The Daily Program / Daily Proceedings

Oral Questions: Members’ power to discuss matters currently under investigation by Ethics Commissioner

June 7, 2005

Debates, pp. 6737-8

On June 6, 2005, the Speaker informed the House that he had received a letter from the Ethics Commissioner, Bernard Shapiro, with respect to an inquiry into alleged breaches of conduct in exchanges between Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health) and Gurmant Grewal (Newton–North Delta), in which he reminded Members that, pursuant to section 27(5) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, once a request for an inquiry has been made, they should not comment on a matter currently under consideration by the Ethics Commissioner. The Speaker indicated that he would be enforcing this policy with respect to both questions and answers.^[1]

This statement elicited a number of responses. Randy White (Abbotsford) asked whether this prohibition extended to comments and discussion outside the House, to which the Speaker replied that his role was to deal with issues that came before the House. Ken Epp (Edmonton–Sherwood Park) suggested that it was inappropriate for the Ethics Commissioner, who was named in the exchanges at issue, to be involved in conducting the enquiry, to which the Speaker replied that the Member could raise these concerns with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood–Transcona) invoked section 72.05(5) of the Parliament of Canada Act, arguing it was in conflict with the Code by stating: “this section shall not be interpreted as limiting in any way the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of the House of Commons or its Members”. He asked for clarification and guidelines from the Speaker as to his expectations of Members in such matters. In response to why certain questions on the matter had been allowed, the Speaker indicated that he had permitted only those questions narrowly focused on the actions of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, since that individual was outside of the authority of the Ethics Commissioner. The Speaker informed Members that he would return to the House with a more detailed ruling.^[2]

On June 7, 2005, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He explained that the power of the Chair with regard to the Ethics Commissioner’s work is very limited. When informed that an inquiry has begun, he would communicate this information to the House and endeavour to enforce a moratorium on comments about the issues under inquiry but that his power does not extend outside of the House. The Speaker also declared that the adoption of relevant amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons should be construed as a decision by the House to be governed by the Ethics Commissioner in certain matters and that the restraint incumbent upon Members in this regard was akin to that associated with the sub judice convention. He added that he had no power to address the issue of a potential conflict of interest on the part of the Ethics Commissioner himself.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: After Question Period yesterday several hon. Members rose on points of order related to the statement I had made before Question Period relating to the inquiry now undertaken by the Ethics Commissioner concerning the hon. Member for Newton–North Delta and the hon. Minister of Health.

I would like to respond to these points of order with one single statement, which I will make as promptly as possible, given its immediate repercussions on the way hon. Members will handle these matters in the days to come.

The power of the Chair with regard to the Ethics Commissioner’s work is very limited. Informed by the Commissioner that an inquiry has begun under his terms of reference, I will then formally communicate that information to hon. Members so that they may govern themselves accordingly.

As I said yesterday, I will then do my best within the purview of my authority to enforce the moratorium on comments about the issues under inquiry, as requested by the Commissioner and as stipulated in our Standing Orders. That purview does not go beyond the proceedings here in the Chamber and perhaps those in committee when they are reported back to the House by committee.

I can offer no solace to the hon. Member for Abbotsford or the hon. Member for Delta–Richmond East with regard to what might go on beyond this Chamber, nor does the Speaker have any mechanism to address the worry voiced by the hon. Member for Edmonton–Sherwood Park about a possible conflict of interest faced by the Ethics Commissioner himself.

The hon. Member for Elmwood–Transcona cited section 72.05(5) of the Parliament of Canada Act, which provides an express protection against the work of the Commissioner “limiting in any way the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of the House of Commons or its Members”.

I agree entirely with the hon. Member. However, as I see it, in adopting those amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act along with the Conflict of Interest Code that is now included in our Standing Orders, the House decided to be governed by the Ethics Commissioner in certain matters.

Part of that discipline, it appears to me, is akin to the House abiding by the sub judice convention: when a matter is before a court, the House will await the determination of the court before discussing that matter publicly in the course of its proceedings.

Similarly, when issues are the subject of an inquiry under the mandate of the Ethics Commissioner, Members are enjoined from discussing those issues, so that the inquiry can proceed untrammelled by public comment from Members.

The Speaker has no control over what goes on outside the House, in the media here in the capital, or in Members’ own ridings. That is left to each Member to manage as a matter of conscience. The rules have been drawn to the attention of the House. I would hope that hon. Members will be mindful of them in their conduct outside the Chamber.

I know that these are difficult issues for all hon. Members and they do not admit of simple solutions. The system may not be a perfect one, but it is the system the House has adopted as part of its Standing Orders and upholding those Standing Orders is the responsibility of your Speaker.

I would ask for the cooperation of all hon. Members to ensure that our work can be carried out with the seriousness and fairness that Canadians expect of us.

I thank the House for its attention and hope this clarifies the matters raised by hon. Members yesterday.

The Grewal-Dosanjh Inquiry was released in January 2006. As this was after the dissolution of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament, it was officially tabled in the House soon after the opening of the Thirty-Ninth Parliament.^[3]