bit more clarity, if the members wish to have more guidance within the code, for the commissioner who interprets it. So that's why we pointed this out.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I don't want to stall on this topic, Mr. Chairman, but I don't feel we've solved this issue. We either decide that we're happy with the wording, or perhaps we can get some suggested wording from the witness to tighten this up a little bit. We can debate at the next meeting whether to adopt it or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I have been operating under the assumption that we would listen to what Ms. Mortensen and Mr. Walsh had to say on these things, ask them questions and take notes, and then return to them at the next meeting. But that, of course, is just a suggestion. My fear is that if we go a different route, we'll arrive at the end of the meeting and they won't have gone through their list, because we'll have been engaged in drafting.

[Melanie Mortensen]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I'm sorry, I apologize.

Mr. Godin, yes.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Excuse me, but I am trying to follow this. The code for MPs clearly states that they must not favour their own family members. I missed that part. I am sorry, but I had to leave the room to deal with another matter. This also applies to any other person... I do not understand, because when you solve someone's problem, you do them a favour. Is this the ambiguous part?

Personally, I write a dozen letters to ministers on behalf of people in my riding on a daily basis. If I solve a problem, I am exercizing my influence in favour of someone from my riding. It would be different if someone paid me for doing them a favour. However, when a citizen comes to my office and tells me that he needs a visa or some other thing and I appeal to the minister, because this is what an MP must do, and if I am successful, it means that I have done a favour for this person. I am just giving this as an example. This is how it could be interpreted. For example, someone could come to my office to ask me to sign the passport application that he will send to Ottawa. If I do my job as an MP and if this advances some individual's interest...

[Rob Walsh]

I do not think that this applies to the case that you describe. But this is an extreme example.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

We have to live with extremes.

[Rob Walsh]

Yes, you are right, but we really need to set reasonable limits. In my opinion, there are many other situations involving interests...

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

For instance, someone who owes the government $50,000 in taxes comes to my office, a citizen whom I do not know at all. He tells me that he is unable to pay $50,000 and asks me to speak to the Minister of Finance and try to convince him to waive the penalties, interests, etc. to help him pay his debt. This involves a substantial sum of money.

[Rob Walsh]

Another example that is more...