CODES OF CONDUCT
DEVELOPING AN ETHICS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
One of the biggest challenges facing parliamentarians today is maintaining ethical standards and ensuring that public confidence in parliament is assured.
Hon. Anita Raynell Andreychuk is a Senator in the Canadian Parliament since 1993, following diplomatic posts on behalf of Canada and as representative to the UNEP and the UN Human Rights Commission. She was instrumental in setting up the Senate Committee on Human Rights and is the first female chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. She also chairs the Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators and is a long-time member of the CPA, serving on the Executive Committee of the Canadian Branch.
When parliamentarians take the oath of office, it is because they are “assuming positions of public trust,” says James Robertson, a former senior analyst with the Canadian Library of Parliament’s Parliamentary Research Service; “the oath of allegiance is a pledge that they will conduct themselves ‘patriotically,’ and in the best interests of the country.” In an era driven by 24-hour news channels, social media and information communications technologies, however, the oath, unto itself, is insufficient proof that the public interest is being served according to the public’s expectations. There is no evidence to suggest that today’s parliamentarians take public service and the responsible use of public resources any less seriously than their predecessors. But parliamentarians’ sense of integrity is no longer assumed. Instead, parliamentarians today are expected to be willing and able to withstand public scrutiny of their interests, behaviours and ethics. It is therefore necessary that the public’s expectations be translated into a set of principles and policies to which parliamentarians can adhere and, in the event of perceived or real transgressions, against which they can be judged. As professional associations and parliaments across the world have discovered, this involves striking
112 | The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue Two
a delicate balance between the public interest, the reputation of the institution or profession in question and the legitimate interests of the individuals to which the code applies.
Recent History
Dating back to at least 1973, federal parliamentarians in Canada have been guided by a series of ‘green papers’, guidelines, studies and reports describing the standards against which parliamentarians’ ethics and behaviour could be judged. Between 1978 and 2003, at least six bills were proposed that centred on governance of parliamentary conduct, but all died on the Order Paper before they could be passed into law. By and large, these initiatives focussed on issues of conflict of interest. Such was also the case when amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, adopted in 2003, led to the creation of the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. The Code quickly became the key mechanism for ensuring that Canadian Senators live up to the public trust in which they are vested. It began with a set of three principles stating that Senators were expected: (a) to remain members of their communities and regions and to continue their activities in
those communities and regions while serving the public interest and those they represent to the best of their abilities;
(b) to fulfil their public duties while upholding the highest standards so as to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each Senator and in the Senate; (c) to arrange their private affairs so that foreseeable real or apparent conflicts of interest may be prevented from arising, but if such a conflict does arise, to resolve it in a way that protects the public interest. It then went on to detail how Senators and their families were expected to carry on their private business, refrain from using their influence for personal gain and publicly disclose their interests or any gifts or sponsored travel above a certain threshold. The Code also provided for the creation of a Standing Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators, which was responsible for all matters relating to the Code. This ensures that the Code remains relevant by conducting regular reviews and suggesting improvements.
Strengthening the Code One such effort was launched early in 2013, when the Committee agreed that the
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76