Senator Harder: Thank you, chair, and welcome, Justice O’Reilly. I want to talk a little bit about the relationship between the independent Senate Ethics Officer and the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators. It is an important partnership and one that must be mutually respective.

Both the Parliament of Canada Act and the code provide that the SEO’s duties and functions shall be carried out under what is described as “the general direction of the Committee.”

How do you view the role of the committee in supporting the SEO’s responsibility in the code? Can you describe the level of collaboration you would wish to engage in and how you would interpret your independence from the committee while having this engagement? Do you anticipate addressing any potential conflict of interest that might arise in this relationship between your role and the committee?

Mr. O’Reilly: Thank you, senator. I wondered what “the general direction of the Committee” means. I haven’t come across anything that helps me understand that partnership, but I can imagine situations where the committee may wish to invite the officer to explain how he or she is interpreting the code or even a specific investigation, although I haven’t seen that happen. Perhaps I will learn more about that relationship.

I did notice in one of the inquiry reports there was a question about whether a matter should go to the committee while an investigation was ongoing. My predecessor took the firm position that was not an appropriate way to proceed. That made sense to me when I read it. Members of the committee may have a different view, and, if so, I would like to hear that view.

I wondered if, under the general direction of the committee, that terminology was meant to express the idea that it is for the committee to give general guidance to the officer from time to time, but not, of course, in respect of any particular investigation.

Senator Harder: I wish to move to another area.

One of the purposes of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, it says, is to, “maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of Senators and the Senate.” How do you view your role in fulfilling that part of the code?

Mr. O’Reilly: Thank you.

It is interesting. I think those high principles are meant to inform the interpretation of other provisions of the code, and that is how I have seen it employed. That’s a specific way. That is not unusual in codes or legislation, for there to be a purpose clause that helps the interpreter of the legislation or code understand how it is meant to be applied, or at least the aspirations that lie behind the more particular parts of the code. I would see it as performing that function.

This is the value of having a code at all — that all members of this chamber will surely be aware of what their role and purpose are in this institution, and that will guide their behaviour overall for the officer to employ the same principles and purposes in interpreting how the code is applied.