[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, November 6, 1995
.1930 
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Order, please.
The committee is ready to resume consideration of the orders of reference adopted by the Senate and House of Commons
[Translation]
on consideration of a code of conduct for Senators and Members of the House of Commons.
This evening, we have two witnesses from the media,
[English]
Mr. Russell Mills, publisher and president of The Ottawa Citizen, and Mr. John Paton, publisher and chief executive officer of The Ottawa Sun.
Thank you very much for attending, both of you. We're delighted to see you before the committee tonight. I think this is the first time we've had media witnesses in the hearings of this committee, and we're looking forward to what you have to say.
I assume you may want to make an opening statement, and if so, we'd be delighted to hear from you.
Mr. Paton, first.
Mr. John Paton (Publisher and Chief Executive Officer, The Ottawa Sun): Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me this evening to participate in your investigation into the establishment of a code of conduct. Since I represent the messenger many of you love to shoot, I thought I could be most useful to you in answering questions. However, I do have a short statement that reflects a bit of me and a bit of what my readers tell me through their calls and letters.
I am pleased to be involved tonight, but I must say that I am disturbed that in the last two decades, when conflict of interest and the conduct of parliamentarians have been discussed ad nauseam, there is still a need for such a special joint committee as this one. Perhaps in finding out the answer to that this committee can find a solution to the task it has been given a mandate for.
After the various committees that have preceded you, along with casts of endless witnesses, can the message be stated any clearer than it already has been? From my readers, it is simply this: Canadians want their parliamentarians to abide by a simple, easy to understand and enforceable code of conduct, and that code must be one that demands that each parliamentarian's life be an open book. For them, nothing else will do. No amount of uneasiness on your part about parliamentarians' right to privacy or your protestations that current codes of ethics, acts of Parliament, and the Criminal Code are already in place will placate the electorate's suspicions of what they think you might be up to.
.1935
As hurtful as it must be to honourable men and women to be presumed potentially guilty in the public's mind without cause, this is precisely, unfortunately, the position you as parliamentarians find yourselves in. In the last decade, book after book, from Bob Fife and John Warren's A Capital Scandal to Stevie Cameron's On the Take to Peter Newman's latest The Canadian Revolution, 1985-1995, the electorate has come to the conclusion that the concepts of privilege and entitlement that have traditionally been bestowed upon institutions and their inhabitants are no longer valid.
Our social landscape is currently undergoing its single greatest upheaval since the Second World War. Our social experiment of government-sponsored, cradle-to-grave care has been a failure, Canadians know government can no longer deliver the services it once did. We are alone and we know it, and in a very simple way my readers are saying they would be damned if they'll bestow upon Parliament and parliamentarians its traditional privileges.
From airline passes to subsidized haircuts, my readers are struggling to meet the challenges of a tougher economic environment and they are questioning each and every privilege given to parliamentarians. This questioning is a valid emotional response but is distracting, I believe, our elected officials from doing their jobs.
I believe you'll only be able to go about your work effectively once you have convinced Canadians to trust you again. An effective code of conduct is the first step to achieving the regaining of that trust.
I have great sympathy for the argument that surely there must be some part of an elected official's finances and life that can be kept private, but we have moved beyond that point, unfortunately, and it no longer has any currency with ordinary Canadians. The old argument that such a rigorous policy will keep good men and women from running for public office simply doesn't wash with my readers. I hear from them every day. I would guess that the vast majority of Canadians would risk a Parliament of inferior men and women whose lives were an open book rather than the current model.
Canadians have been demoralized by parliamentarians' blandishments that MPs, particularly backbenchers, are not necessarily the government so are not in need of a code of conduct as strict as, say, the one facing cabinet ministers. Canadians already see you, whether as a backbencher or as an opposition, as part of the governing process. The distinction, at least amongst my readers, is blurred. They see MPs simply as government. It's dishonest for parliamentarians to view themselves otherwise.
I was disturbed to see Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's special adviser on ethics, Mitchell Sharp, turn himself inside out before this committee trying to make the point that parliamentarians are not necessarily public officials or that they may not necessarily know more than the next person about what is going on in government. True as this may be, he of course meant that perhaps we may not be in need of a code of conduct after all to protect us from those who would try to influence our parliamentarians for their own benefit.
Can anyone seriously believe that line of reasoning anymore when nearly every major lobbying firm in Ottawa is doing the fastest two-step it can muster with each change of government to push its partners with the right political stripes to the fore while those partners with connections to the departing political party fade into the shadows? Parliamentarians and lobbyists can protest all they want, but what the public sees of course is access to power being sold.
You must show Canadians that this is not so. You must simplify your existing rules not so that you understand them, because I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that you understand those rules implicitly, but so that the public does, and you must ensure that they are in force before the law. Anything else will lead to, I believe, a further degradation of relations between Parliament and its citizens and our ability as a nation to govern.
I'd be pleased to answer your questions.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Mills, do you wish to make a statement as well?
Mr. Russell Mills (Publisher and President, The Ottawa Citizen): Yes, I do.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Go ahead, please. The floor is yours.
Mr. Mills: I thank you for this opportunity to appear before this special joint committee looking into a code of conduct for parliamentarians. The subject that you're dealing with is an extremely important one for the future of confidence in the governing of our country at the federal level.
No, Mr. Paton and I did not coordinate our presentations here. However, you'll hear that there are considerable similarities between what we have to say.
I'm not here as an official representative of the newspaper industry or even of everyone at my own newspaper, although I have consulted with those more directly involved with reporting on activities of Parliament and government. Through feedback from readers on this report we developed a reasonably good feeling for public attitudes towards our institutions, and the few thoughts I have here today are based on that feedback.
.1940
The work of your committee takes place at a time of considerable lack of trust in public institutions including government and, I must also admit, the news media. This mistrust appears to be particularly pronounced among younger people who are facing a more difficult future than did people of my generation. In some sense they feel the institutions of their society have failed them, and I believe there are a number of polls that back up this feeling we have.
It's vital for the future of our democracy that this younger generation have confidence that although our society may have failed to deliver them the jobs and lifestyles it provided for their parents, at least the institutions of government are operating ethically. If we want this generation to vote and take part in supporting our democratic political institutions, they must have confidence that those elected will always serve the public interest and not use public positions to serve private interests. They have seen this happen too many times over the past few years.
Developing this confidence in a skeptical generation will be difficult, and will require some sacrifices of privacy of parliamentarians. It will require full public disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest, clear rules for ethical conduct, and effective and respected mechanisms to enforce the rules.
I believe there should be two principles guiding the work of this committee if the ultimate objective is to promote public confidence in Parliament and government. These are simplicity and publicity. Rules for conduct that are too complex to be easily understood and procedures that are hidden from public scrutiny will not promote this necessary trust.
I remind you of what Mr. Justice William Parker wrote in 1987 in his report on the conduct of former Minister Sinclair Stevens. He said:
- Public disclosure should be the cornerstone of a modern conflict-of-interest code. Public
confidence in the integrity of public officials requires a healthy measure of public vigilance.
The argument for subjecting senators to the same standards as members of the House of Commons is that since senators are not subject to the accountability of re-election, there's an even greater need for the accountability of a tough code of conduct.
Ministers will obviously be most affected by the rules because there will be more occasions on which they could come into conflict.
In the quest for publicity, parliamentarians should be required to disclose all financial interests, including assets, liabilities, and income. Interests of spouses and immediate family members should also be disclosed because these can also influence public behaviour. This information should be updated regularly and made available to the public through libraries and electronic data bases.
All parliamentarians should be prohibited from taking part in decisions that could further the private interests of the member or immediate family. In some cases this may require divestiture of assets. All parliamentarians should be prohibited from accepting gifts or benefits, including foreign and domestic travel above a nominal value, and any gifts accepted should be disclosed.
All parliamentarians should be prohibited from benefiting from or taking any part in negotiations for government contracts. Any contracts held before election or appointment should be disclosed as part of the statement of financial interests.
All parliamentarians should be prevented from benefiting from their connections by accepting the type of employment with companies doing business with government that would enable them to influence that business for a reasonable period of time after they leave office; a minimum of two years.
These rules should be enforced by an independent ethics commissioner appointed by and responsible to Parliament, not the government of the day. This commissioner would hear complaints, have the power to investigate and hold inquiries, and in general have the authority to see that the rules are followed. The process of hearing and dealing with complaints should be as open and public as possible.
The model of the Auditor General may be the best one for the role of an independent ethics commissioner. A similar accountability function for the conduct of parliamentarians would be overdue recognition that preservation of Parliament's ethical capital is as important as appropriate spending of public funds.
It is sometimes claimed that tough rules of this kind that require disclosure of interests would deter some qualified people from standing for election. This may be true. I believe, however, that public confidence in the institutions of government is so important that anyone who is not prepared to disclose private interests should not be elected to the House or appointed to the Senate to make public decisions.
.1945
The adoption of some tough but simple rules in a highly public process of disclosure and enforcement would be an effective deterrent to abuses of position. This would reduce public suspicion that private interests were being pursued by parliamentarians and in the long run promote respect for Parliament and the federal government.
Many attempts to institute an effective code of conduct have failed, a number in the last few years. It's important to the future of our democratic institutions at the federal level that you succeed in this current effort.
True success in building confidence in the integrity of Parliament and government will also require more than a strict code of conduct and effective enforcement mechanisms. It will require all parliamentarians to publicly support the code and, since it will be difficult to capture every potential abusive position in a set of simple rules, to live up to the spirit of the code as well as its words.
The institutions housed in these buildings should be the most respected ones in our country. As we all know, today they are not. This committee has an opportunity to do something about this by recommending a high and public standard of conduct for all parliamentarians. For the sake of future generations of Canadians I hope you will take advantage of it.
In closing I'll say, as I said before, the news media and parliamentarians share a couple of things. One is public mistrust and the another is that we deserve a better reputation than we have among the public. I think most people in our industry and most parliamentarians are honest, hard-working people who are dedicated to serving the public interest from their positions. It's a relatively few people who damage that reputation. An effective, enforceable code of ethics for parliamentarians could deal with Parliament's side of that.
Thank you. As Mr. Paton said, we'll do our best to answer any questions you may have.
The Join Chairman (Senator Oliver): I want to thank you both for coming. I'm delighted that you're here, because I think it's extremely important for the public to know the view of members of the media in relation to this particular issue. The two points of view you've just set forth really put a number of critical things on the table for us to look at. So thank you very much for coming and participating.
One of the things neither of you discussed, however, was the role of the media in causing parliamentarians and politicians throughout Canada to be so low in the opinion poll of Canadians.
I know there was reference to airline passes, haircuts, foreign travel, and so on. What is the role of the media when it finds out that some member of Parliament has gone overseas and received a gift from a foreign country worth $100, and the story is blown up that we're on the take and doing something illicit and illegal? Does that type of news coverage not make the public think parliamentarians are all on the take and doing things improperly and wrong? Is that really necessary? Are you really fulfilling your role as professionals by reporting on something like that?
Mr. Mills: Are you referring to a hypothetical situation?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): It's hypothetical.
Mr. Mills: I would hope that if it were a case of someone accepting a gift for $100 it would be put in proper perspective. I can't recall a case where that has been blown out of proportion to that extent. But we know in recent years there have been many quite serious cases of conflict of interest and breach of trust that we have reported. As people who are the pipeline between parliamentarians and the public that elects them and needs to be informed, I don't think we have any choice but to report as thoroughly and fairly as we can.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): Not so long ago all the presidents of our national banks in Canada had to disclose their incomes and salaries. It was disclosed they make over $1 million and so on. They are very public figures and have a lot of control over our lives in the same way parliamentarians do; however, they don't have to disclose their liabilities. They don't have to disclose their spouses' assets or net worth. Why is there a difference between the two? Why are they on a lower plane than members of Parliament?
Mr. Paton: I think it's because bank presidents have to play within the law and within the rules decided by Parliament and its various bodies. I think you are on a higher plane when you are creating law, to a great degree, and that puts you under a bigger microscope.
As to your point about disclosing bank presidents' salaries, I think most Canadians would agree there was a certain amount of titillation when the laws were enacted that allowed that kind of disclosure: who made what and what they had to do to get it. People are always interested in what the fellow beside them is making.
.1950
I don't know if you have noticed - but I certainly have - that there's an awful lot less interest in those stories now than there used to be. They were front-page news. Now that we're in our third year of that kind of reporting they are front-page news in the financial press much less frequently. Unless the salary is absolutely outrageous in Canadian terms, it doesn't seem to get the kind of play it used to get.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): I have one final question. You used the phrase ``life should be an open book'' when you began. You both used that concept in saying that what a politician has and does should be wide open to public scrutiny at all times, and that nothing should be hidden. You also mentioned, in the second speech, that this should go before a type of commissioner who reports to and is appointed by Parliament and not by the Prime Minister.
In relation to that, I wonder if you feel there is anything that should not have to be disclosed to the media and to the public. I mean all of your debts, all of your liabilities, everything your children have or your wife has or your brother with whom you are in business has. Should all of those things be publicly disclosed and open to your scrutiny?
Mr. Mills: I'll try to answer that first.
First, I'd like to go back to the previous question and say that I think there is an essential difference between the private sector and the public sector.
There is limited disclosure of the assets of bank presidents and so on, but they are essentially accountable to the shareholders of the company, and of course there's full disclosure by the elected board of directors of everything shareholders would need to know about the appointed executives of that company. So there is a difference. The people you report to are the shareholders of Canada, its citizens.
As far as the second question, I think the guiding principle should be to bend over backwards to disclose anything that might possibly influence someone in his behaviour, to allow private interest to intrude on public conduct. I guess you should apply the sniff test to it. If it smells as if something could be wrong, then it should be out there for the public to see.
As I said, promoting the respect that I think we need to have, particularly from younger people, is going to require some sacrifices of privacy.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): Thank you very much.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Thank you, Senator Oliver.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur, you have the floor.
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): I want to thank you for coming to testify in front of this committee, Mr. Mills. You have well summed up the issue. As for Mr. Paton, I have a question to ask him. Does The Ottawa Sun have its own Code of ethics?
[English]
Mr. Paton: Yes, it does.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Do you follow it?
[English]
Mr. Paton: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Must politicians have a Code of ethics as light as yours seems to be, since current events show that about anything can be done in your newspaper as far as cartoons are concerned? A handicap can be laughed at, and certain things can be amplified.
We are asking you to apologize. It is a joke in a very bad taste, as it has been unanimously said, and your newspaper does not do anything. On the contrary, you are still going at it. Is this part of your Code of ethics?
.1955
[English]
Mr. Paton: First off, sir, the newspaper has run a page of letters from people who disagreed with us about running that cartoon, and we have written a story about how that cartoon has been received in certain quarters of the country.
As for apologizing, we've made it clear that the cartoon was in no way, shape, or form an attack on the handicap. We thought it was legitimate political satire.
As for that falling within a code of ethics.... You find it distasteful. I did not. It was my decision to run it and I suppose we'll have to disagree.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Although you have a Code and although you pretend to follow it, you stretch it at will. Is it really what you are saying?
[English]
Mr. Paton: No, I'm not. You are misconstruing my answer. I'm telling you that cartoon is legitimate political satire in our opinion. We discussed it the night of the referendum because it was to run in the following day's paper and we decided to run it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: According to you, doesnÂt this cartoon lack ethics?
[English]
Mr. Paton: No, sir, or I would not have run it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I do not have any more questions to ask of such people.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Senator Gauthier, s'il vous plaît.
Senator Gauthier (Ontario): Mr. Mills, I take it for granted that when an editorial appears in your paper - English papers don't sign their editorials - it's the paper that speaks for all of the people who write editorials.
Mr. Mills: The editorial board of the newspaper is me, the editor of the newspaper, and a number of editorial writers.
Senator Gauthier: Why don't you sign editorials?
Mr. Mills: In rare circumstances we do. I wrote one myself on the front page last Monday, which I signed.
Senator Gauthier: No, I mean on the normal editorial page.
Mr. Mills: As a normal course we don't. It's not the tradition in the English language press to sign editorials because sometimes we feel the newspaper should have a right to speak as an institution. It should not be one person's opinion, but an opinion of the newspaper based on the opinions of the group of people.
Senator Gauthier: Most of the time it does.
Mr. Mills: Yes, most of the time.
Senator Gauthier: Pretty well all the time, except for very exceptional circumstances.
Mr. Mills: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: In an editorial on February 13, 1992 - I guess that's after the last effort of trying to get a -
Mr. Mills: Did you say February 13?
Senator Gauthier: In 1992.
Mr. Mills: Yes. In 1992?
Senator Gauthier: Were you there?
Mr. Mills: Was I there? No, I was toiling in Toronto then.
Senator Gauthier: Toiling. But the editorial said, and I'm quoting from the editorial:
- ...public mistrust of politicians is no ephemeral trend. It is deep, enduring and well-deserved.
Mr. Mills: Would I buy that?
Senator Gauthier: The well-deserved type of approach.
Mr. Mills: I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement. I think during the -
Senator Gauthier: Okay. That's all I wanted to hear because -
Mr. Mills: I beg your pardon?
Senator Gauthier: - it sounds to me like a swipe at....
Mr. Mills: As I said in my concluding remarks I think most parliamentarians are perfectly honest, hardworking, and dedicated people.
Senator Gauthier: You finished your statement by saying there should be a sniff test. I like that expression. That's the second or third time we've heard it here. Who would sniff? You?
Mr. Mills: No. I think the public should be allowed to sniff.
Senator Gauthier: But how would the public sniff?
Mr. Mills: The public would sniff based on the information provided by the news media and if someone smelled something bad, in my view that person would be entitled to complain to the ethics commissioner.
Senator Gauthier: Okay. And if somebody is allegedly accused of something that is not true, would you give them the same amount of front-page space as you did when you put it on the front page because this person had in your judgment abused the system?
Don't you think it would be fair if you had somebody independent of you and of us, a commissioner who would have the confidence of the people of Canada, a commissioner maybe, maybe a board of commissioners for all I know - it's a formula that could be used - whose job it would be to investigate any allegation that's made and to whom every parliamentarian would disclose certain things such as his assets, his liabilities, and the list of things you gave us about business interests and other things?
Don't you think that would be better than to have these fishing expeditions occasionally by some of you people?
.2000
I am trying to find out what kind of sniff test and whom you would believe, except maybe sometimes your own instincts.
Mr. Mills: I think these things should pass the public sniff test. It's ultimately the public to whom you're accountable, and it should be up to the public to determine whether there seems to be something.
Senator Gauthier: So you wouldn't buy an independent commissioner, somebody like the Auditor General, who would be -
Mr. Mills: Someone who reports to Parliament.
Senator Gauthier: - appointed by Parliament and who would be reporting to Parliament and whose judgment in certain cases would be, ``There's nothing wrong, so I'm not going to make a big fuss out of it.''
Mr. Mills: I would foresee the commissioner exercising that role, certainly making judgments on whether or not there had been an abuse, but I'm not sure that it would work if the only disclosure was to this person.
Senator Gauthier: Why not? Tell me why. The Auditor General passes judgment on the public accounts of the country and once every three or four years says, ``I don't like the way the bookkeeping is done.'' That creates one heck of a situation, but just once in a while.
We're talking about the politician. We are not talking about the administration here, about some administrator who might have, unwillingly or willingly, abused his powers in buying paint or equipping a boat or something. I am talking about politicians here, the ones who you say have political savvy or political clout.
Mr. Mills: I think that would require an utterly saintly person -
Senator Gauthier: Of course.
Mr. Mills: - who had no partisan connections whatsoever -
Senator Gauthier: Of course, yes.
Mr. Mills: - and could not be in any way suspected of covering up anything for a partisan, personal, or any other reason.
Senator Gauthier: Do you think we could find him?
Mr. Paton: He means someone like us.
Senator Gauthier: No, I am not saying that. I am just trying to find out what your criteria are for finding that saintly person, as you say, without any partisan attachments of any kind, who's fair, who's just, who's Solomon reincarnated. Do you think it's possible for us to find a person like that?
The provinces have them. They call them by different words, but -
Mr. Mills: Yes. No one springs to mind immediately who could -
Senator Gauthier: I didn't ask you to -
Mr. Mills: - fill those -
Senator Gauthier: Not within your field. I wouldn't want to go -
Mr. Mills: - very elevated requirements.
Senator Gauthier: You think it would be a very difficult job to find one.
Mr. Mills: It would be a very difficult job to find one.
What we're talking about is confidence in our most important public institutions. That would all come down to the public trusting one individual so much that all of the credibility of Parliament and the government would rest on that person's shoulders. I think having an open system where people could make more their own judgments -
Senator Gauthier: In the last 23 years that I have been here, Mr. Mills, there have been some ministerial - how would I say - incidents that created some difficult times for all politicians, all parliamentarians. We all the pay the note when the senior police chief of Canada comes out and says to the media that 14 members of Parliament are being investigated by the RCMP. You guys put that on the front page.
Do you know what happened the next day? I called that chief of police - I was the whip of my party - and I said, ``I want to talk to you. I want to know why you're accusing me.'' He said, ``I didn't accuse you.'' I said, ``Oh yes, you did, sir.''
When you say 14 members and you don't name them, you're painting everybody with the same bloody brush.
So we had a chat. It turned out that half of them were on the Canada Elections Act, advertising irregularities, and most of them were found innocent. Of the others, Gravel, etc., a few were.... Some of them are still in the courts, as a matter of fact. Lawyers have a way of extending these things.
My point is that if there isn't an individual who can be found to do this, then we'll have to find a committee. Would a committee of, say, wide representation of the media, of the law profession, if you like, of the people of Canada...?
How would you go about policing these things?
Do you want Mr. Epp or Mr. Gauthier to tell you what I've got? It's not very difficult. I'll put that down in half a page. Maybe Mr. Epp would have a bit more trouble, but I don't have any problems with putting out publicly what I own. I have a house and a cottage, and that's it.
.2005
Who would decide that? Who would want to know that another individual, like Paul Martin, for example, owns a big transportation company? He has publicly disclosed this situation. To some extent it seems to meet with the public perception. I haven't heard of anybody criticizing it yet.
Do you think we can find a committee? Do you think a committee is the proper approach? I'm looking for that mechanism, that kind of medium that would be used to do what you're telling us we should be doing: divulge, disclose everything you have, and put it on the table. Would I just make a statement in the House?
Mr. Mills: Is the objective of trying to do this through an individual or a committee primarily to protect privacy of parliamentarians?
Senator Gauthier: No. It's to tell parliamentarians who are newly elected - we had 205 the last time - what it is they have to comply with. Somebody has to explain to these people. Many of them are not aware of the customs and the procedures here. Therefore, somebody must be able to tell them, yes, you have to disclose.
Before the election, they'd be told they would have to disclose their private assets, their family assets, their wives and probably the kids who are dependent upon them, their liabilities and their business interests. If you tell them that before the election I have no difficulty with that. But I want to know how we go about making that kind of document, which is of some interest, except maybe for some newspapers and media to scrape, scrape, scrape and discover that he owns a shop that deals with a government contract.
We can go back; it could be that an individual.... I'll take the sugar. Remember the sugar scandal here years ago when a judge found there were no sugar cartels in Canada? The judge said that didn't exist and the minister got up in the House and said the judge wasn't with it and he had to resign. It was proven afterwards that there was a cartel or a kind of control over the sugar.
I'm just trying to find out exactly what we're talking about here. I heard you clearly; you enumerated a whole series of things. I'm just trying to find out how we hitch onto this thing. What's the mechanism for getting it done? How do you go about it? Do you say that to find a commissioner you have to find a saintly person? That's going to be difficult.
Mr. Mills: You would need a saintly person if this person were the only person to whom assets were exposed.
Senator Gauthier: Is Parliament going to name a committee or a commission? You talked about the Auditor General. I hooked onto your Auditor General comparison, which I think was a good one. I'm trying to find out how we go about naming this person, because you must have ideas on that.
Mr. Mills: I don't have the answer for that.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Paton.
Mr. Paton: I would think it would be the job of this committee, Senator. I think the first step, of course, is to come up with a simple code, something people can understand. The next mechanism you're talking about is somehow to declare those interests so that the code you first created can be enforced.
It seems to me that the same committee that comes up with the code comes up with a mechanism of how to disclose it to this new party, whether it be the Office of the Auditor General or a similar body. Then they have that created through an act of Parliament.
Senator Gauthier: The Canadian Daily Newspaper Association recently revised its 1977 statement. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Mills: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: I understand there was some vigorous debate amongst you people. Were you for it or against it?
Mr. Mills: I was for the revision.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Paton, you were for it, too?
Mr. Paton: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: So you didn't bother too much with whether they could sue you or not. If you had a set of principles that you and Mr. Paton adhered to and somebody used those principles and sued you, that wouldn't bother you?
For example, you said that Mr. Paton's publishing that cartoon was not in keeping with the code of ethics or that statement of principles. You could be sued over that; we couldn't, but you could.
.2010
Mr. Mills: We're certainly never happy about being sued for any reason.
Senator Gauthier: But it didn't seem to bother you. You accepted the new statement of principles and you're going to follow them.
Mr. Mills: Yes. We accept that statement of principles, and we have our own, too, which expands on some of those things.
Senator Gauthier: Every newspaper has its own?
Mr. Mills: I can't say that every newspaper does. Certainly many do.
Senator Gauthier: But the issues involved in the debate that you people had in your own milieu, in your own field, are interesting to me. That's why I'm trying to find out exactly what the position was. You say you supported it. Therefore, you must be in agreement with all the new principles, and I take it Mr. Paton is also in agreement.
Mr. Paton: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: Okay. I'll get a copy of it, or you can send me a copy maybe? Can you send a copy of your Southam papers, if you have one?
Mr. Mills: Sure.
Senator Gauthier: I don't suppose The Sun has one for the entire Sun chain?
Mr. Paton: Not for the entire chain, sir.
Senator Gauthier: Thank you.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): Thank you, gentlemen, for your attendance.
I understand from your evidence that both of you are of the opinion that - and I believe there's been some polling to confirm this - parliamentarians do not enjoy a high degree of trust or respect from the public. I don't disagree with that. As a member of the legal profession, before entering politics I told my friends at the time that I was a competitive person and I wanted to go for number one. Number two wasn't good enough for me on those polls.
Mr. Paton, you mentioned a couple of times in your submission what would be acceptable to your readers by way of a code, etc. What information do you have? What is acceptable to your readers? Did you do polling to that effect?
Mr. Paton: No, sir, I didn't poll them. But obviously we hear from our readers every day. They call us; they write us letters. It's the same at every major newspaper in Canada. If you run a newspaper, you're the most religious reader of your newspaper and your competitor's, and you very quickly get a good sense of what people are interested in, what angers them, what humours them.
In reading on any given day the letter section of The Ottawa Sun, you get a very good idea of the high or low regard parliamentarians are held in by our readers. I think, as I said before, it's come to pass that only a completely open book, to use that phrase again, Senator Oliver, is what's required of our readers.
Mr. DeVillers: So this is the opinion you formed from the feedback you get through your letters to the editor, etc.
Mr. Paton: Not a day goes by, sir, that I don't hear from a reader or readers. I make it a point, as I know Mr. Mills does, to listen to those readers. You listen to as many as you can in a day without interrupting your ability to actually do your job. And then, of course, with faxes, e-mail, and letters, we hear from hundreds of readers a day. It's an easy thing to find out how they feel about certain things. They tell us. It's not something you have to guess at.
Mr. DeVillers: Okay. I understand the evidence from both of you that you'd obviously like to see disclosure as part of the changes or amendments, and you're not drawing a distinction among backbenchers, ministers, and senators. You'd like the same degree of disclosure in all three cases. Is that correct?
Mr. Paton: That's correct in my case. I don't know about -
Mr. DeVillers: Is that correct, Mr. Mills?
Senator Gauthier: Legislators, too.
Mr. Paton: Yes.
Mr. DeVillers: You don't allow for any differences in the degree of influence, etc.? You discount that? You don't think there's any merit to allowing for differences in degrees of disclosure?
Mr. Mills: As I indicated, I think it's very important the rules be simple and understandable to the public if the objective is to promote confidence in these institutions. A simple code applying to everybody would do that most effectively.
There may be some reasons in post-employment situations for a minister who has run a department. Obviously there might be a longer period of time before he'd go and work for a company that dealt with that department. But other than that, I think the basic rules about disclosure, conflict of interest, and related matters should apply to everyone.
Mr. DeVillers: I think you also mentioned the difference in accountability between members of the House of Commons standing for re-election and senators who are not. You still don't see any reason for any discrepancy in the disclosure or the conduct there?
.2015
A final question then, Mr. Chairman. You've mentioned the simplicity of the code, but I don't think I heard any suggestions of specifics from either of you. Would you care to -
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): Mr. Mills gave some.
Mr. DeVillers: Specifically, what sort of conduct would you identify beyond what is contained in the Criminal Code, beyond not slandering people, things of that nature?
Mr. Paton: Sir, I purposely didn't get into listing them for the very reason that you're holding this committee. It's a tough thing to identify everything that you would like to see listed.
I stress simplicity because, despite what Senator Gauthier has said, I don't think this is as much a problem for senators and members of Parliament to understand. I think the message we have to deliver here is a code of conduct that the public can understand so that they can see the rules these men and women are following and how these rules are going to be enforced.
I think in very broad strokes how you get your money, what you have in the way of investments, how those in your immediate family get their money and what their investments are should all be open to public scrutiny. I know this sounds tough -
Mr. DeVillers: That's the disclosure component. But I'm interested in the conduct component beyond the laws of the land.
Mr. Paton: Sir, it's a very tough thing to sit in front of people you know are honest and hard-working and say that a good portion of the population suspects maybe that you can be victimized by a well-heeled lobbying firm wanting to get you to raise something in caucus. For example, if you happen to be a member of government, can you further their client's agenda within cabinet? I suspect this rarely happens. Maybe it does not happen at all. But there is a perception of that. That perception is obviously present or we wouldn't be sitting here this evening and you wouldn't be sitting as you have been since the third week of September trying to get a grasp of this.
People obviously feel that, as Russ has said here tonight, there is a sniff test going on and people don't like what they're smelling. Whether there is something there or not is almost beside the point. They simply think you may be up to something as parliamentarians. They would like to know or believe there are a bunch of rules in place that will stop you from being up to something nefarious.
That parliamentarians are now under an act of Parliament, the Lobbyists Registration Regulations, and the current cabinet code of ethics doesn't seem to be enough. In their minds it must be convoluted or we wouldn't be sitting here. I think they need to see a statement of principle.
Mr. DeVillers: Something such as do not accept a bribe to advance the interest of a lobbyist, but this is in the Criminal Code now. That is the difficulty I'm having.
Mr. Paton: I hate to sound insulting, sir. But I think, yes, that basic a statement is needed.
Mr. DeVillers: As I say, the Criminal Code does that now.
Mr. Paton: Yes, sir, I know that. I think the public knows that. But what they know and what they want are two different things.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Epp (Elk Island): I repeat what my colleagues have said. I want to thank you for coming out on a winter evening when probably you could have thought of more fun things to do.
I would like to begin with Mr. Paton. I wrote a number of things down while you gentlemen were speaking. One of the things that came through several times in your presentation, Mr. Paton, was that members of Parliament, senators, and public officials in general have no right of privacy.
Now I believe the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does give us a certain degree of right to privacy as citizens. Would you take that away from everyone who is a member of Parliament or a senator?
You also said: ``No part of a public official's life can be kept private.'' I think I'm quoting you quite directly there. Would you just balance that off? I know as a defender of what's good for the public as a publisher of a paper you wouldn't want to swing too far to one side on this.
Mr. Paton: That's not exactly my quote, sir, but in many ways I do agree with what you've said.
The situation in the country is such, I think, that as members of Parliament you are going to have to give up a certain degree of privacy that I as an individual who is not a public official do not have to give up. I think that's because of the situation we find ourselves in.
.2020
I'm flogging a dead horse here, but you know as parliamentarians that Parliament itself is not held in very high regard. I think the only way to regain that trust and re-win the trust of the electorate is to swing the pendulum perhaps back further, sir, than you would like to or are even comfortable with. That would be the only way in my opinion - and judging from what my readers tell me - to start beginning to rebuild that trust with the electorate.
Mr. Epp: Let me ask you a personal question. Have you ever considered running for public office?
Mr. Paton: No, sir, I don't think I could withstand that kind of public scrutiny.
Mr. Epp: You've answered by second question with the first one. In other words, you are one person who would be deterred by the necessity of laying your life open and bare in front of everyone.
Mr. Paton: Yes, sir, but without false modesty I don't think I would be a very good member of Parliament. I think it takes a certain lack of selfishness and I tend to be selfish.
Mr. Epp: Okay.
Mr. Paton: Sir, I might add too that the situation with Mr. Bellehumeur tonight is one of the reasons why I personally wouldn't want to be involved in Parliament. This gentleman tonight obviously didn't come here to discuss this issue, but came to insult me and my newspaper. That I can take, sir, because this is what happens in my business. But I don't think I would want to be in Parliament simply to spend any amount of my time in my life dealing with that kind of issue.
Mr. Epp: Yes. Just for your information, I at least, in my first experience as an MP, get both. I get a certain number of compliments, people saying, hey, you're doing a great job, and I get a certain number of others who say, what do you think you're doing? Yes, you learn to live with that.
Mr. Paton: Yes, sir, that happens to me everyday as well.
Mr. Epp: And I hope as parliamentarians we never become insensitive to what people are saying on either side of this.
Mr. Paton: Yes.
Mr. Epp: That leads me to the next question that I have for you. You have both said that we need to have a simple set of rules, one that will be easily understood by the public, one that will help to rebuild trust.
I personally feel challenged, and so is this committee, in that we are going to have to come up with presumably a code that writes down point one, point two, point three, point four - a code that says this is what you can do, this is what you should do, this is what you can't do, and put limits on it. For example, you can't accept a gift in the Ontario code of more than $200 from any one particular donor in any year without disclosing it. No, you can't, period. Any smaller gift you must disclose, but anything over $200 you can't even accept. So that's one of the details.
We're going to have to get together and agree among ourselves - although I could be out-voted as we often are here - on what is going to be that minimum code. Where are we going to stand?
Very frankly, and I'm just going to blurt this out and I say it in all kindness, Mr. Bellehumeur did have a point to make here. I personally was greatly offended by your cartoon. I think it was very unfair. That's how I feel about it.
You on the other hand feel that it wasn't unfair, and so here's a very simple example of where two perceptions of what's right and what's wrong are worlds apart. How do you think that we can come up with a code?
Mr. Paton: You're missing my point then, sir, because I agree with you that in regard to that particular cartoon obviously people are on either side of the issue. There's almost no grey area when you get something that is that stinging.
My point earlier simply was that the issue was not about that cartoon. We're here tonight to discuss a code of conduct for parliamentarians, and when Mr. Bellehumeur brought that up it had nothing to do with it. I would gladly discuss with him any other issue.
Senator Gauthier: On a point of order.
I must make the point, sir - and I'm no more a friend of his than of anybody else - in French we're talking about un code d'éthique, an ethics code. That's the translation of this committee's mandate, and he was talking about ethics. The question to him is how ethical was that cartoon? That was his question to you.
Mr. Bellehumeur has been an active member of this committee. He didn't come here tonight just to insult you, sir. He came here because he is a member of this committee and has been attending.
However, his concept and my concept as a French speaker is that we're talking about un code d'éthique, an ethics code, not a code of conduct, because a code of conduct is too vague. I don't know why they use that. We're going to change that title of this committee next Wednesday by the way.
Mr. Paton: Sir, it was the title that was in front of me when I came here.
Senator Gauthier: I know that. Ethics was in front of you?
Mr. Paton: Code of conduct.
Senator Gauthier: Oh, yes, well you see.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): The French version is un code d'éthique.
Senator Gauthier: That's right.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): C'est correct.
.2025
Yes, Mr. Epp, go ahead with your questions. I don't think Senator Gauthier had a very good point of order. He was just interrupting.
Mr. Epp: I find these little side trips interesting.
I did have a point to make, and that was we do have a difference. Obviously, there are going to be differences in perception. I would venture to guess that even among people in the same party, there will be a difference between what is acceptable and what isn't.
I believe that was true in the previous governments. When you read these books, such as Stevie Cameron's...which, by the way, I lost in the airplane. I left it in the airplane. It just bugs me. I have to go buy another one. I don't want to do that. But you read this book. You see that there were things there. I have talked to members of that party and they did not approve of these kinds of shenanigans either. So how are we going to get it together?
Mr. Paton: I think, sir, to repeat myself yet again, with the various codes of ethics and acts of Parliament that govern you now, they simply have to be codified into a single easy-to-understand document first off.
The second part of it has to be that it's enforceable and seen to be enforced under law, legislated.
Mr. Epp: Okay. You've just restated the thing without...it's probably unfair for me to ask you for that kind of detail.
To turn to you, Mr. Mills, I must say that I've appreciated your emphasis. You say we need something that's simple, that's easy to communicate because we want to communicate with the public. However, at the same time you said that senators need a tough code since they do not face the scrutiny of voters; at least that's how I wrote down what you said there. So you want it to be simple, but it's supposed to be tough.
Perhaps the best way that I can ask this question, because you're probably aware of the Ontario code, is to ask you whether this is the type of thing that you think would meet with the approval of Canadians.
Mr. Mills: I think what this committee should be doing is looking to other jurisdictions, to provinces, to rules in other democratic countries for guidelines on how to draft a code. I'm not an expert on these things myself. I was somewhat aware of the Ontario code, and there are elements of it that I think are more stringent than what exists here now. I think you should be looking to other jurisdictions for guidelines on how to draft something.
I stress again that I think there is some urgency about this, to echo what Mr. Paton said about the feedback that we hear about public attitudes toward Parliament, which are not healthy. You can't have a clearer indication of how the public feels about this than the result of the last federal election where one of Canada's historic political parties was almost destroyed. And the main issue in that election, from my feedback, was the issue of ethics, the issue of corruption and abuse of power. The Canadian people will not stand for that.
Mr. Epp: Okay. I would also like to ask you, with respect to your particular industry, if we had such a code would it make your work of reporting on us easier? If so, how do you see specifically that your work would change?
Mr. Mills: I think if you had an effective code of conduct that was operating properly, the newspaper coverage would be much duller. We would have fewer scandals to report.
Mr. Epp: I was hoping what you would say is that you would be able to report more fully and more accurately, because more information would be available and you would have less reporting in the area of speculation and more in the area of facts. That was the answer that I was fishing for. Would you agree with it now that I have said it?
Mr. Mills: Yes. I certainly think that's the case. But I do think if everything were public or all the things we're recommending were public, there would be fewer abuses of position to report. We would know exactly who was involved in airport privatizations and things like that, and the relationships that may have been behind it, and so on. There would be fewer scandals to report.
Mr. Epp: Okay. I also want to be on record here - I try to get this on every committee meeting, it's a little goal I have - as saying that I agree with you 100% in your view of what the commissioner ought to be, and that is totally independent. He should be reporting to Parliament. He should have the same powers and the same mode of operation as the Auditor General does on the financial end so that his reports are believable, so that there's no doubt about whether or not he has political motivations in reporting the way he does. I don't think I have a question on that. I just wanted to add that.
.2030
I do have a question with respect to the work that you people do. As a member of a new party breaking onto the scene, I have become aware, as I never was before, of the tremendous power and influence that the media have. In fact, I envy you sometimes. Something happens in Ottawa or some other seat of government and you have the right to write in your paper your opinion, your view, your perception. A lot of people read it and believe it as fact. So you have that ability as reporters and as publishers of newspapers, and I'd like to know whether you think our code of conduct should have anything in it specifically with respect to the dealings with the media of MPs, senators, cabinet ministers, and public officials.
Mr. Paton: No.
Mr. Epp: Why not?
Mr. Paton: Because I think you are misunderstanding the role of the media, sir.
When it comes to reportage, certainly our job simply is to report what happens, as these two gentlemen over on my left are doing. But when you talk about opinions as fact, in every newspaper and every other form of medium, there is a forum for opinions coming from the left, the right, and the centre of the political spectrum.
I don't think we should become involved in your process for openness in the sense that we should be part of the set-up you have described. I think we can come here today as representatives of people who will be working with that to tell you in the strongest terms how we feel our readers would like to have that code of conduct or code of ethics constructed. I can't see us playing a role in its ongoing enforcement or its review, though.
Mr. Epp: That's interesting.
Mr. Mills: I would agree with Mr. Paton almost all the way, except for one incident that took place recently.
The committee looking into the airport privatization tried to force one of our writers to produce the documents he had written about. Through a process of negotiation, reason prevailed and we dealt with that. In our opinion, however, in that case there wasn't sufficient recognition of what our role is and how important it is for the public to be informed in a democracy. I do not think trying to subpoena documents from a reporter is something committees like this should be doing when there are other more appropriate ways to get that information.
Mr. Epp: That's interesting, because in the Paul Bernardo case papers were widely critical of the lawyer who held onto those tapes for so long that justice was seen to have been subverted when they finally were finally released. Yet for your own purposes.... I agree with you, to a certain degree, that people are not going to have the freedom to spill their guts out to a reporter if they know the reporter is going to become a witness against them. But do you not also have an obligation to uphold the rule of law and justice in the country?
Mr. Mills: Absolutely. As soon as this information was received, the writer in question wrote a series of columns about the contents of it. He indicated that the advice of senior public servants had been ignored, and about all of the other things that we now know about. It was very largely responsible for triggering the investigation and subsequent events.
Mr. Epp: It also triggered a bunch of shredders.
Mr. Mills: I'm sure it did that as well, but going after the newspaper in that case was not the first place that a committee should have gone for the information, in my view. It didn't reflect sufficient recognition that we have an important role in the functioning of our type of society as well.
Mr. Epp: I guess my view in general is that sometimes people in the media - as the public does, I suppose - want to apply a much higher standard on us than they do even on themselves, but I guess we have to accept that in our country, what with our strong beliefs in freedom of speech.
I'd like to have another shot at it later on, but I'd like to defer to other members for now, Mr. Chairman.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Thank you, Mr. Epp.
Mrs. Parrish, please.
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Epp is always a hard act to follow, but it seems to be my lot in life on this committee.
Thank you very much. Out of deference to the gnome-like creatures who toil over here and write down only what happens.... You and I both know that's not true, because they keep putting their pens down when we ask dumb questions or questions they're not interested in, and they pick their pens up when you make witty responses. I used to work in the media myself, and we talked about the three-minute clip, the three-second clip, the five-second clip, and so forth. So these people do not toil totally dispassionately.
.2035
I always taught kids in my sociology classes that when you read something in the paper it has gone through a filter. The filter is what they hear, what they're interested in, and what will sell papers. What sells papers are drugs, sex, and rock and roll. If you have politicians with the odd scandal, then you have your drugs, your sex, and usually your rock and roll.
I'm not here to debate the issue of what you do for a living with you, because I used to do it, and we're not pure. But I am on record as saying public disclosure of all assets for all levels of politicians is absolutely acceptable to me. I think it would solve a lot of our problems right off the bat.
I get bogged down in a code of conduct because I think when you set up too many rules and they're too specific, the crooks have a nice little path to tiptoe down, and the good guys are just hassled. I think some of the responsibility for our low ratings in the public polls, whether you want to admit it or not, is your fault because of the drugs, sex, and rock and roll.
I think if we were all perfect, and all perfectly good at what we do, and never did anything exciting, interesting, or slightly criminal, then you'd have nothing to write about.
As far as what you do write about, you perform a valuable service. I firmly believe in my heart the whole Pearson airport deal would not have been exposed if The Toronto Star hadn't gone after it and after it. You do serve a public purpose, but it's not as neutral as you would like us to believe at the end of your presentation. I think it's severely tainted and possibly to the public good. That was a term you used, actually.
I want to get down to something a little more fundamental. As I said, I believe in public disclosure. I'm having a lot of difficulty with a code of conduct. Maybe it's because I'm a former teacher and I really believe if you pander to the perception that the people who phone you all day...if I ever listened to the people who phone me.... I have a riding with 250,000 people and the happy campers don't phone me very often. The ones who hate my guts, don't like what the Prime Minister is doing, and are unhappy with something are the ones I hear from all day long. So I think you're probably in the same position.
Part of our problem is that the political system of parties in this country for the last 30 or 40 years is based on one party or the other screwing up. When one side screws up, the other side jumps on it and you report it. Then we have to retaliate. You can watch it in Question Period. It's parry and thrust, parry and thrust. The least bloody warrior who leaves is the one who wins Question Period. So the system itself is based on conflict, exposing evil, and making ourselves look good at the cost of another political party. Your job in life is to report it and sell papers.
So how would setting up a bunch of rules that actually feed that perception help us at all? I don't know if that's a rhetorical question or not, but I had fun making that speech.
Mr. Mills: I think an effective and enforceable code of conduct with full disclosure would be a deterrent to abuse of power, so there would be fewer incidents like this to report.
You talked about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The one case I can think of related to work here is a story The Ottawa Citizen reported in the mid-1980s about the behaviour of a certain defence minister who visited a bar that was off limits to Canadian soldiers while he was in Germany. You may remember that story very well. It involved almost all of those elements and cost our newspaper $1 million in legal fees to defend itself because we ran one story bringing that to public attention.
The minister and the government of the day used crown privilege to prevent the newspaper from defending itself in a libel action. So you hit a sore point when you talk to me about that. It's as though all the reporting of these things is always sleazy and based on selling newspapers. I can assure you it's not.
Mrs. Parrish: My implication isn't that it's always sleazy and based on selling newspapers. But again I'll use the two gentlemen over here. They're more likely to pick up their pens if I say something outrageous than if I'm just sitting here nattering away nicely to you and you're giving me nice flat responses and we're not really getting each other angry. There's nothing for them to write about.
Mr. Paton: You're describing the human condition.
Mrs. Parrish: Yes.
Mr. Paton: I mean people do that. They are titillated by things they find outrageous or absolutely unacceptable. It's part and parcel of what we do to a certain degree, but it's not everything we do. I guess as much as you have to take the good with the bad, so do we.
.2040
I can't think of a time when a newspaper decided to put something in the paper simply to outrage people and simply because it thought it would sell more newspapers. I'm sure you can do anything for a short term, but in the long term if you're not fulfilling your function, whether it's you in your job or me in mine, we would both be out of business.
Mrs. Parrish: You're not here to defend the newspaper industry, and I'm sorry if sometimes some of the questioning goes off in that direction. But what I really want to do, and why we spend hours sitting on a committee like this, is to get a really good sense of whether we need a code of conduct, because right now I'm not convinced. I think public disclosure would be a first giant step in the right direction.
About a code of conduct with a set of rules, you have to remember we're a pretty rarefied group of people. There are 295 of us, and I don't know how many senators, representing 30 million people in this country. I'm sure those who don't want to disclose their assets, thank you very much, will go to the next nose in line. If you look at the nomination process and the battles that go on there, many people would like to be sitting here.
Once I get here I believe I'm under absolute public scrutiny. As a matter of fact, if you look at my assets you might think I'm bribable because I practically went broke getting here. So I would be more bribable than someone who has a pile of assets.
All of us are not at blame here. Public perception, first of all, is a misperception because you're getting the crankies calling you. One reporter who shall remain unnamed, who is slightly right of Attila the Hun, female, and lives in my riding, has written some pretty rotten stories about me.
Mr. DeVillers: What are her initials?
Mrs. Parrish: Diane Francis.
She has written some pretty rotten stories about me that she first picked up at a cocktail party from someone who was somewhat of a political enemy of mine. Instead of responding to what she could print in her paper by writing a letter to the editor and starting a battle - because I have often heard you have more paper, ink and time than I do, and you're absolutely correct - I wrote her a private letter saying she had some false assumptions in her article and asking her to please look into it. All hell broke loose. Twelve articles later I'm still smarting. I might as well have gone after her in the papers.
The issue here is where does the responsibility lie to put a stop to the public perception that we're so rotten, and what contribution do you make to this?
You're simply telling us to come up with a really tight code, but when I taught school the sneakiest, rottenest kids looked perfect in class. They knew how to get around the rules because the rules were clear; they were there, and they knew what they were shooting at. But when there are no rules, when it's public scrutiny and public opinion and you can't take a step out of your house without somebody seeing you and knowing what you're up to, that's more subtle and the onus to behave is far stronger.
Mr. Paton: Perhaps I can answer your question by asking one myself. Are you here or has this committee been constructed because you feel the media has caused you to have this committee, or you feel you have to have this committee, or is it because you actually perceive that the public wants you to have this committee?
I think you are here because you perceive the public wants you to have this committee. You have sensed that there's a great feeling of distrust in your ridings, from talking to your riding officers and the people you touch base with in your ridings. You want to alleviate that distrust so you can go about doing your business contributing to governing the country.
Mrs. Parrish: In my riding with 250,000 people, I have a couple of nut cases who send me letters all the time on e-mail - the most marvellous invention next to the little machine where I can get money out of the wall; I love that thing. They send you letters all the time, and my local paper prints the odd one.
The man who is doing it is a nut case, there's no question. Generally speaking, out of 250,000 residents I would bet 249,000 are quite happy with what I'm doing. They don't think I'm committing any crimes up here. They think I have a very high standard of performance and credibility. You don't hear from the happy campers.
Mr. Paton: This may indeed be the situation in your riding, but any number of polls nationally, provincially and otherwise would say anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of the percentage of those who respond feel you're not doing your jobs properly, or feel there is a level of distrust. I think that's what you're responding to here.
I sympathize with your being victimized by anyone, but at the same time, unless this committee can come up with a code of conduct or ethics that its members can communicate to their electorate, I don't think you're going to get out of this mess - and I do believe it is a mess. I wasn't trying to be hyperbolic when I suggested that unless you can communicate to your electorate that you are taking the right steps to make them feel comfortable with you, then you're going to abrogate your ability to govern.
.2045
Mrs. Parrish: All right. Would you believe that complete disclosure would be enough of a step?
Mr. Paton: I think it's enough of a step, yes. But I also think you shouldn't have complete disclosure without a code that's understandable by the electorate and without an enforcement arm that they can understand; if you do this and this is wrong, this is what happens. If those three are not together, then none of those steps would be enough.
Mrs. Parrish: So what you and I are both addressing in this comment is a very concrete code, simple and open, as you said, without getting into that very nebulous area of behaviour and what's socially acceptable.
Mr. Paton: I was fascinated by reading Mitchell Sharp's comments to this committee simply because you could see this was a very intelligent man making an intelligent distinction between parliamentarians, people who hold public office, people who are in government, and people who are not but are simply in Parliament. I think that kind of argument and that kind of detail just isn't going to wash now. The public is painting you with a very broad brush, not a very specific one.
Mrs. Parrish: I must apologize if I appear confrontational, especially since I'll probably never get mentioned nicely in either of your papers again. I am trying to make a point, and I wish you'd give in to it just slightly because I'd feel a lot better. Part of it is yes, we need public disclosure. Part of it is that you do sell papers by picking up exciting stories, such as break-ins, houses burning down, politicians falling flat on their faces, politicians making fools of themselves in Question Period. That's what sells papers, and I think that's also partially what creates public opinion.
Mr. Paton: It's part of what sells newspapers, no doubt, but it's not all what sells newspapers.
Mrs. Parrish: Yes. Is it part of what creates public opinion?
Mr. Paton: Of course it is. I can say on behalf of Russ and myself that neither one of us has ever scripted a Question Period -
Mrs. Parrish: Thank God.
Mr. Paton: - and neither one of us has ever been thrown out of the House for lying. It goes without saying that shooting the messenger can be valid from time to time, but I think simple reportage of something like Question Period is not a good reason. Looking at us for the reasons that Question Period may have, in some people's opinion, degenerated to the form that it has is not on our backs but on yours.
Mrs. Parrish: Thank you very much.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Mr. Fewchuk.
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): Good evening, Mr. Paton and Mr. Mills. Thank you and welcome to the national capital area of Canada.
What do you think of the present municipal rules that are set out for elected members in Manitoba, for example?
Mr. Mills: I don't know enough about them to comment.
Mr. Fewchuk: It was very simple when I was first elected back in the 1970s. At the municipal level you disclosed everything and put it on a form if you had bonds, land, investments, and so forth. You also had to report anything you got as a gift.
That form you handed in was put in an envelope and sealed and handed to the secretary treasurer and put into the safety vault. If there were signs of a conflict, that was the time that envelope was brought out, and the only person who looked at it was the secretary treasurer. It was one person, nobody else, and it was his judgment.
Those are very simple rules. You got that form when you went to get your nomination papers and you knew exactly what you were in for. That was your choice; you run now or you don't run if you don't want to sign the papers. Before you were sworn in you had to fill out the disclosure.
Mr. Mills: How is someone supposed to know if a conflict has taken place?
Mr. Fewchuk: That's the media's job. They start investigating and bring it to our attention.
Mr. Mills: But if you're the person who fills out the form and you own so many shares of company X and you make a decision that affects that company positively, how is anybody supposed to know you own the shares?
Mr. Fewchuk: It's very simple; they find out somehow, through the media or whatever, through the land titles. You know how much land you own, so you just go and look at the rules.
Mr. Paton: I can agree with your first part, but I have to side with Russ; I can't agree with the second part. I think if you're going to disclose assets, then they have to be disclosed in such a fashion that they can be looked at.
Mr. Fewchuk: Based on what you've said, it looks like you wouldn't be satisfied with any kind of code of conduct.
Mr. Paton: No, sir, that's not true.
Mr. Fewchuk: Basically, it is.
Mr. Paton: No, sir, that's not true.
.2050
Mr. Fewchuk: There's nothing left if you disclose everything you have - all your land, all your value and all your assets.
Mr. Paton: Yes, sir, I know it's tough.
Mr. Fewchuk: And your pension and your life insurance.
Mr. Paton: But I think that's what people want to see happen. You have to decide if that's appropriate, but I do believe that's what my readers are telling me you should do.
Mr. Fewchuk: I've done that already twice. I have no problem with it; that's I'm telling you. Those were the rules and regulations when I got elected.
Mr. Mills: I'll just repeat what I've said before: I don't envy the position you're in.
Mr. Fewchuk: I don't mind it.
Mr. Mills: But I do think there will have to be some sacrifice of privacy by parliamentarians if you want to promote and rebuild confidence in these vital institutions of Parliament and the federal government.
Mr. Fewchuk: I just wanted to know you'd be satisfied, but you're still not fully satisfied. That is my point. It looks as though you'll never be fully satisfied no matter what we try to do.
Thank you.
Senator Stollery (Bloor and Yonge): My first question is sort of an observation as well.
I know both you gentlemen are publishers of papers, which means you have an interest more in the commercial end of the paper than in the editorial end. At least that's what I recall of publishers from when I, like lots of us, had something to do with newspapers.
I've been in Ottawa as a member of Parliament and a senator for about 24 years or something like that. I don't live here though; I live in Toronto. I have noticed over the last few years that the Ottawa papers are very harsh on parliamentarians and Parliament. I am not accusing, but overall I would say they are certainly harsher to a tremendous degree than are the Toronto papers on Queen's Park or City Hall.
When I say this, I think not just of parliamentarians, MPs and senators, but of the staff who work on Parliament Hill. The Ottawa presses can be quite unpleasant about the Senate, but I think of the staff, the constables and all the people who work here. I don't know how many there are now because of the cutbacks, but they and their families are all customers for the goods your newspapers advertise.
As I say, I don't live here, but I've often reflected on what effect this must have on the commercial aspect of Ottawa, when I see you can't sell a house for two or three years.
You can say you're not harsh, but personally I've noticed this. As I say, I don't have a particular complaint. I haven't had a particular problem. But what do you have to say about that?
There are, I suppose, altogether several thousand people who work in the precincts here. It used to be more than that. I don't remember what it is now. They and their families are customers, and they go home and hear about the institution and the people. It gets pretty rough. So they don't want to tell anybody what they do for a living because they have to live here.
What is this doing to the place? Does this ever cross your mind?
Mr. Mills: Indeed it does. Both Mr. Paton and I are acutely aware of the fact that the federal government is the economic basis of this community and is likely to be for our lifetime and far beyond that.
Senator Stollery: It's less than it was when I came here 24 years ago.
Mr. Mills: It's certainly less, but it's still the -
Senator Stollery: There are just fewer people in Ottawa and fewer people working.
Mr. Mills: There are more people in Ottawa and more people working, but the federal government is still the heart of the community. We're acutely aware of that.
.2055
I'm not sure I can really respond to your accusation.
Senator Stollery: No, it's an observation.
Maybe I'm wrong. You might say you're not harsh.
Mr. Mills: I don't think we are. I don't think, for example, that the current Government of Ontario would think we were any harsher on the federal government than The Toronto Star has been on it, or that the previous Ontario government would think we were any harsher on governments here than, say, The Toronto Sun had been on the NDP government in Ontario.
Senator Stollery: But I wasn't talking about government policy. You're misunderstanding me.
I'm definitely not talking about arguments over policy. Sometimes I've seen attacks on the institutions themselves, on the way they spend money and all that kind of thing. I don't mean arguments over a public policy issue.
Mr. Mills: I think you're right if you're saying our newspaper's policy has been that the Senate should either be abolished or reformed, yes.
Senator Stollery: It's fine to have a policy difference with the Senate, but it seems to me that sometimes it takes on aspects that are not policy but are harshly critical, not in a policy sense.
We ourselves have some positions on reform of the Senate, but I don't mean to get into the reform of the Senate. I'm talking about the decline of the city of Ottawa, which I've watched for the last 23 years, and the fact that I gather it's hard to sell a house here now.
Mr. Paton: Are you wondering if we've played a role in that decline, Senator?
Senator Stollery: Yes.
Mr. Paton: No, I don't think so.
Senator Stollery: Okay.
My other question is on disclosure. What I find difficult about this disclosure business - and I think this is part of my question about the harshness - is the implication that members of Parliament are corrupt. Really that's what it's all about. There's an implication that they're not citizens doing the best they can under very difficult circumstances, and in most cases not particularly well paid. This bothers me.
This doesn't bother you? You don't think there's an implication...? When I talk about the harshness in Ottawa on the institutions and on members of Parliament and senators, it seems to me it's taken sometimes to the implication that they're dishonest.
Mr. Paton: Sir, if it didn't bother us, we wouldn't be here.
Does it bother me that Canadians, as most polls will show, appear to have lost faith in their government or in their political process?
Senator Stollery: They've also lost faith in the media, according to the same polls.
Mr. Paton: That's right, and it bothers me deeply.
Senator Stollery: It depends on how you ask the question and all of this kind of thing. I wonder.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Senator, I think we should give the witnesses a chance to answer the question before we get on to the next one. It's very confusing for those who are trying to follow the dispute.
Senator Stollery: Okay.
Mr. Paton: Senator, the fact that Canadians appear to have lost faith in Parliament bothers me deeply, and that's one of the reasons, after speaking to Senator Oliver, I wanted to be here tonight to give you my impressions of what my readers are telling me.
If I sense your question correctly, you feel that perhaps it's not so much the actions of Parliament but how they're reported on that has created that perception. I assume, from some of the questions here tonight, that others agree with you.
Perhaps to a certain degree the antics of Question Period and the limitations of certain media to report on it have made that scene more circus-like than it actually is, but I think, sir, in the main, Canadians have lost faith in Parliament because of the actions of parliamentarians and how they feel government has responded to their needs. I think it has a lot less to do with how we write about or videotape what you do than it has to do with what you do.
.2100
Senator Stollery: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Boudria, please.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Some of us have more than one meeting going on at one time, and I apologize if I ask about something you may have raised in your presentation.
First, I want to talk a little bit about initiatives for us to follow. You may remember that in the last parliament we had Bill C-114, Bill C-46, Bill C-43, Bill C-116, and then the bill attached to the report of the select committee on Bill C-43. I'm probably the only one in the group who had something to do - and I guess Senator Oliver would be the other one - with almost every one of these steps because I participated in the previous committees.
There are a couple of areas where there is some grey ground where, in my view, we need some helpful advice. One of them is this business of the jurisdiction of the ethics counsellor, the jurisconsult, the conflict commissioner, whatever you call the individual who's going to hold the position, assuming we have one.
On the one hand, we have ordinary garden-variety MPs like me or like some of my colleagues here. I'm not even sure I qualify in that category anymore, as the whip. In any case, they are not public office holders in the parliamentary language. Some people would consider us all to be public office holders but there are specific definitions of that.
On the other side, you have these people who are public office holders, such as ministers and parliamentary secretaries. They hold public office in the parliamentary sense.
On the one hand, if a set of rules ultimately has the Prime Minister as its responsible boss, there's the criticism that we're not reporting to an independent officer of Parliament. You've heard it from my colleague Mr. Epp.
But on the other hand, there's the parallel criticism that if the officer is independent, particularly as it pertains to the public office holders, and reports directly to Parliament, the buck doesn't stop at the top, at the Prime Minister.
In the last parliament, you will remember that I was - should I say - sort of a tough critic of Mr. Mulroney and gang. Never once did I advocate that the public office holders report to an independent officer, because in my view it was important for me to always be able to say to the Prime Minister, ``Your minister did such and such; how do you account for...?''
The last answer I ever wanted to hear was, ``Don't ask me, there's an independent guy who reports directly to the House looking into it.'' The supplementary would always have to be, ``But you're the boss; you appointed him. The buck has to stop there.'' Do you see? I suggest that those two different ways of looking at it are almost irreconcilable for those people who are the public office holders.
If you have the independent official, as Mr. Epp says, then you pretty well can't have the other. Or at least you're giving a perfect out for the Prime Minister or whoever is in charge to divorce himself from what is being investigated, looked at or otherwise, on the grounds that the person is independent and will report directly to Parliament, like an auditor general, an official languages commissioner or all of these other people who report directly to Parliament.
I wanted to get some of your views on those things. I've given that some thought. It was in our report of the select committee on Bill C-43. Senator Oliver will remember. I don't always get advice in that regard. It isn't addressed by some of our witnesses. I wanted to get opinions from you if you haven't already done so tonight.
Mr. Mills: Mr. Boudria, I'm aware of the fact that you've been involved in many previous efforts to come up with a code of conduct here and I'm sure you've thought in more depth about some of the subtleties of this than we have.
I'm not sure I really understand your concern. I don't think having an independent ethics counsellor or commissioner who would report to Parliament would in any way reduce the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the cabinet to ensure that conduct was ethical. This would just be the policeman who monitors what goes on and who is part of an investigative and enforcement mechanism. Just because we have an auditor general doesn't mean you can't ask the Minister of Finance questions about public spending or public finance. The auditor general is just an independent person who comes in and expresses a different point of view and is part of a review and investigation and enforcement mechanism.
.2105
Mr. Boudria: Are those views that you would share too, sir?
Mr. Paton: There are two things, Mr. Boudria. One is that I think the distinction you are making is the same one that Mr. Sharp made at this committee about public office holders versus parliamentarians in general.
Mr. Boudria: Exactly. That is precisely the case, yes.
Am I being too pure?
Mr. Paton: Yes. I think it's a legal nicety that nobody cares about. I think that if you are in Parliament you are in government as far as most Canadians are concerned, or you are part of the governing process. I would be surprised if we could go into your or anyone else's riding and rub together two Canadians who don't think their member of Parliament holds public office. Sir, they do. I have no doubt about that.
The second thing is that I think an independent body to oversee this code of conduct or code of ethics once it will be created will be absolutely essential, and I don't think it is going to limit your ability or the ability of anyone in opposition to go after the minister responsible for a particular perceived problem or to go to the Prime Minister to ask if the behaviour of the minister in question is acceptable. If any cabinet minister has a particular problem and is found out, then I think the Prime Minister will act accordingly, whether there's an independent body to investigate it or not.
We've seen that time and again. The Coates affair, to which Mr. Mills referred, was a situation where a man was removed from cabinet and then the investigation took place. I think that would still go on, except that the investigator in this case would be the body that perhaps you are going to recommend to create at the end of these hearings.
Mr. Boudria: I appreciate the answer, and you're right to the extent that they would be to a large degree the answer that I would get from a constituent. That so-called subtlety is not there for them.
The way in which we dealt with it, perhaps not in our bill but in the last one, which was Bill C-116, was that the government of the day had developed the following scenario. They in fact ended up having two people who were conflict commissioners. They had a person whose task it was to oversee parliamentarians who were not in cabinet and the like but were what we usually, in parliamentary lingo, call public officer holders. That person would report directly to the Speaker. Those persons who were ministers, because responsibility for putting them into or turfing him out of the cabinet belongs to the Prime Minister, would report to them.
Then, of course, because the House is the master of what happens to MPs generally, you report to the House, and because the Prime Minister is the master of what happens in cabinet, you report to where the authority is. That was essentially the logic in that report.
There were problems with the bill. It was not properly constructed. You had people registering in one system but being adjudicated by the other. I think I see Senator Oliver nodding that the bill was poorly constructed. In fact, I think we had proven at the time that it wouldn't work because of its improper construction.
You don't think any of that is valid as a way of separating, if that's the proper word, the MPs into two different groups. Mr. Paton, you didn't think there was a benefit.
Mr. Paton: We haven't the benefit in the short term, because as a society we have gone beyond the point where we can get into that kind of nicety. I have said to Senator Oliver in private conversation that I actually believe that an open, full disclosure could eventually work down the road, as that public trust is regained, into something that perhaps would be more palatable to people who have to run for public office. In the meantime, you have a public relations problem of great magnitude and you need to construct something in the way of a code of conduct or ethics that addresses it so that you can regain that public trust.
.2110
As for the discussion we're having now as to whether a parliamentarian is a member of government and whether there should perhaps be a difference between the code of conduct that he or she must follow versus someone who is in government or at least in caucus, I think it would hold no weight with any average voter in Canada at this point.
Mr. Boudria: Can I just belabour that one for a minute or so?
Surely if you're the Minister of Industry who perhaps owns shares in Bell Canada or some other company like that, it may be wrong and there should be a different test than there would be if Mr. Epp or I owned shares in Bell Canada. As backbenchers, should we have to divest ourselves of what we own in a way very similar to what a minister must do?
Mr. Paton: Sir, I think right now the public is asking you to do so. That's my sense from talking to my readers, listening to my readers and reading their letters. I think what they want is exactly what you described.
Mr. Boudria: Do you agree with that, Mr. Mills?
Mr. Mills: I think the dual system you're proposing, one for public office holders and one for other parliamentarians, puts enormous onus on the trust in the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister is accountable, in effect, for all the ethical conduct of the cabinet. That works if the Prime Minister is trusted. That might be a workable system if he is.
But we've seen cases in the past where that was not the case, where the Prime Minister did not have the public's trust. In fact, there were cases where the Prime Minister was perhaps the most mistrusted person in the entire government. I think it collapses when that's the public mood. As I said before, we saw the result of that in the last election, where one of Canada's historical political parties was almost destroyed, largely through mistrust of government and the suspicion of abuse of power.
Mr. Boudria: Okay. On the other issue, should the same test be applied to everyone? Even if you have only one system, should there be the same requirements for everybody? For instance, should a backbench MP have to sell off his shares in a hardware store he owns in his riding?
Mr. Paton: I don't know if he has to sell off the shares but perhaps -
Mr. Boudria: He would if he were a minister; and if it's the same test, the answer would have to be yes.
Mr. Paton: Then perhaps the single code has to be changed to include the different ends of the spectrum.
I think that's not impossible to do, Mr. Boudria. I think it's easy.
Mr. Boudria: With respect, that's a different answer from the one you were giving before.
Mr. Paton: Sir, I'm saying that the same code has to apply and that a single code has to apply to all parliamentarians.
Mr. Boudria: But should there be a different test?
Mr. Paton: No.
Mr. Boudria: No?
Mr. Paton: No. A single code must apply to all parliamentarians and the difficulty of the task before you is to come up with a code that can deal with both ends of the spectrum, a cabinet minister and a backbencher.
Mr. Boudria: Do you agree with that, Mr. Mills?
Mr. Mills: In the interests of simplicity and understandability for the public, I think you should have one code that is as common as possible for everyone. Now -
Mr. Boudria: There's no such thing anywhere now. Do you realize that?
Mr. Mills: I know.
Mr. Boudria: There's no such thing at the provincial level or anywhere.
Mr. Mills: I think that should be the objective. It should certainly be the same as far as disclosure is concerned. As far as divesture is concerned, it's possible that there should be a different standard for backbenchers than there is for ministers who are directly responsible for something.
Does that make sense?
Mr. Paton: We're going into the trap now.
Mr. Mills: No -
Mr. Boudria: No, I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just trying to get a clearer picture from you. I'm sorry if I get down to some of the specifics, but I've walked through some of this before and I want to get a clearer picture from you as to what you think is right.
Even in our short conversation of the last five or ten minutes I see some movement, if I can put it that way.
Mr. Paton: No. I would still adhere to a single code.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Paton: I think it's the only option available to you. I truly do.
Mr. Boudria: But now I'm not hearing the same thing from the two of you.
Senator Gauthier: That's good.
Mr. Mills: I think the objective should be to have something that's as simple as possible so Canadians will understand that this is the way their elected officials are supposed to behave. Right?
Mr. Boudria: Okay. I have just one final remark.
First, if anyone thinks there isn't an ethics code now, he's wrong. There is, but it's all over the place. There is some of it in the Parliament of Canada Act, some of it in the Criminal Code, some of it in our Standing Orders and some of it in the Treasury Board regulations. It's all over the place.
.2115
So we do have rules, but they're not consolidated. They're not uniform. We even have rules that apply only to ``a public work''. Nobody around this table could ever figure out what that means.
Mr. Paton: More to the point, sir, people are not sure how they're enforced. It's not just a question of the rules being in different places. I think from a public point of view they're not quite sure how those rules are enforced, other than the Criminal Code and -
Mr. Boudria: That's quite true. Some of them are so antiquated they're unenforceable at the present time, the classic example being a public work. Right now, for instance, there would be a specific test applied if an MP owned a construction company that installs a culvert, but it would be different if he sold computer programs worth millions of dollars. That's because some of these rules are very antiquated at the present time. That's one of the reasons we're doing this.
I'm sorry if I went on a little bit long, Mr. Chairman.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Thank you, Mr. Boudria.
We'll go to our second round, then. Senator Oliver.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): Mr. Mills, when you were responding to a question from Mr. Epp you said you feel this committee should look at as broad a number of things and areas and jurisdictions as they possibly can, and indeed even jurisdictions outside of Canada.
One of the preliminary reports we've already had a chance to look at is Lord Nolan's report from England. The Parliament in England is really quite different from ours. I was looking at it again today, and there they have a concept of being able to do contract work or to be paid as consultants to do work while they are sitting members of Parliament.
My question to both of you is do you think members of Parliament in Canada should be able and allowed to have a job and earn income other than their salaries as members of Parliament?
Mr. Paton: No, sir. I think the British parliamentary tradition of the noble amateur is being rapidly discredited in British society, and people now expect their parliamentarians to hold full-time jobs as parliamentarians representing their riding. Despite what many people in this building may feel about the pay, outside of this building people feel the pay is adequate for the job.
So I would say no. Being a parliamentarian or a Senator is a full-time job.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): Mr. Mills?
Mr. Mills: I would agree with that too. It wouldn't do anything to promote confidence in our public institutions if they felt their parliamentarians were being paid from other sources.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): How about being paid for sitting on a board of directors of a company, teaching a course at a university, doing a bit of dental work as a dentist on Saturdays when you're home, or maintaining a law practice one day a week?
Senator Gauthier: If you were a farmer, you couldn't farm anymore.
Mr. Mills: In answer to your three hypothetical questions there, I would say no, yes and yes. I would say sitting on a board, no. Doing some dental work, yes, I suppose. Teaching at a college, I suppose yes, unless there's -
Senator Gauthier: What about farming on weekends?
Mr. Mills: Yes. Let's be reasonable about these things.
Mr. Paton: I think I would say no, no, no, no and yes.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): You obviously have a farm.
Mr. Paton: No, but I sympathize with anyone who is held hostage by the weather.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): Thank you.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Epp.
Mr. Epp: My intervention is going to be quite brief this time around.
I have a question with respect to disclosure. Both of you are coming across very strongly on the necessity of disclosure. Other jurisdictions that have these rules require disclosure to the ethics commissioner or whatever his title is, but not disclosure to the public unless there is a public hearing, and most of the time there isn't. If there's a dispute, then the initial investigation is done in secret by the commissioner. In some cases he makes a recommendation and so on.
Would you prefer to see disclosure actually being made public? In other words, if I run for Parliament I now must list my assets and where I have shares, etc. We have not yet discussed whether you also favour the disclosure of liabilities. Should that be to the commissioner only or should it in fact be public? Should someone be able to dial up on the Internet and search Ken Epp to find his balance sheet? Is that what you would prefer?
.2120
Mr. Paton: Yes, sir, there should be full disclosure, and yes, it should be public.
Mr. Epp: Do you have a view of that?
Mr. Mills: That was my suggestion too. There should be a disclosure of assets, liabilities and sources of income, and it should be public.
The other way of reporting to a commissioner relies on the saintly commissioner theory. If the public had so much confidence in one person that all of the trust in Parliament and the federal government could rely on that one person's shoulders, that might be achievable, but I don't think there is such a person. The only alternative to that is public disclosure so the public can make its own judgments.
Mr. Epp: There's no doubt in my mind that it would discourage a lot of very capable people from running. You indicated before that you don't think that's a problem. You wouldn't mind if people who are very successful in business or whatever are out of the loop of ever running for Parliament. Is that not a flaw?
Mr. Paton: Sir, what I actually said was that I think if you were to ask Canadians, for example in Mr. Boudria's riding, if they would like to have an open process and get an inferior candidate or go for a closed process and get the best candidate, at this point in time people will go for the open process and take the candidate they can get versus perhaps a superior candidate who may come forward because the process is closed.
Mr. Epp: I'm not making an accusation or a prior assumption here, so please don't misinterpret this, but is part of your motivation for wanting this total openness simply to make your job as media easier? You will not have to work nearly as hard. You won't have to pay a fee for access to information. You'll just get that information by dialling up your computer, and boom, there it is and you can write on it.
Mr. Paton: The disclosure is not what makes our job easier, sir. What makes our job difficult is finding out the transgression, if there is one. That's not going to be on the Internet and that's not going to reside in a library somewhere. The transgression, whether it's a member of Parliament taking $5,000 bribes at a so-called fund-raising party or a member of Parliament who's abused his privilege in some fashion, is not something on the Internet.
What's going to be on the Internet, much like the proceedings of this committee, are your public assets so the public can scrutinize them. I suppose in a hypothetical way, if Ken Epp votes on something a certain way and it looks as though Ken Epp might benefit from that, the people in your riding can decide to do something about it.
Mr. Epp: They have a right to know that, yes.
Mr. Paton: I think they have a right to know that.
I don't think you're making our jobs any easier. Having said that, in the profession I'm in, I'm for anything that makes getting information easier, for obvious reasons.
Mr. Epp: Right now how do you find the availability of information with respect to financing of election campaigns?
There's a lot of distrust, I think, among the public. If somebody put so much money into someone's election campaign and later on he got a contract with the government, they make a connection. You people, in your business, often make that connection. Are the present rules for disclosure of who gave what adequate? Or do they have to be strengthened in our code of conduct?
Mr. Paton: That's a difficult question to answer. In many ways I feel they're inadequate, because of our own inability sometimes to discover Mr. X's contribution versus Mr. X's company's contribution to the same people or the same party.
But I'm not sure if strengthening the code in that regard is going to help us find that out. I don't think it's your responsibility to make all those links for us.
Mr. Epp: I want to talk also a little bit about the personal behavioural things, the code of conduct end.
One of the things that brings MPs and senators into disrepute is if they behave badly publicly. For example, an MP in our area not long ago was charged with drunken driving. He was going the wrong way on a one-way street, bouncing off lights, etc. That's not the kind of thing that really helps build confidence in politicians.
.2125
Do you suppose that we can put anything into a code of conduct that will somehow say that you can't go to a nudie bar - I think that was the case of the previous politician in Europe - and that type of thing? Could we build that into a code of conduct and get away with it?
Mr. Paton: No, I don't think so.
Mr. Epp: So that problem will remain unaddressed.
Mr. Paton: If a member of Parliament is drunk and is caught drunk, then, besides answering to the Criminal Code, he can answer to the voters on voting day.
Mr. Epp: Okay.
Mr. Mills: I don't know how you can effectively regulate private conduct like that away from here.
If we're going into the broader area too, then one thing that brings Parliament into disrepute among some younger people is some behaviour they see in the House of Commons.
Mr. Epp: Yes.
Mr. Mills: A bit more civility in some debates and discussions there would also help to promote respect for these institutions.
Mr. Epp: As a new MP, I came here with quite high ideals, and I think that I and members of our party started out quite well. We took a high road. Our people worked very hard on getting into the debate as newcomers. We did a lot of research and study. In fact, we even had several Liberals comment on this, that there was a new quality to the debate when we first started in January 1994.
That, though, has deteriorated.
I've noticed that the press gallery is never full except during Question Period. The rest of the time it's basically empty. Also, it's not very often that we get a positive story on really good solid debate, a presentation objectively stating that a Reformer said this and a Liberal said that, putting those two together and letting the people weigh which really is the better way in which to go.
Instead what we get are reports of any acrimony that is expressed, and certainly the daily dog and pony show called Question Period. That's basically how Parliament is portrayed to the public by the media. I think we're being misjudged to a certain degree.
Mr. Paton: I'm not sure what system you have in mind that's going to let the public judge you in a better light. The CPAC channel, I guess 24 hours a day, will broadcast the proceedings of the House, not just Question Period, of course, but also various committees plus various other activities that take place in the House. I'm a bit of a political junkie, so I will channel-surf through those looking for things in which I am interested.
I think the public are more aware of what you do because of that.
As for reporters not being in the House, those very same televised proceedings are beaming into every one of their offices at 150 Wellington or here in the ``hot room''. They know what's going on.
Mr. Epp: Well, they don't.
Mr. Paton: They can follow it electronically now. There's not a real need to be on site as much as they used to be.
The situation with Question Period is again a bit of one of chicken and egg. Are you sure it's the way in which we portray you, or is it how you portray yourselves in Question Period?
I talked earlier about privilege. Things that are said in the House that people will not repeat outside of the House for fear of legal reprisals, at the very least, are the types of things that make Canadians mistrust this organization more than they should. They see something that goes on in the House with a question of privilege protecting them. When asked outside of the House by reporters, they will refuse to repeat the allegation, which they know full well will be repeated in the newspapers and on the media with the same privilege: it was said in the House of Commons; it can be repeated. It might be the most exaggerated piece of bull feathers that anybody could come up with, but it will not be repeated outside of the House by the person who said it, because they are not protected anymore. I think that makes people lose faith.
Mr. Epp: Certainly the behaviour in the House of Commons and the language that is sometimes used there, and certainly the exchanges in the Question Period, affect the public perception of who we are and how honourable we are. I don't think we can address that in a code of conduct. I don't know how.
Mr. Paton: I don't think it's necessary to do that. I think you can conduct Question Period in the way you feel you should based on issues that are in front of you. But when someone can call the Deputy Prime Minister a liar and then step outside of the House and refuse to repeat that allegation, for obvious reasons, people will lose faith in you. There's no doubt about it; they know what's going on. They see that as cheap political theatre, not as governing.
.2130
Mr. Epp: I will tell you this very frankly again. We are a new party that's breaking in. We have no public acceptance, because we're unknown. It's very frustrating to have the media write you off as being ineffective because you're not playing by the rules that the press has come to accept in terms of the way the House of Commons operates. Anyway, that's a little side issue.
I have one more question with respect to a code of conduct. I came here with the assumption that your presence in this committee today is honourable. You have a desire to have us gain that public trust, which is in fact part of the mandate of this committee.
This is just wide open here. I'm lobbing you one question: what specifically would you recommend this committee should do that would specifically help you in your work in the media to help the public regain the trust in their public institutions, including the Parliament of Canada?
Mr. Mills: What can this committee do to help us rebuild trust?
Mr. Epp: Yes, from your point of view as you report it in the media.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): Report on the code of conduct once it's drafted.
Mr. Mills: Yes, indeed. Come up with an effective code of conduct, including some effective rules, and disclosure and enforcement mechanisms. Then we'll make sure that's reported thoroughly.
I think if that happens and the whole process becomes more open, it would be a deterrent to any abuse of position for private interests. Slowly, over time, the reputation of Parliament and the government will improve.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Paton, do you have anything?
Mr. Paton: I have a very similar answer. I do believe that only through a simple code of conduct that seems to be enforced and understood by the Canadian public can you begin to regain that trust as parliamentarians. By my newspaper and other forms of media reporting on that, the people of Canada will start to feel that trust is worthy of bestowing on them.
Mr. Epp: Good. We'll expect you to start reporting the good news around here with more vigour.
Mr. Paton: I suspect, sir, that because two publishers are sitting in front of you, there will at least be two stories.
Senator Gauthier: If I understood you correctly, you would extend disclosure to spouses and children. Would you?
Mr. Paton: Yes, sir, I would.
Senator Gauthier: How far?
Mr. Paton: Your immediate family.
Senator Gauthier: What's that?
Mr. Paton: Your children and spouse.
Senator Gauthier: How old? I have kids who are 37 and 38 years old. I have another boy who's 34, and a daughter who is 29. They are not living at home.
Mr. Paton: For simplicity's sake, if they can vote, yes.
Senator Gauthier: They would be subjected to the same rules because their old man runs in Parliament.
Mr. Paton: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boudria: Even if they don't live at home?
Mr. Paton: Are you asking my personal opinion or what I think my readers think?
Senator Gauthier: I'm asking you a question.
Mr. Paton: I think that people are going to demand that you have the fullest level of disclosure possible through your immediate family.
A case in point would be the situation with the Prime Minister and his relationship to the Desmarais family. I don't think anybody seriously thinks the Prime Minister would do anything for the Desmarais family or Power Corporation simply because his daughter has married into the family, but certainly there was enough public comment to that effect.
If one of the purposes of this committee is to try as much as possible to dispel that feeling among the electorate, then I think you have to have disclosure for as much as you can take.
Senator Gauthier: On that, I can't agree with you.
Mr. Mills, do you have the same point of view?
.2135
Mr. Mills: I have just a couple of follow-up points and some practical examples.
There have been cases in which assets held by family members have been a factor in jurisdictions. We saw a former President of the United States who had a son in a business that caused an ethical problem for him. We saw the ludicrous spectacle of Sinclair Stevens and his wife and their financial dealings.
Senator Gauthier: Pillow talk. That's the spouse. I'm talking about the children. I have no problems with spouse.
Mr. Mills: Okay, under the same roof, you don't have a question about that.
Senator Gauthier: Under the same roof?
Mr. Mills: Even adult children. I'm sure if I plumbed my mind for a little bit longer, I could maybe come up with other examples, but certainly it's possible -
Senator Gauthier: Do you have any political friends?
Mr. Mills: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: Have you talked to the kids of those people in the last 15 years? Try talking to them. See how many of them are going to go into politics. There would be very few.
Say you make it to cover even my children. One is an accountant. The other one works for Paul Martin as his press attaché. She may have a conflict of interest in your rules. I would certainly not want them to be submitted to this. I would quit, because I would be submitting and exposing them to an unfair situation, I think.
Mr. Paton: I agree that it's Draconian, sir. I just think that's what's going to be acceptable in the end. I think anything less than that -
Senator Gauthier: What difference would it make? My son is a chartered accountant. He works out of an office. He doesn't live at home. He's 34 or 35 years old. What kind of a conflict -
Mr. Paton: To me, sir, personally, there is none.
Senator Gauthier: How would you force him to reveal how much he makes? How would you do it? He'd just tell you to go climb a tree, because he has rights. As Mr. Epp mentioned to you, he has rights.
Mr. Paton: Perhaps that's the limitation that this -
Senator Gauthier: Do you reveal your salary to the public? Is your wife's income public?
Mr. Paton: Well, sir, if I end up being the fifth-highest income earner in my chain, then yes, sir, I'm an officer of the corporation and it will be revealed publicly whether I like it or not.
Mr. Epp: That's coming?
Mr. Paton: It's my greatest desire to be $1 less than the fifth-highest-paid person in that chain.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Mills, you didn't mention -
Mr. Mills: You certainly raise a good point there. How could you enforce that? I don't know. We're not drafting this legislation. That's up to you.
Senator Gauthier: Nobody said it was going to be legislation. Somebody said resolutions -
Mr. Mills: Well, drafting the resolutions or whatever it might be.
Senator Gauthier: Can I ask you just one question?
Mr. Mills: You know what we're talking about. We all want our children to do well. There have been cases. Again, I can't think of examples other than the one in which government work may have been steered toward an adult child in a business capacity. Certainly that's something that doesn't promote respect for government or Parliament. In cases like that, there certainly should be disclosure. There should be no way something like that can happen while the public is not aware of it.
Mr. Paton: It's currently happening at Canada Post at this point. Mr. Clermont has been under an intense amount of scrutiny for the friendships and business acquaintances he has, and the businesses that his children are involved in. Although it's a crown corporation, you can easily take that example and perhaps apply it to something that may occur in Parliament.
That's why I think the only acceptable thing, as far as the public's concerned, is a full disclosure.
Senator Gauthier: I think I've heard enough.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Thank you very much.
I want to thank both witnesses for their time and questions. Obviously, from the length of the meeting, you can tell that you've stimulated the members of the committee with lots of questions and issues. We look forward to your coverage of the report when it comes out. Thank you very much for your attendance.
The meeting is adjourned.