Legislative Assembly of Ontario

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

CONTENTS

Tuesday 14 May 1991

Subcommittee report

Conflict-of-interest guidelines

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)

Vice-Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West L)

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP)

Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)

Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)

Mills, Gordon (Durham East NDP)

Poirier, Jean (Prescott and Russell L)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

Wilson, Fred (Frontenac-Addington NDP)

Winninger, David (London South NDP)

Clerk: Freedman, Lisa

Staff: Swift, Susan, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1644 in room 228.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

The Chair: I would like to call our meeting to order. The first item of business is the report of the subcommittee.

"Your subcommittee met on Thursday 2 May 1991 and agreed to the following:

"1. Public hearings on Bills 7 and 8 will commence on Tuesday 28 May 1991 after routine proceedings with witnesses to include the sponsor of the bill, the Minister of Health and the Attorney General. Hearings will continue on Monday 3 June 1991 and Tuesday 4 June 1991 after routine proceedings and throughout the evening. Hearings and clause-by-clause will conclude on subsequent Mondays and Tuesdays following routine proceedings.

"2. Expenses for out-of-town witnesses will be reimbursed if the witness so requests.

"3. The clerk will, at her discretion, schedule groups and expert individuals for up to one half-hour and individuals for 15 minutes."

Any discussion on the report?

Mr Fletcher: In the sentence "Hearings will continue on Monday 3 June and Tuesday 4 June 1991 after routine proceedings and throughout the evening," what does "throughout the evening" mean? Seriously. Are we looking at 6 o'clock, 7 o'clock?

Clerk of the Committee: What we are essentially looking at is really from 3:30 until 6 o'clock, taking a break -- there will be dinner brought in -- until 7 or 7:15, and going until about 9:30.

Mr Poirier: Throughout the evening on just Tuesday 4 June only?

Clerk of the Committee: No, on Monday 3 June and Tuesday 4 June.

Mr Poirier: Both days?

Clerk of the Committee: Both days, yes.

Mr Poirier: Okay. It is not too clear. For just both of these days and not for any of the other days afterwards?

Clerk of the Committee: No. Then we will just schedule people during our normal time until we finish, which should be about two more sessions.

Mrs Mathyssen: So the expectation is that we will be finished with our review of the conflict-of-interest guidelines by Monday 27 May? Will we have concluded that part of our work?

The Chair: That is the expectation, I believe. Yes, that is the agenda that we had set out. It is hoped that we can at least commence with the conflict-of-interest guidelines this afternoon.

Mr Poirier: Mr Chairman, are you satisfied with the report of the subcommittee after our discussion of yesterday? Are you comfortable with that?

The Chair: Certainly.

Mr Poirier: Okay. I just wanted to know.

The Chair: All in favour of accepting the report? So accepted.

1650

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

The Chair: Moving on to the conflict-of-interest guidelines, you have before you the additional work that Susan did on the weekend. She likes that mentioned, the hard work that she put in over the weekend in preparation for Monday.

A couple of things have been suggested. One is that we can read the report as we go along, section by section, and add comments or suggest deletions. The clerk reminds me that, I believe, Mr Cooke from Kitchener was of the practice of reading into the record those parts of the report that were relevant. I do not think that is necessary. I think we can all read for ourselves. We can simply take a little time to refresh ourselves on these sections and then add commentary, additions, deletions, starting with part I on page 2.

Mr Poirier: I could save the committee a lot of trouble by just answering, "Purpose -- Are the Guidelines Necessary?" You just answer no and complete the work of the committee right now. You may be grateful to me for the rest of your parliamentary life.

Mr Mills: What did you say?

Mr Poirier: Part I, "Purpose -- Are the Guidelines Necessary?" I could just answer no right now, we all vote in favour, it is unanimously no and we could just stop it right there and save ourselves a lot of problems and time.

The Chair: Are we ready to discuss part I, the section headed "Purpose -- Are the Guidelines Necessary?" Are we ready to discuss those? Mr Poirier has a recommendation.

Mr Poirier: That is right.

The Chair: I think that, along with Mr Poirier's suggestion, perhaps we could simply scratch out, "Are the Guidelines Necessary?" and just leave it in as "Purpose."

Mr Poirier: I will, throughout the report, want to reiterate to you that I strongly oppose the guidelines and I would like to report to my friends on the committee that I will do that in a constructive sense. From what we have seen happen since the last meeting when we discussed whether the guidelines were necessary or not, I think my friends and I have seen maybe a bit of the reasons why. I respectfully submit to you that they are not necessary. In fact, it is nice in principle to tighten them, but I will throughout this report demonstrate to you again my thorough opposition to this, but in a very constructive, friendly way.

The Chair: Are we ready to discuss the first section, on "Purpose"?

Mr Poirier: How did you want to do that, Mr Chair?

The Chair: I would suggest section by section, with additions or deletions.

Mr Poirier: Paragraph by paragraph? As opposed to looking at a whole series of paragraphs all together -- this is how I have seen it done before -- we might take it paragraph by paragraph, and if nobody has anything to say, then we proceed to the next one. Would everybody be comfortable with that?

The Chair: Okay, the first paragraph after the heading of part I.

Mr Mills: We feel that the purpose of the guidelines -- and they are necessary -- is to preserve the public's confidence in elected officials. We have got to do this by striking a balance between what is necessary to establish the highest degree of integrity in the political process and the need to be practical and reasonable in recognizing the diversity of interest of those people who come to political life. We therefore recommend that we amend, as one of the guidelines, to include all MPPs.

The Chair: You are suggesting the guidelines include all MPPs.

Mr Mills: Yes, because the purpose is to preserve the integrity of elected politicians per se.

The Chair: Why do we not include that as a suggested recommendation? But prior to getting to those specific committee recommendations, we were to be looking paragraph by paragraph.

Are we in agreement with the substance of what Mr Mills has written? Are there changes to that? Mr Poirier has recommended that we omit "Are the Guidelines Necessary" and have simply "Purpose."

Mr Poirier: I think the title is quite apropos. I mean, obviously the question is raised, "Are the Guidelines Necessary." My friends in the government party believe yes, I and others in the opposition believe no, and I think both of us are very sincere in this.

I mean, you are new, you are coming in and I believe you are sincere in what you are saying, but I know that from what is said here -- and it is quite true -- public confidence in politicians and government is at a record low across the country. That is quite factually correct. The question we are all looking at is what must or should be done to bring it back up again.

From what you have heard from the witnesses, virtually all of the witnesses argued vigorously that this perception was erroneous. Nowhere at any time did you hear those who had served -- and I think when they came forward, they were very sincere about this -- at no time did you hear them say they had seen that. I have been here for six and one half years; I have not seen that.

I want to put it on record for your perusal now, as this will probably go through; also for your consideration later on, and I say this very sincerely. From what I have seen of the public perception of us, obviously it is at a record low, high cynicism. But they will never stop making demands as to how much you throw away to appear to be completely transparent. They will never stop, especially if somebody is cynical. Do you want to deal with somebody cynical? Do you want somebody cynical to impose the limits or norms or criteria for your level of integrity? I would not.

You have to make your own judgement as to how much integrity you personally have. I still believe, with all due respect again, that the guidelines you are bringing forward are overkill and will not satisfy those cynical people. I honestly believe that, and to the point that it will do unnecessary damage, I think, to what some people -- no matter which party; it is not a party thing whatsoever -- have spent maybe a lifetime to get together as a small investment.

I honestly do not think you will satisfy and correct the cynicism of those people by doing that. The law as we had it before, if it was well and strongly applied the way I think your government could have continued to apply it, would have been more than sufficient, because when you look at the integrity also of Justice Evans to look into this, and I will be the first one to mention it, if any member had gone against that law the way we had it, hit him or her hard, and hit that person good, whack the heck out of that person -- you have not seen it yet and, from all of the evidence that you heard, nobody had seen it. I have not seen it and I doubt you would see it, because they would stand to lose too much and I think Justice Evans would have been tough with anybody going astray from that law.

I respected the law the way our past government brought it forward. Some people who are very cynical would come up to me and state some very cynical things about all politicians in general, or myself in particular; it does not matter. Because if you are cynical against one, you are probably cynical against all of us. As I have said to you and many others, what I see happening in the House, we all fall and splatter mud on all of our 130 faces, not just the Tories, the government party or the Liberals.

I tell these people: "How much do you want me to be on my knees and divest myself of everything and get rid of everything for you to finally get a perception that we are even more honest than we could be with the previous law? How much would you want me to do?"

When you have to deal with cynical people, there will be no limit to what they will ask of you. I reach my own limit. When you go to bed at night, you are going to bed with your own conscience. Have you respected the law, or whatever guidelines we will finally end up adopting?

Even with these, I honestly do not think the cynical people are going to be satisfied with that. I honestly and respectfully submit that you are catering to the cynical by adding these unnecessary guidelines of overkill that are going to limit the economic welfare of the members coming forward to sit here, and it will not accomplish, unfortunately, what I think you expected these guidelines to accomplish.

I find that sad because, if we should do something, no matter which law we bring forward, no matter who brings it forward, you would hope that what you bring forward is going to have the desired result, that what you aim to do is what you actually get and that the people perceive that what you brought forward as a law will do what you think it is going to do. And this will not do it.

I want this for the record, for you to consider later on. I know you may not believe me now, but I submit that to you. Whip it out, bring it forward five years hence or four years hence, and you will see that this will not improve what you think it is supposed to improve.

But I want it to go down -- and I submit it to you, my friends. I respect all of you very much although you are of a different party, but I offer this most sincerely. It will not do what it is supposed to do.

1700

Mr Fletcher: I tend to agree with my friend sitting across from me that the public perception of politicians can be ruined by what is done in another province, in another country, and people will continue to say that politicians are all the same. I also believe that there have to be rules. Even though I personally think that maybe these rules go a bit too far, are a bit too strict, I still agree there have to be some rules that we must set up in order to at least try to give the appearance, if nothing else, that we are trying to make it so politicians are not looked on in disfavour all the time.

As I said before, I think they are a little stringent and a little tough, but from what has gone on in the past -- and I am not throwing blame on any previous government or any previous politicians, but it has happened. This happened with people in our party in different provinces and elsewhere. We have to, I think, let people see that at least in Ontario we are willing to take a step that other provinces and other governments have not taken, and that step is to make it tough so we can in some way, shape or form show we are trying to be an honest and open government and also that the members of this Legislature, no matter which side of the House they sit on, are all going to live by the same rules and all be open to public scrutiny. For that reason I can support, for the time being, what Mr Mills has said as far as all members are concerned. For the time being. But if they prove to be too strict, and if they prove to be too cumbersome, perhaps it would be a time to come back and look at these guidelines we are passing.

Mrs Mathyssen: My point is simply that I think as politicians we are very much subjected to innuendo and the public perception that we may not always have public service in mind. I think if we create a guideline, something that is concrete, something people can look at and see that yes, there is a will to create a set of guidelines that will not just help the public understand what is acceptable and what is not, but also be a guideline for ministers and PAs -- because I have a sense that right now there is this sort of shadowy uncertainty. I think that a concrete and very, very clear and specific outline of what we expect from our leaders would help to make us free of those shadows and free of that innuendo.

I would say quite simply that the purpose of the guideline will go a long way in giving us something concrete that we can hang our hat on and say, "This is the guideline," and that people will feel very good about that. I think the ultimate purpose will be fulfilled by the very act of creating something concrete.

Mr White: I do not want to speak at length on this issue, but there is one point I wanted to bring out which I think is a little absent in terms of the negative public image of politicians. It is that there is often a confusion between someone who has an obvious conflict of interest between his or her public and private roles, and someone who is not necessarily adhering to conflict-of-interest guidelines, which we have seen recently. I think in the press there is a lack of distinction between those two quite separate phenomena and I think that distinction needs to be brought out. Very clearly, while someone may have property, that does not mean they necessarily have a conflict of interest. That distinction is not at all made or has certainly not been made in the last several months in the press.

The Vice-Chair: Before I go to Mr Mills, I would basically like to explain some of the process that might help us in working with this, because if we keep going at the rate we are going now, we probably will not finish section 1. If we could take it paragraph by paragraph, and if there are any changes you would like to add to Susan's paragraph per se, so speak at that moment. But at the end of that, where it does say "discussion," if we can discuss what we want to discuss at that point, then we can get through this piece of literature, if you would not mind, please.

Mr Mills: I would just like to clarify why I said what I did. It is because the public unfortunately has a most peculiar perception of what is a conflict and what politicians should or should not be. I think they do not really understand what is really going on. I think if we had these guidelines and we toughened them up a bit, it would enable the public to come to grips and understand what it is all about and thereby take the politicians out of the fishbowl. I know that when I was elected I was terrified to do anything, and I have spoken before here. I bought a new car and I hid it in the garage because I was scared to bring it out, because the public perception is that I had done something or got something, and only recently have I been brave enough to take it out and drive it. That is what I am saying. If we could put everything up front, so that all the people knew, that would help to take the politicians out of that focus, out of the fishbowl. I agree with a lot of your thoughts, believe you me. It is very well taken.

The Vice-Chair: If we can please move on to paragraph 1, are there any changes or deletions or add-ons to paragraph 1, the one that starts with "Public Confidence"? Understand this, please, that once we move by this paragraph, that is it.

Mr Poirier: In the third line from the bottom of the paragraph: "In their many years of experience the witnesses, all but two of whom are or have been politicians, found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the individuals elected are honourable." I seem to have been here for their testimony, most of them. It says "in the overwhelming majority of cases." I do not think there were any cases they described where they were not honourable.

Ms Swift: Subject to correction, it seems to me that several of the witnesses were not categorical. They did not say, for example, in absolutely no situation whatsoever have there been any improprieties. They have said "by and large," or "the vast majority," or "it has been my experience, although I may not know all the cases, certainly within my experience, and I have met only honourable people."

Mr Poirier: Conversely, there was nobody who said there was at least one case where they thought so. Nobody had a record of this.

Ms Swift: Certainly no one pointed out any case or identified any case that they were aware of.

Mr Poirier: Is there another way we could say it that would reflect more precisely what was said?

Ms Swift: You mean more inclusively?

Mr Poirier: More inclusively, because to me, I try to put myself in the layperson's shoes. I read this, "found that in the overwhelming majority of cases." What does it also tell you? It also tells you that there were some cases, some of them were.

Ms Swift: I think factually that may be true. There may be incidents of impropriety, for example, across the country. Maybe Vander Zalm might be some example or in Nova Scotia there might have been some improprieties, I do not know. You said in absolutely no case, and that may not be accurate either.

Mr Poirier: It may not be, I agree with you.

Ms Swift: I do not think you want to say in "most;" you want to make it sound more than that.

1710

Mr Poirier: Yes, because as a tribute to those of all three parties who were here at the time these witnesses were here -- and we are talking about 15 or 20 years; we are talking six and a half for me -- as a tribute to those who were here and in a position to see that, who did not see anything, that none of us can recall having brought forward, nothing has ever been shown for members not to be honourable. If there could be found another way -- and of course, there might have been elsewhere in other provinces, but I think for this report, if you people want to bring stricter guidelines, obviously it can only apply to the Ontario situation.

I will be darned if we are going to be held responsible for what may have happened in other provinces. Sometimes we wish we could so that our image could not suffer as much, but we cannot, we will not and we should not be responsible for other provinces. Let the other legislatures take care of their own business. We are talking about Ontario politicians. We are talking about the Ontario Legislature. We have interviewed Ontario witnesses who talk about the Ontario Legislature, past, present and we are looking at the future. I just wish there were another way of saying in English, to translate more faithfully, with all due respect, what they had not seen.

Ms Swift: Okay. One suggestion has been that you just take out the words, "in the overwhelming majority of cases," so it would read, "all but two of whom have been politicians, found that the individuals elected to public office are." Do you prefer that?

Mr Poirier: Yes, I think that would be more respectful, in that we are looking for one, but we have not even found one. We never discussed one case. Would my friends be agreeable to that?

The Vice-Chair: Does everybody agree to that?

Mr Mills: I tend to agree with that. It suits me. It makes sense.

Mr Poirier: It represents the truth of what was heard.

Mrs Mathyssen: How about using the word "believed"? "All but two of whom believed that individual" --

Mr Poirier: Yes. I am comfortable with that. I do not want that report to cater to people who are cynical and who claim that we are not honourable people, because some people may read this report and try to find some -- as we say in French, that we have fleas about this. But I do not want them to find it, because we have not heard. I am firmly convinced that the witnesses who came forward were very sincere, and they could have had 20 years to find one that was not honourable, and they could not name one.

I think this report and the law we had before -- if you people want to bring these guidelines forward, we are innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around. You will see that you will be challenged on that on a continuous basis by some very cynical members of society. Do not ever forget, we are honourable first, and we are innocent until the contrary is proven.

It reminds me of a particular situation in my first years as a politician. I would do six to seven places on a Saturday night, 300, 350 kilometres on a Saturday night. It was always when you would get to the seventh place that you would find some drunkard who would come up to you at 1 o'clock in the morning and say: "Where the hell have you been hiding? We never see you." So they get the perception that you are not to be seen; that you are invisible; that you do not circulate; that you are not present. Yet you have just done seven places on Saturday night, and it seemed the more you did six or seven places, the more you would be subject to a drunk come up to you and tell you: "You are always hiding. We never see you. Where the hell have you been?"

What you are trying to do with the guidelines reminds me of that. You are very well intentioned, and if I did not know better, I would go along with you. But with all due respect, after my six and a half years during which I have been told to my face and heard things like that, you are doing some overkill. In five or six years hence, you will come up to me and say, and Derek will say that also, "You are right, that is unnecessary overkill," because no matter how strict and tight you will make them, you will still have some cynical people who say: "You politicians are all the same. You go in there and you will fill your damned pockets." Do as I do: ask your constituents what they perceive your salaries are, and get ready to fall on your buns, because it is not going to be $43,000 they are going to tell you. Believe me.

Mr Mills: Millionaires.

Mr Poirier: Millionaires, and even if you took these guidelines and applied them to your salary and you took your salary down to $20,000, they would still believe that you are making $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, or $120,000, as I have heard some of my people tell me I make. That is why I tell you, you are well intentioned, but you are squeezing the wrong person. You should be squeezing the cynics, not the members who are honourable members and innocent.

The Vice-Chair: Are there any other comments on paragraph 1? Seeing none, can we now move on to paragraph 2, please.

Ms Swift: "Found" is "believed," right?

The Vice-Chair: Yes. I will give you a moment to read paragraph 2. Mr White, do you have a comment about paragraph 2?

Mr White: My change is a very small one, and that is along the lines of Mr Poirier's suggesting that the guidelines -- I am not sure; the question of necessity is one thing, but I think what we should continually emphasize is that the guidelines, by and of themselves, are not the only way of restoring public trust. In fact, they are only one way. One would hope that they are effective, and I would simply like to include on the fourth line one single change, which is, "There was, however, substantial disagreement among the witnesses as to whether the guidelines are the appropriate way." Obviously what we are looking at is that these guidelines hopefully should do something in terms of restoration of public trust; however, they are not going to catch all of the cynicism that is out there in the public. We hope it will do something, but not everything.

The Vice-Chair: All in favour? Great. Okay. Any other comments on paragraph 2?

Mr Poirier: I have a question. Did I hear correctly that you wanted, "to impose upon cabinet and parliamentary assistants and all MPPs"? Did I hear somebody say that?

Mr Mills: Yes. I said that.

The Vice-Chair: Is that a proposal you are making, Gord?

Mr Mills: We are just thinking about it. That will be at the end.

Ms Swift: It is a section that comes later in the report. It is dealt with specifically later on.

Mr Poirier: Okay. If it does come later in the report, obviously we would have to come back to this point in this particular paragraph, the second-last line in that second paragraph, "to impose upon cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants." Right?

Mr Mills: Right.

Mr Poirier: Okay. I have a question for all of you. Have you been able to find out whether, if these guidelines are applied, if any of us owned a century farm, that person would have to divest himself or herself of that century farm?

Mr Mills: I do not think so.

Mr Poirier: Can any of you answer me?

Mr Fletcher: This goes into the next part of divestment and disclosure and the only part that could possibly answer that is "(a), any asset, liability or financial interest which causes or could appear to cause a conflict of interest, and (b) all business interests," with the exception of undue hardship. Losing a farm could be an undue hardship. That is the only way I can answer that, and that comes into the next section which we will be discussing.

Mr Poirier: Maybe we will get to that point. I really would like to discuss this because it is a very concrete example in that part. We will get to that part when we get to it, if it comes in later on.

The Vice-Chair: Any other comments on paragraph 2? Seeing none, can we now move on to paragraph 3, please.

Mr White: I would like to suggest that on paragraph 3, the point I was making before about the lack of public distinction between a conflict of interest, which is where a public servant is or appears to be making a private gain from his or her public office, and a lack of adherence to conflict-of-interest guidelines. Obviously one may not be adhering to conflict-of-interest guidelines, but there may not be a conflict of interest.

The Vice-Chair: Do you have any changes to the paragraph?

Mr White: That is my addition.

1720

The Vice-Chair: Do you have any wording suggestions to paragraph 3 then, please?

Mr White: Okay. I will make it up as we fly along. "Recently it has become apparent that the issue of conflict of interest is a complex one and one which the public may not fully understand. For example, there is a lack of distinction between situations where there is a conflict of interest -- a real or potential gain for a politician's private interest from his public office -- and the adherence to conflict-of-interest guidelines, where there may not be any real private gain."

The Vice-Chair: All in agreement?

Mr Winninger: Is this based on some submissions that were made?

Mr White: I am simply referring to the coverage in the press where references were made to conflict-of-interest problems on the part of ministers when in fact there was not a conflict of interest. Elaine Ziemba did not have a major conflict of interest, you know.

Mr Winninger: With all due respect to Mr White, I would question why we would base an addition to that paragraph on something that was reported in the press.

Mr White: Because I think that is a reflection of the public perception.

Mr Poirier: The first line is, "The guidelines appropriately address public perception and the appearance of conflict." Susan, who do you claim is claiming that? I can understand the fact that some of you may believe that, but it is definitely not a unanimously held view.

Ms Swift: I believe it was Mr Wildman who made that assertion.

Mr Poirier: Okay. Because the way it is written down -- it says "because, according to one witness, in politics perception" -- it feels as if you are quoting that witness only for the second part of the sentence. That is the perception I get when I read that sentence.

Ms Swift: If that is true, that is not what I intended. We could change that, I suppose, just by taking the "according to one witness" and putting that at the front.

Mr Poirier: Yes. English may be my second language, but that is the perception I end up getting.

The Vice-Chair: There appears not to be total agreement on Mr White's addition.

Mr Fletcher: Could I have it read again, please?

Ms Swift: I could make a stab at it.

"Recently it has become apparent that the issue of conflict of interest is a complex issue and the public may not fully understand it. For example, the lack of distinction" -- I am missing something here -- "between a conflict of interest -- a real or potential" --

Mr White: I'm sorry, Susan. "There is a lack of distinction."

Ms Swift: Okay. "There is a lack of distinction between a conflict of interest -- a real or potential gain for a politician's private interest from his public office -- and the adherence to the conflict-of-interest guidelines, where there may not be any private gain."

Mr Poirier: What are you saying, Drummond?

Mr White: Again, with the example I was using before, I read in the media references to conflict-of-interest problems with this person or that person. What they are referring to is not a conflict of interest but their lack of total adherence to guidelines. So these people have not made any gains, they have not benefited personally, nor have their families benefited from their public office, but they are still in possession of a ma-and-pa store. There should be a distinction between whether one is in adherence to guidelines and whether one has made actual profit from having a public office. That distinction is not made in the public's perception, or certainly not in the journalist's perception.

Mr Poirier: I hope you guys are not bringing forward guidelines to satisfy the people from the media, because you will never satisfy them.

Mr White: No, that is exactly what I am saying.

Mr Poirier: The second point is, suppose you get rid of everything, as per your guidelines, you do not own a damned thing. When we can see other politicians elsewhere who have profited, it is not necessarily because they have had shares or owned something. If somebody wants to slide something in your pocket and you are willing to accept it, you may not own a darned thing in the world but if you want to accept that $10,000 they may want to slide in your pocket you are still making a profit. That is what I am telling you. It is not going to change. If somebody wants to be dishonest about it, even if they get rid of every damned thing, according to your strict guidelines, there is still the pocket. But we have never seen it; we have never had concrete proof of any of this happening here in God knows when, according to our witnesses, and I know they are telling the truth.

If they are going to be dishonest about it, they will, no matter how much they own. I think of some of the wealthier members in the House, from what I have seen of them, having worked closely with them, they are very honourable people to the point that I have asked them, "Why are you doing this, for Pete's sake?" Most of the members here are actually losing money as opposed to making more money than before. That is not my case, but I have come to realize that most people are losing money. That is a fact; not an opinion, a fact. If the opinion out there is that we are making more than before, well, whose fault is it? Even if you did this on a volunteer basis with no salary whatsoever, there would still be the cynical few who would think you are making a fortune at this.

The Vice-Chair: Mr White, because what we are reading here is what Susan White has --

Mr White: We are not that close.

Ms Swift: It is out, oh no.

Mr Poirier: You were not too swift.

The Vice-Chair: Susan Swift, I apologize -- what Susan Swift has got from the witnesses, possibly what you are asking us to add on might be better under discussions and recommendations than under a certain paragraph.

Mr White: If that were the case, perhaps we could amplify it a little so it is clear, but I am sure I could leave that to Susan's good skills.

The Vice-Chair: Now that we have moved on, is there any further discussion on paragraph 3? Seeing none, can we now move on to paragraph 4, please.

Mr Winninger: I have no objections to this paragraph.

Mr Poirier: I like what I have read in it so far.

Mr Mills: I like that. I never thought you would be satisfied with anybody.

Mr Poirier: That is because no matter what you will do you will never, ever satisfy the cynics.

Mr Mills: I agree that you will never satisfy them.

Mr Fletcher: Looking at the last sentence, the guidelines may even serve, "On the assumption that politicians will participate in improprieties unless the strongest rules...." Can we change that "will" to "may."

Ms Swift: Yes.

Mr Fletcher: "Will" sounds like we are going to. "May" means we may not.

The Vice-Chair: Is everybody okay with that change?

Mr Poirier: Should that be in there? I do not understand that last sentence. What are you trying to do with it, please?

Mr Fletcher: Changing the word "will" to "may." In fact, I am going to change quite a few of the "wills" to "mays" throughout this whole thing. "Will" is a bit too strong.

Mr Poirier: Yes, but where does that come from, Susan, the last sentence? Are you again quoting other witnesses?

Ms Swift: That is attributing it specifically to Mr Sweeney. That was Mr Sweeney's remark; I remember that one quite clearly.

1730

Mr Poirier: Maybe we should repeat that this was a witness's opinion, okay? If you are going to be quoting witnesses, you have to repeat it all the time. Unless you do that, it appears that this is what the committee thinks. There may be some places where the committee thinks something and that will be clear, I guess.

Ms Swift: Yes. It was just stylistic that the sentence preceding it said he was arguing. The sentence before that said one witness suggested. But certainly I can make that attribution clear.

Mr Poirier: You could start the sentence by saying, "Another witness feared that the guidelines," right? That would be factually correct. Would you be agreeable with that sentence, to start the last sentence by saying, "Another witness feared that the guidelines" -- ?

Mrs Mathyssen: Or "this witness."

Ms Swift: It was actually a different witness from the statement preceding it.

The Chair: That sounds good. Can we have that amendment built in?

Ms Swift: Yes.

The Chair: Any further discussion on that paragraph?

Mr Poirier: Yes. How about that aspect of, "politicians will participate in improprieties?" Did I not hear you, Derek, mention "may?"

Mr Fletcher: "May." Going back to page 3 of the other one, what Mr Sweeney did say is instead it should be assumed that improprieties could occur and ways to deal with it if it does occur.

Mr Poirier: Are you talking about this paragraph here?

Mr Fletcher: This is the other page that has the witnesses.

Mr Poirier: Okay. All right.

The Chair: Are we then in accord with that paragraph, as amended? Fine. Moving on, guidelines. Again, we are talking about essentially the purpose issue.

Mr Mills: We are going to come back and write the recommendations, are we, after each one, or are we going to do it after each part?

The Chair: I believe we should be looking at our discussion and recommendations further. What we have is essentially a summary of what the witnesses have said and not what our deliberations are. Recommendations? Discussion?

Mr Poirier: How about your point, Mr Chair, when you suggest that maybe we should discuss your point at the end here, the point that you wanted to bring forward. Did you want to have it brought forward at this moment or what?

The Chair: Susan, could you read that back in whatever form we have it?

Ms Swift: You have more confidence in me than is warranted, Mr Chair. This is as best as I can get it. "Recently, it has become apparent that the issue of conflict of interest is a complex issue and the public may not fully understand it. For example, there is a lack of distinction between a conflict of interest -- that is, a real or potential gain for a politician's private interest from his public office -- and the adherence to conflict-of-interest guidelines, where there may not be any private gain."

The Chair: Perhaps an extra sentence -- "plus there is a confusion between conflict of interest and conflict-of-interest guidelines."

Mr Fletcher: I am just wondering if we are here to make a distinction between the possibility of a conflict of interest or the perception of a conflict of interest. That may be in somewhere else down the road. I am not sure if it belongs in the purpose of the guidelines to make that distinction. I think the guidelines are trying to prevent the possibility of a conflict of interest, not to make a distinction between the possibility of a conflict of interest --

The Chair: I think what we are trying to do here is to look at the very specific question, "Are the guidelines necessary?" and if they are, as we have become aware, there are some areas where they are obviously necessary and other areas where they will not be able to catch all the public perception. So I think the issue is still relevant.

Mr Morrow: Is Mr White's add-on not covered or being covered in the guidelines Susan has written out?

Ms Swift: In the draft report? No, I do not think the issue has been addressed in that way. I do not make the distinction, and in fact my recollection of the evidence was that no witness made any distinction between compliance with the guidelines as opposed to having an actual conflict. That distinction was not made by the witnesses and is not made in the report.

The Chair: Why do we not just vote on whether you want to include that?

Mr Mills: I would vote that we leave it as it is.

Mr Morrow: I second that.

The Chair: Leave it out? Fine. Further recommendations?

Mr Morrow: Mr Mills moved something before that possibly he might want to add in now.

The Chair: I am not sure, because what we are looking at here is a summary. This is what the witnesses have said and this is the discussion we have heard. The committee feels X. We feel it is important, regardless of X or Y --

Mr Mills: To say something else.

The Chair: -- to have it, but what are our committee's recommendations here in terms of the purpose?

Mr Mills: And that point in time has not come, has it? That is now?

The Chair: Yes. "Are the Guidelines Necessary?"

Mr Poirier: I see two different things coming up now: committee discussion and committee recommendations. I presume we discuss first and then we make the recommendations. What you have summed up so far is what we have heard the witnesses say. What we have to insert here is our discussion among committee members as to what we feel about this, and then collectively we will make the recommendations after having finished the discussions. Right?

Ms Swift: That is true. I guess the way this meeting should be regarded is that it is in a sense the justification for the recommendation. "Having heard the evidence, the committee felt X, Y and Z and therefore, logically, recommends A."

Mr Poirier: Logically?

Ms Swift: Logically coming from Z to A, around again in circles. Yes, that is right. Exactly.

The Chair: How does the committee feel about "Are the Guidelines Necessary?"

Mr Morrow: I would add Gord's earlier motion now, at this point.

The Chair: After we hear what the committee feels.

Mr Poirier: Gord, what you wanted to bring forward was a recommendation, right? Maybe it would not be the time to do it now. First we do our discussion, and once we agree that we have finished our discussion, then you or any of us can bring forward recommendations. All right? Are you comfortable with that?

Mr Mills: Yes. I feel this committee has a responsibility to restore public confidence in government and I feel this can be done by including everybody in these guidelines. Why I say that is that it says here, "In order to restore public confidence in government, it is necessary to impose upon cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants more stringent standards of conduct," etc. I think that falls short of the mark. We only have to look around at this government, which has 74 members, to see that it does not take long before everybody is involved either in the cabinet or as a parliamentary assistant. We see that happening now; somebody could come into this government as a backbencher or a member with no particular duties and then suddenly, through the numbers game, have it thrust upon him that he is now a parliamentary assistant. What I am saying is that if there is a guideline applicable to some members of the government, why should that guideline not be applicable to everybody, based upon the fact that we now have 74? I believe in your last government you had some 90. Most of you, I presume --

Mr Poirier: God, no. Not when you are 94.

1740

Mr Mills: You did not. Well, you just look back. If the next government, heaven forbid, is of lesser numbers, everyone is going to be involved in something. I really do not quite understand why it is necessary to impose the stringent rules upon just cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants. I think the perception of the public is that all politicians, bar none, need watching. If we address that perception of the public by saying that all these guidelines are going to be applicable to everybody who is elected, the public hopefully will get the message and say that it applies to all. I realize there are cynics out there and we will never, never, never satisfy those people. I realize that. I do not look at anything too much. A guy said to me Saturday, "What's it like to be a millionaire?" It is crazy.

We must address and try to come to grips with that confidence by the public, which seems to be so sadly lacking. I think the shenanigans in the House this last couple of weeks reinforce this lack of confidence by the public, because people are fed up with politicians. I would like to be part of making some standards of conduct that will hopefully try -- and I am an optimist -- to improve that in the long run. That is why I am speaking to that.

The Chair: You have a recommendation. We have the germ of the resolution. I am wondering if we want to amplify upon that resolution.

Mr Mills: I can read the resolution if you want.

The Chair: No, no. I think it is transcribed.

Ms Swift: Yes, I have it. There is just one thing I wanted to mention, and this is just a structural thing you should think about if this is the recommendation you want to make now. In part II of the report, on page 9, I have structurally dealt with the idea of to whom the guidelines should apply. I have listed several classes of people that witnesses raised. If you want, I can certainly move this section or take it out of there. If the recommendation is to be made here at the beginning, we should deal with whether you want to conclude that now or what you want to do with that section, basically.

Mr Poirier: It would seem more appropriate that what you would like to bring forward would apply in that part II on page 9 rather than under the title "Are the Guidelines Necessary?"

Ms Swift: You may want to do it differently.

Mr Mills: It seems to me that perhaps we should do that.

The Chair: Mr Mills, are you in agreement with that?

Mr Mills: Yes. We are just going to ask for a couple of seconds here.

Mr Fletcher: I am just going back to the other section that was giving the summary of witnesses. On the question of whether the guidelines should be extended to apply to all members of the Legislature, Mr Rae had said: "Additional guidelines should apply to all members. However, complete divestiture could not and should not reasonably be expected to apply to all members. It would be unduly difficult and an undue imposition on a member."

Yes, I can understand the guidelines applying, but when we come to divestiture and disclosure perhaps that is where we can make a change so that there is not undue imposition on a member.

The Chair: Are you still referring to the section on page 9?

Mr Fletcher: Yes. That is why I agree with what Mr Mills has said.

The Chair: Do we have anything further in terms of discussion, recommendations with regard to this preamble or the purpose of the guidelines? Are they necessary?

Mr Mills: Yes.

Mr Fletcher: Yes.

Mr Poirier: With all due respect, I will have to have a dissenting opinion. They are thoroughly unnecessary. Even though you have not known me long enough, time will demonstrate clearly that they will not change the perception, because you cannot control that. Your own norms, your own integrity, you can control only those. No matter what you do, the perception will elude you. You will not control that and that is what you see happening in the House. What all three parties are doing in the House is going to splatter mud on all of our faces. There are many other ways than these stricter guidelines to reimpose public confidence in politicians.

By imposing these guidelines, and especially if you are going to have this aspect of undue hardship, where the person who will decide what is undue hardship will probably be called upon to make exceptions, if that person, whom I presume to be the Premier, makes one exception, what do you think the perception will be about why he is making an exception for that one person? That will be public knowledge.

Mr Mills: I think he is going to.

Mr Poirier: That is right. Would you want to be that one person the Premier makes an exception of? When that person you mentioned last Saturday said, "How does it feel to be a millionaire now?" I do not know how you felt when that person said that, but I know how I would feel.

I know for a fact what people have been telling me about what they perceive I and other parliamentarians made in my last six and a half years. You can rage every time you hear this being thrown at you but like I said, when you finally stop being a member of Parliament for whatever reason and whenever that is, from what I know of you -- and I respect all of you -- you will walk out of here proudly with your heads held high, knowing that hundreds of thousands of Ontarians thought you had been a garbage bag and that you had filled your pockets full of the green stuff. But you will know better, regardless.

I have developed a term for this after being insulted more than once in six and a half years by people who still perceive we make a lot of money every time we can fill our pockets, legally and illegally. I refuse to become what I perceive to be -- excuse me if the term is a bit hard -- a political prostitute to the unrealistic expectations of a lot of the people out there about what we should be and must be, including the salary, integrity level, divestiture, disclosure, you name it. I refuse to be a political prostitute and bend down and beg: "Anything you want, anything you think I should do or must do I'll do. You won't be as cynical and you'll perceive me to be a moron as a person."

The hell with them. We are all honourable members. We all go to bed at night knowing damned well we did it out of a commitment for these close to 10 million people, 130 of us in here, and I will be damned if I will bend for one cynic who tells me, "Because you did not divest, I suspect you of filling your pockets or profiting from your position." After six and a half years of 110 hours a week making $8 an hour, I will be damned if I am going to bend to a cynic who says I am filling my pockets because he or she has decided to perceive that.

1750

I honestly believe that you are bending down to that, and you should not. To be a member of Parliament is an honourable profession, and they are all honourable members. Instead of making tougher guidelines, all of us should be standing up, especially when some of the members of the press at Queen's Park write about the so-called Queen's Park perks. Like hell, perks at $8 an hour. I will be damned about the perks. Some of us who sit on committees here will probably make about $2,000 or $3,000 a year that unfortunately somebody decided a long time ago was not taxable, and that we would get an extra per diem when the House does not sit. Who gives a damn about that?

I agree with you that we should get a straight salary and not have that, but because they write that we have Queen's Park perks, I am going to feel bad about myself as a parliamentarian? I am going to feel less honourable? I am going to feel more vulnerable to some of the cynics? The hell with them. You should be proud of what you are. We should be proud of all 130 members. We should be proud of all those of whom, for the last 15 or 20 years, it has been said that nobody has been able to find a dishonourable member, damn it.

I think you are going too far, and once you do it -- and of course you are going to end up doing it -- you just wait and see what else they are going to ask of you, because they still will not think that we are honest enough, some of them. You just wait and see what they are going to ask of you next. I honestly do not want to think about it.

If you include that, and if I had a century farm -- I do not know how many of you are from a farm background. I have a biological farm that, in its entire history, has never had anything chemical or toxic on it, not even chemical fertilizer. You would not expect me to divest myself of a biological farm, because if I sold it, this would be a horrible time to sell it, for one thing, and if I turned around and wanted to find another biological farm like that, even if the Legislative Assembly gave me $500,000 to find one afterwards, I would never find one like that. Do not expect members to do that.

An hon member: I do not think they do.

Mr Poirier: If you make that for the hardship thing, how would I feel if I were the only one for whom the Premier would make an exception under hardship? You want to make me feel like going under a rug? No exceptions for you, but one for me? Why? Is it any lesser hardship for you than it would be for me?

There is no way I would let go my farm. I busted my buns to make it what it is, and as an environmentalist, I would not sell for any reason that super, biological farm. No way. To try and please those cynics out there? There are enough people who know that you and you, David, Irene, myself, anybody can serve honourably as a member without divestiture, with full disclosure. I have nothing to hide, none of us have anything to hide. Put all the cards face up on table. If that is not good enough for them, the hell with them, and I say that on public record. They want to perceive us as being honourable members. I know we are all honourable members until somebody, somewhere has a mandate to show me otherwise, and you are going too far.

Mr Winninger: I agree that Mr Poirier's line of reasoning has a certain seductive appeal to it. However, I think it is flawed. We cannot determine public perception, but we can influence it.

For the longest time, politicians were placing their assets in so-called blind trusts. Often it was perceived that these trusts were not so blind, and in some cases a conflict emerged and ministers were compelled to resign -- even in our Legislature, not just in other provinces.

No one suggests that because politicians receive perks they are necessarily dishonourable, but by introducing these kinds of conflict guidelines we reduce the potential for perceived conflict, and that is where the validity of these guidelines, I would submit, lies.

Certainly exceptions have to be made from time to time, and that is provided for under paragraph 15 of the guidelines. Mr Poirier gave a very compelling example of where that kind of discretion might be exercised, in the case of an organic farm, even in the case of a non-organic farm. We want to maintain and preserve farm land. That has been a policy of our party, both in and out of government, and certainly that would be a very convincing reason why an exception should be made.

I think my friend would agree that exceptions have to be made to any rule, but that does not necessarily mean you do away with the rule entirely. To be able to influence the public perception and reduce the potential for conflict I think tends to enhance our stature as parliamentarians rather than to negate it. For that reason, I would add that the conflict guidelines did not go too far. It may be that in some cases hardship can be proved, and in those cases exceptions have to be made.

I think we all benefit from an untarnished image. These parliamentarians in the past who were forced to resign their seats because of a perceived conflict will no longer have that potential, simply because when an exception is made, the potential conflict will have been given a thorough airing. It will not come as a surprise to the public, the way conflicts have in the past. That, I would submit, has diminished to a very large degree the high image you suggest politicians should have.

It is all very well to say you are innocent until proven guilty, but merely to say that does not mean there is not a duty incumbent on us to ensure that the public regards us with the highest possible regard. I would submit that when the public sees these guidelines and sees how this government has put these guidelines into effect, they can come to no other conclusion than that we are making an effort to purge ourselves of any conflicts we may experience now or in the future, and there may be some fallout from that.

We have already seen fallout from that, but maybe it is not such a bad thing that the conflicts commissioner has reviewed these allegations of conflict, and in each case that I know of, has come to a favourable conclusion that indicated that the minister should remain exactly where he or she was and is. I think it is a very healthy thing, and while I agree with some of your comments, I think we are better off with these guidelines in place than without, and that is my speech.

Mr Poirier: If I were, under the clause of undue hardship, allowed to keep my biological farm, I assume if I were in government again, I would have to forgo my possibility of ever being the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Do you know what I mean?

Mr Fletcher: You will never be in government again, so do not worry about it.

Mr Poirier: I have always loved somebody with a good sense of humour. After six and a half years, you will be very flexible too, believe me.

Mr Winninger: Forty years in the wilderness.

Mr Poirier: That is right, and even more wilderness. Maybe six and a half years from now, you will be right here. Who knows?

The Chair: With this short amount of time we can do one of two things: either adjourn immediately or at least come to a conclusion on this preamble. Lisa has suggested that we can, with unanimous consent, move on to perhaps finishing the next section as well, given the amount of time we have in front of us to conclude this report.

Mr Morrow: I am sorry, I cannot.

Mr Mills: I think some of us have to be somewhere at 6:30.

The Chair: Okay, so I suggest we adjourn until 27 May.

The committee adjourned at 1759.