[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 8, 1996
.1704 
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I see a quorum. Does anybody not see a quorum?
[Translation]
We are ready to begin.
Today we welcome Mr. Pierre Fortin and Mr. Bruno Boulianne, of the Ethos Research Group.
Welcome gentlemen. It's a pleasure to welcome you here today. Ms Tremblay has kindly taken the time to organize your appearance before us.
.1705
It is a pleasure to have you here in Ottawa. Mr. Fortin, you have the floor.
Mr. Pierre Fortin (Director, Ethos Research Group): We are very pleased to be with you here this afternoon to exchange views with you on your mandate. First of all, we would in particular like to thank Ms Suzanne Tremblay, the member of Parliament for Rimouski - Témiscouata, who conveyed your invitation to us.
You have in hand a copy of the text that we have submitted. If you agree, I would like to focus your attention on a number of discussion points that we develop in our text.
First of all, I would like to direct your attention to the main criticisms expressed by Canadians about their political representatives in Canada.
Secondly, we feel it is important to distinguish among a number of terms in order to better understand the meaning and scope of a code of ethics. We will propose a distinction between morals, ethics, and a code of ethics.
Then we will point out a few pitfalls to be avoided when one wants to draft a code of ethics.
We will then focus briefly on the three main moral issues that politicians must deal with. This will allow us to highlight the main reasons justifying the development, drafting, and use of a code of ethics.
We will also ask you to consider the idea of having one code of ethics for all members of the House of Commons and the Senate. We will also propose a general framework for a code of ethics and we will conclude by suggesting that the House of Commons and the Senate jointly appoint an individual responsible for enforcing the code of ethics.
Before dealing with each of these issues, I would like to say that Mr. Boulianne and myself are not experts in the area of codes of ethics for parliamentarians. For some years now, the Ethos Research Group has examined codes of ethics, mainly those governing professional organizations as well as the new ones that are becoming more prevalent in our society, such as those governing multi-disciplinary interventions, especially in the areas of professional and social interventions.
The Ethos Research Group also worked for the Royal Commission on Reform of the Canada Elections Act and Party Funding. We were asked to analyze the 800 briefs that were submitted to the Commission in order to determine the main ethical questions brought up by the groups and individuals that spoke to the Commission.
In sum, we have worked for a number of years on the issue of codes of ethics, but not specifically on codes of ethics for political representatives.
I would like to make one statement first of all. I think that you are all aware that the vast majority of Canadians have lost confidence in their political representatives. Our analysis of the briefs submitted to the Royal Commission showed that many Canadians have a fairly negative opinion of their political representatives.
.1710
I believe that this is the real issue with which you have to grapple. You should not think primarily of the steps that need to be taken to enhance the public's image of politicians by means of a code of ethics. It seems to me that the scope of your mandate is much broader and your mandate is much more demanding. In fact, you must consider the concrete steps that must be taken to ensure that the practices of politicians in this country are no longer the object of democratic debate and that they cause as little damage as possible to the democratic ideal that informs our institutions.
A code of ethics is certainly one of these possible steps, but you know as well as I do that it will not solve all the problems you have to consider in attempting to clean up the actions of politicians.
Therefore, it is important, if you want to adopt a code of ethics, to engage in a much broader reflection on the meaning of your actions and the values you intend to advocate individually and collectively in order to meet the legitimate expectations the public has of you and to respect the democratic ideal that forms the basis of our political system. This type of reflection depends on ethics.
We feel it is important to distinguish among the terms morals, ethics, and codes of ethics. You can refer to our text.
Briefly, morals can be defined as the body of rules that guide human beings in their understanding of good and evil and govern their individual and collective conduct in a particular society. Morals therefore refer to our duty. They answer the questions: What must I do? What must we do?
Ethics differ from morals in that they can be regarded as critical reflections on the rules and purposes that guide our individual and collective actions. Ethics are more of a reflective activity, a critical action that encourages us to determine what is the best purpose to be attained and to appreciate the relevance of the rules we must obey in order to attain this end.
Ethics force us in particular to consider our actions from four different perspectives, two of which are the practical point of view and the legal perspective, and the rules governing the practice.
What role do those rules play? They serve to make a certain number of our priority values operational. Thus, ethical reflection leads us to a critical examination both of the rules that frame and guide our actions and of the values we are trying to live up to, to embody and project through those rules.
Ethical reflection allows us to go much further, because values are somewhat - allow me to use the expression - like suitcases. You can pack anything into values. This is why ethical reflection is much more than reflection on values. It allows us, together, to reflect on the goals and concepts that we adopt.
In this case, how do we perceive democracy? How do we perceive political practices in order to truly bear witness to the democratic ideal that drives our political system and institutions?
.1715
You might say that morals and ethics are therefore both necessary, but they are necessary in two different manners. While the former provides us with rules and deals with duties, the latter, ethics, is more of a critical way of dealing with rules and duties.
The expression deontology was, as you know, coined by Jeremy Bentham in 1834. Bentham regarded this word as being synonymous with moral science. This definition is no longer used. Deontology is now defined as that part of morals that specifically applies to professional conduct or relates to a specific kind of social intervention.
In this context, ethics cannot be codified. In English it is different from the French. In English, one speaks of a code of ethics, whereas in French, the expression code of deontology is used more readily. If you share our definitions of morals and ethics, you will agree that ethics cannot be codified. Ethics cannot be encapsulated in a document, because it is more representative of creativity, responsibility, and it is much greater than a simple codification of the rules that govern our actions.
In light of these definitions, we feel that a code of ethics for politicians is pointless if it does not first and constantly refer those whose conduct it governs to requirements beyond those involved in the application, pure and simple, of a certain number of principles, rules and duties stated in lapidary style.
A code of ethics is not an end in itself or a document that can be waved around from time to time in order to gain public trust. On the contrary, it is an instrument serving the creativity and responsibility of those who refer to it, not in order to obtain more or less facile justifications for their conduct but to seek inspiration from the values in which they believe and to adhere to the demands made by those values.
First of all, we dealt with morals, ethics and codes of ethics. We made the distinction between morals and ethics, and codes of ethics and ethics, in that ethical reflection is much broader than moral reflection.
We would now like to draw your attention to three main pitfalls that must be avoided when drafting a code of ethics.
The first trap to be avoided is that of angelically high standards. If the standards are set too high, the goal of any code of ethics, which is to promote acceptable moral conduct on the part of politicians rather than to make them into models of virtue or saints, will not be achieved. That is not the goal of a code of ethics. The goal of a code of ethics is to ensure that politicians have acceptable moral behaviour.
Should the former approach be taken, it would provide a further factor justifying the cynicism some Canadians may feel toward a code of conduct drafted by MPs and senators for the purpose of winning back public trust. Angelically high standards are therefore the first pitfall to avoid.
As well, when I meet with professionals or people who deal with issues linked to codes of ethics - I don't know if you have ever looked at the codes of ethics governing professional organizations - it is immediately apparent that if we take this literally, we will think that we are dealing with people who are competent, honest and models of virtue. In the end, we realize that codes of ethics are tools and instruments that do not give rise to virtue, but do promote, necessarily and inevitably, responsible behaviour.
.1720
So, one of the first problems to avoid is that of overly high standards. The second problem is that of overregulation. An attempt to foresee all of the eventualities that must be covered by a code of ethics will result either in the adoption of formulas that are so finicky as to be unacceptable or in paralysis caused by the overabundance of rules, where the common sense and creativity required for any responsible action are stifled.
In our opinion, overregulation is certainly not the approach to take. Rather we must trust in the judgment and responsibility of the vast majority of men and women who become involved in politics.
In any event, a dishonest soul will always find ways to circumvent a statute, no matter how perfect the statute is. Laws and rules - and I think you will agree with me on this - do not create honesty, justice, integrity and truth. A code of ethics can only promote and preserve them in particular circumstances by always appealing to the moral sense of those whose activities they govern.
The second trap is therefore overregulation, finicky regulation that, eventually, leads us into a dead end.
The third trap into which you may fall is the creation of a code that is the result of pious wishes couched in such general terms that there is no real link to political practice.
In order to attain your objectives, you will have to achieve a happy balance in formulating principles that embody an ideal of behaviour, and specific rules that act as a yardstick for concrete actions.
There are therefore three traps to avoid: overly high standards, overregulation and pious wishes.
However, there is more. When dealing with issues such as yours, the relations among morals, ethics and politics are complex.
The principles governing individual conduct in intimate relationships are not altogether on the same plane, even though it is not possible to separate morals and ethics from politics, and this fact may well seriously harm the quality of democratic life.
On the one hand, it cannot be assumed that lies, corruption, insults and deceit are acceptable for "reasons of state" or justifiable in order to safeguard the interests of one's party. Nor is it possible to separate political behaviour from the moral rules that form the basis of life in a community.
On the other hand, even if we associate the quality of political life closely with that of social life, we cannot ignore the specific goings on in the political arena, where, under the cover of more or less worthy and narrow interests, the game of arbitrating disputes of all kinds is played out to further the common good and the principles and rules that govern our conduct in the private sphere cannot as a result always be relied upon to have the force required to overcome these conflicts.
This is yet another challenge that faces you as you attempt to draft a code of conduct. The specific rules that govern the private sphere cannot always be applied to the public sphere, especially regarding political behaviour.
Let us now deal with another issue. For the purpose of our discussion, we have identified three main moral issues that, in our opinion, you as politicians must face.
The first issue is not an easy one. How are three types of interests to be reconciled in political practice: one's personal interests, the interests of one's party and the interests of the people of Canada as a whole?
The weighty question of the commonweal or public interest requires ethical reflection that may accordingly favour a kind of inlghtened look at political practice.
.1725
Allow me to ask a question that is, to say the least, provocative. Can the public interest be anything more than a screen masking individual interests? Would these be the interests of those claiming to act in the public interest? At this point, I would like to quote the following relevant comments made on this point by Alphonse Riverin:
- ... public administrators are certainly rational but... this rationality consists above all, as is true
of the politician and any normal human being, in a pursuit of his or her personal interests
(survival, security, professional and social recognition, self actualization). These interests are
very worthy and important.
- And they will necessarily take precedence over the public interest. While it is true that the public
interest is sometimes better served as a result, it is necessary to see in this the spillover effect
rather than an initial motivation.
The first issue is therefore the following: how to reconcile one's personal interests, the interests of one's party and the interest of the community?
Examples of the second issue show up on a fairly regular basis here in Canada and elsewhere in the world. How, given one's moral convictions, can one adopt a responsible attitude in performing one's duties while still respecting the fundamental requirements of life in society - tolerance, nondiscrimination, respect for differences - values supporting the democratic ideal?
So, how to reconcile your deepest convictions and your political practice, in which the values of tolerance, nondiscrimination and respect for differences are present?
The third issue is the following: how, given the many demands made of politicians, can they maintain their integrity and honesty?
These are the three issues that we feel are quite important when it comes to drafting a code of ethics. How does one reconcile the three different types of interests? How does one take into account one's deepest convictions when playing, if you allow me to use the expression, the game of democracy? How do you maintain your integrity and your honesty when dealing with the many varied demands made of you?
The fifth point deals with the reasons why a group of people would use a code of ethics. We will present these reasons quickly. We can come back to them later if you feel this is necessary.
The first question would be to ask what a code of ethics is used for. It makes it possible, first of all, to affirm the values in which one believes individually or collectively. A code of ethics is designed to reflect values shared by a body of individuals in order to satisfy what are believed to be the expectations of the public. Therefore, a code of ethics makes it possible to affirm the values in which one believes individually or collectively.
A code of ethics expresses rules of conduct that are clearly based on an affirmation and promotion of these values that have been agreed upon.
A code of ethics constitutes a reference document. It enables those referring to it to take note of certain yardsticks or standards that must be taken into account to guide their actions and gestures and discharge their responsibilities.
Another aspect that must not be ignored is that a code of ethics provides those referring to it with a certain feeling of security. For some people whose activities are governed by a code of ethics, it may meet a need for security because they want a precise idea of the attitudes and behaviours expected of them in the performance of their duties.
.1730
A code of ethics promotes cooperation for those who require it. It therefore makes it easier to reach consensus, gives greater cohesion to the rules that govern our actions and gives greater credibility to those whose conduct it governs. This objective which allows a group to adopt a code of ethics is no doubt quite important and must be taken into consideration, but it should not be seen as the main reason.
Once we have established the main reasons that give rise to the adoption of a code of ethics, the next question deals with the reach of the code of ethics. In general there are two types of codes. There are codes that are in some manner legal instruments, that have legal scope, such as codes of ethics for professions. However there are also codes that are more like codes of honour, that do not have legal scope, but that are based on consensus, on a certain number of rules and standards shared by a specific group.
The sixth point that I ask you to consider deals with a topic that concerns you: do you require a code applying to all the Parliamentarians without exception? You know that such a code already exists for public office holders such as ministers, parliamentary secretaries, etc. Should we have one code that would apply to members of Parliament or senators as well as a code that would apply to public office holders such as ministers and parliamentary secretaries?
One single code? One code per office would undoubtedly make it possible to take specific account of the particular needs of those who are subject to it and include more concrete rules. However, there are considerable advantages to having a single code because it would bring greater cohesion to the rules applying to the various offices.
If you opt for a single code, it could nonetheless take into account the particular requirements of ministers or parliamentary secretaries. It would still be presented more uniformly and it might perhaps provide greater cohesion among the different sets of rules.
Yes, Suzanne.
Ms Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Unfortunately, Mr. Milliken and I will have to leave because the bell that calls us to vote is ringing. Would it be possible to continue this tomorrow morning or must you leave?
Mr. Fortin: Yes.
Ms Tremblay: There are 21 votes.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Oliver): Could you come back tomorrow morning at 9:00?
Ms Tremblay: Is it possible for you to remain until tomorrow morning?
Mr. Fortin: We had planned to leave at noon. I don't know if it will be possible to delay our departure. Do you think we could organize that, Suzanne?
Mr. Bruno Boulianne (professional researcher, Ethos Research Group): We leave at noon.
Ms Tremblay: If you must leave at noon...
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): That would give us a lot of time, because we can begin at 9:00 a.m. We will undoubtedly finish around 10:00 a.m. or 10:30 a.m.
Ms Tremblay: Did you arrive here by plane?
Mr. Boulianne: Yes, by plane.
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): If you leave here at 11:00 you won't have any problem getting to the airport by noon.
Senator Spivak (Manitoba): Yes, certainly.
Mr. Fortin: Fine.
Senator Spivak: Tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): Tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. It is possible that the vote might only take a half hour, but it is impossible to predict. If it takes an hour and a half or two hours...
.1735
That is all that we can do. We can reserve this room for tomorrow morning at 9:00 and we will continue to listen to your excellent presentation.
Senator Spivak: Yes, excellent.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Milliken): I hope that everyone will be able to come back.
The meeting is adjourned.