Closed-door meeting on MP ethics code raises questions about transparency

As MPs review their own conflict of interest rules behind closed doors, the co-founder of Democracy Watch says the process highlights a need for greater transparency in the House of Commons.

​​“Secrecy is a recipe for corruption, waste, and abuse of the public interest always,” said Duff Conacher, whose organization advocates for democratic reform and government accountability in Canada.

On Thursday, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs began voting on proposed changes to the MPs’ Conflict of Interest Code, a key set of rules that governs how MPs can act, make decisions and engage with voters, including accepting gifts and free trips.

These are the kinds of things that can get MPs in hot water with the public and even spell the end of their careers. This was the case for former finance minister Bill Morneau, who resigned from his position in August 2020 after it was revealed his family had taken overseas trips sponsored by WE Charity. Morneau’s daughter worked for the organization, which was co-founded by his friends Craig and Marc Kielburger. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also had close ties to the charity but was cleared by the ethics commissioner in May.

The proposed changes to the code would set a $30 threshold on acceptable gifts and give the commissioner the power to decide if trips paid for by organizations, companies or individuals create a conflict of interest. They would also prohibit activities currently allowed outside of Parliament that affect an MP’s ability to serve the public interest — particularly paid work like sitting on a board or involvement in a business or non-profit — unless the commissioner decides it doesn’t affect the MP’s parliamentary duties.

The proposed updates would also redefine family to be broader in scope, consider friends in potential conflict of interest violations and impose mandatory training on the code for new MPs.

The committee will decide which changes to recommend to the House in a series of meetings that are closed to the public and media to allow for free and frank debate.

However, Conacher questions whether it is ever appropriate for committee meetings to be closed to the public and reporters.

“I don't see any reason for MPs to be ever discussing anything behind closed doors,” he told Canada’s National Observer.

The code is supposed to be reviewed every five years but has not been reviewed since June 2015. So far, the committee has met four times to discuss the code, one of which was closed to the public.

It is standard procedure for committees to hold some meetings “in-camera,” which means there is no broadcast or transcription of proceedings. Committees decide when to go in-camera on a case-by-case basis and often do so when they are deliberating recommendations, like in this situation.

Conacher said holding confidential meetings to decide on reports is a transparency issue at the best of times, but particularly in this case, where MPs are deliberating changes to their own ethics rules.

“They are, in effect, changing the rules in this meeting and we'll never know how each MP voted on those proposed changes, which changes were voted down and who voted them down,” said Conacher. “The public has a right to know all of that because these are really the key rules … that apply to MPs.”

No Commons committee has ever considered legislation behind closed doors, but updating the conflict of interest code is different because the committee isn’t amending a bill, it is simply making recommendations and presenting a report to the House.

The code’s purpose is to give Canadians confidence in MPs, and the government more broadly, and to ensure public interests are always put ahead of private interests.

But Canadians’ trust in government is cratering, according to a Proof Strategies online poll that found only 22 per cent of respondents said they trust governments or politicians. The poll surveyed 1,536 people and was conducted from Jan. 4 to 14.

Conacher said this should not come as a surprise when MPs engage in “this kind of secret, unethical and undemocratic process for considering changes to their own ethics rules.”

The committee’s choice to deliberate the commissioner’s recommendations away from the public eye is standard practice, but Conacher maintains the public should know where the MPs and parties stand on this important issue.

Committee members, including committee chair Bardish Chagger, vice-chair Alain Therrien and NDP MP Rachel Blaney did not respond to requests for comment.

Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer