Committees / Reports
Conduct of Chair: signature on a report viewed as a conflict of interest
Debates, pp. 5990-1
Context
On May 1, 2003, John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast) rose on a point of order with respect to the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages presented to the House on April 30, 2003. The Report had requested that the House recommend to the Board of Internal Economy the reimbursement of legal costs incurred by the Chair of the Committee, Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa–Vanier), in the course of his intervention in Quigley v. Canada (House of Commons).[1] Mr. Reynolds argued that, in signing the Report, Mr. Bélanger had placed himself in a position of conflict of interest by directly endorsing a decision granting him personal monetary gain. Mr. Reynolds further alleged that the act of signing the Report had a “parliamentary consequence almost as effective as the Member’s vote” on a matter in which the Member had a direct pecuniary interest, in direct contravention of Standing Order 21. After hearing from another Member, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.[2] On May 2, 2003, Mr. Bélanger responded citing the 6th edition of Beauchesne’s Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, which explains that the signature of the Chair on a committee report serves only as an authentication on behalf of the committee rather than as an expression of the committee Chair’s own views with respect to the report’s contents. He assured the House that he had acted in full conformity with the rules and practices. (Editor’s Note: The meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages at which the Report was adopted was held in camera.[3]) The Speaker again took the matter under advisement.[4]
Resolution
The Speaker delivered his ruling on May 8, 2003. He noted that there was no suggestion that Mr. Bélanger stood to receive any monetary gain. The Speaker then declared that the signing of the report by the Chair of a committee is a routine practice that serves to validate the text presented to the House. The Speaker referred to Mr. Bélanger’s assertions that he had left the Chair and abstained from voting on a similar item at an earlier meeting of the Committee, and that there was no reason to believe that he had behaved any differently at a subsequent meeting held in camera. Accordingly, the Speaker concluded that based on the facts presented, Mr. Bélanger had not violated the provisions of Standing Order 21.
Editor’s Note
Standing Order 21 was deleted on October 4, 2004 with the adoption of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.[5]
Decision of the Chair
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on Thursday, May 1 by the hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast concerning the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
I would like to thank the hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast for raising this issue. I also wish to thank the hon. Leader of the Government in the House, and the hon. Members for Ottawa–Vanier and Acadie–Bathurst for their interventions on the matter.
The hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast raised concerns related to the decision of the Standing Committee on Official Languages to request that the Board of Internal Economy support the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Ottawa–Vanier, in his intervention in the Quigley v. Canada court case. The Committee motion, adopted on April 29, 2003 and reported to the House on April 30 reads as follows:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108, the Committee adopted the following motion:
It is resolved that the Standing Committee on Official Languages express its support for the initiative of Mauril Bélanger, MP (Ottawa–Vanier) in the Quigley v. Canada (House of Commons) case, and request the House of Commons suggest to its Board of Internal Economy to make available a maximum budget of $30,000 to cover a portion of the legal fees incurred by Mr. Bélanger for his role as intervener in this case.
First, the hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast argued that by signing the Report of the Committee, the hon. Member for Ottawa–Vanier placed himself in a position of conflict of interest by directly endorsing a decision that grants him a personal gain of $30,000.
Second, the House Leader for the Official Opposition suggested that the act of signing the Report can be equated with voting on a matter in which the Member has a direct pecuniary interest, thereby directly contravening Standing Order 21 which states:
No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested will be disallowed.
The hon. Member for Ottawa–Vanier responded to the charges laid against him on Friday, May 2. The Member indicated that in signing the Committee Report, he was only complying with the well-established practice of having the Chair authenticate a report on behalf of the Committee just prior to its being tabled in the House.
I have now reviewed the facts of the case and wish to make the following points. First, let me deal briefly with the matter of personal gain.
In the present case, I believe that it is important to note that the reimbursement is being recommended to the hon. Member for Ottawa–Vanier as a reimbursement for legal costs he incurred as a third party intervener. The funds are not, strictly speaking, a grant of money to the Member personally, though it must be admitted that, if no reimbursement is made, the hon. Member will have suffered a loss and so can be said to have a pecuniary interest in the matter. However, the Chair understands, as do all hon. Members, that there has been no suggestion that the hon. Member stands to receive any direct monetary gain.
Now let us consider carefully the very strict interpretation that has always been given to Standing Order 21 relating to conflict of interest. House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 194 states:
—the Standing Orders of the House provide that Members may not vote on questions in which they have direct pecuniary interests; any such vote will be disallowed. The pecuniary interest must be immediate and personal, and belong specifically to the person whose vote is contested.
Standing Order 21 is also quite explicit that the prohibition relates to voting. The hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast alleged that signing the Committee’s Report was tantamount to voting in favour of the contents and recommendations contained in the Report itself. The hon. Member for Ottawa–Vanier countered this argument by stating that the signing of the Report was only an authentification of it and not an endorsement. He quoted from Beauchesne’s 6th edition, citation 873 on page 241 to illustrate that the signing of a report by the Chair of a committee is an expected part of our practice:
The chairman signs only by way of authentification on behalf of the committee. Therefore, the chairman must sign the report even if dissenting from the majority of the committee.
I would further draw the attention of hon. Members to page 827 of Marleau and Montpetit where the role of committee Chairs is laid out in regard to the procedures for tabling reports. It states:
Reports to the House from the committee are signed by the Chair, who must ensure that the text presented in the House is the one agreed to by the committee.
There is not, as the hon. Member for Ottawa–Vanier pointed out, any suggestion either in our written rules or our practice that, in signing a report, the Chair takes a position for or against its contents. The signature merely attests that the contents of the report reflect the decisions of the committee.
With respect to the votes that took place during the Committee’s consideration and adoption of the Report, the hon. Member for Ottawa–Vanier refrained from disclosing how he had conducted himself during those votes, given that they were taken at an in camera meeting of the Committee.
However, he assured the House that he is very aware of the rules and has followed them to the letter. He pointed out that for a similar vote held at a public meeting of the Committee in February, he had left the Chair and abstained from taking part in the Committee’s decision making. He asserted that there was no reason for him to have behaved any differently during the vote to adopt the recommendations of the Sixth Report.
Taking all of the facts presented into account, your Speaker can see no foundation for a suggestion that the hon. Member for Ottawa–Vanier has violated the provisions of Standing Order 21 in any way.
Postscript
On May 12, 2003, Mr. Reynolds rose on a point of order with respect to a notice of motion on the Order Paper to concur in the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee, again alleging a pecuniary interest on the part of the Chair of the Committee.[6] The Speaker delivered his ruling on July 12, 2003, in which he noted that the Chair of Committee, in moving the motion, had informed the House that he would refrain from voting, thereby satisfying the provisions of Standing Order 21.[7] (Editor’s Note: The report was not concurred in.[8])
Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact accessible@parl.gc.ca.
[1] Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented to the House on April 30, 2003 (Journals, p. 716).
[2] Debates, May 1, 2003, pp. 5714-5.
[3] Standing Committee on Official Languages, Minutes of Proceedings, April 29, 2003, Meeting No. 21.
[4] Debates, May 2, 2003, pp. 5762-3.
[6] Debates, May 12, 2003, pp. 6095-6.
[7] Debates, June 12, 2003, pp. 7178-9.