The Daily Program / Daily Proceedings

Oral Questions: Member’s conflict of interest

October 20, 2005

Debates, pp. 8804-5

On October 20, 2005, Jay Hill (Prince George–Peace River) rose on a point of order with respect to the Speaker ruling out of order a question asked by Pierre Poilievre (Nepean–Carleton) during Oral Questions on October 19, 2005. The question concerned alleged irregularities in the activities of the firm run by the family of David Smith (Pontiac). In his ruling, the Speaker had referred to Section 27(5) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.^[1] Mr. Hill argued that, as it was the Member himself who had solicited an opinion from the Ethics Commissioner, such inquiries are covered under Section 26 of the Code. Accordingly, there was no investigation under way and there were no restrictions governing the asking of questions in the House with respect to the alleged conflict of interest.

The Speaker ruled immediately. He stated that it was indeed Section 26 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons which applied to the action of Mr. Smith in seeking an opinion from the Ethics Commissioner and therefore there was no specific rule proscribing Members from raising the matter in the House. Having said this, he urged all Members to be judicious in their language with regard to such matters. He reminded them that questions should deal with Government business, and not the responsibilities of another Member under the Code. Finally, the Speaker made reference to Standing Order 18 which prohibits the use of offensive words against the House or any Member.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I thank the hon. House Leader for the Opposition and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government for their interventions on this matter. I was going to say something on the issue anyway before the issue was raised. I will say it now.

Yesterday during Question Period, this matter was alluded to in a question by the hon. Member for Toronto–Danforth. The Government House Leader replied, as indicated in the comments earlier, that the hon. Member had asked the Ethics Commissioner “to look into this matter” and asked for Members to refrain from referring to the case until the work had been completed.

Later in Question Period, the Chair reminded Members of section 27(5) of the Ethics Code in Appendix 1 of the Standing Orders that enjoins Members from referring to an inquiry being conducted under that section.

I now understand that a request made by an hon. Member to the Ethics Commissioner to clarify his obligations under the Code is mandated under section 26 of the Code, which governs opinions sought from the Commissioner.

Accordingly, I wish to clarify that there is no specific rule proscribing Members from raising this matter in the House. However, I urge them to be judicious in their language and the phrasing of any such reference.

I remind them that the questions that are asked about this must deal with Government business and Government responsibilities, and not the responsibilities of the hon. Member under the Code. He cannot be questioned on this matter in the House during Question Period because questions must be directed to Ministers and must deal with matters of ministerial Government responsibility.

I know that all hon. Members would want to avoid a situation where, in the heat of the moment, they would find themselves contravening Standing Order 18 which specifically prohibits the use of offensive words and I quote:

—against either House, or against any Member thereof.

I think that will deal with the matter. We could now move on to Orders of the Day.