Hon. Peter Harder: Honourable senators, I will be brief. I want to describe the architecture of the report you have in front of you.

As senators know, the Ethics Committee is seized with the framework of managing our Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, and that act is one that the Senate adopted some years ago. It does provide for the Senate Ethics Officer, or SEO, to provide guidelines to senators with respect to the interpretation of that act. Those guidelines are, from time to time, brought by the SEO to the Ethics Committee for their consideration and approval. Once approved by the Ethics Committee, they are placed on the website of the Senate Ethics Officer, and they provide guidance to senators on questions related to the matters that are in the guidelines.

Earlier this week, the SEO tabled, on the website, guidelines with respect to outside activities as well as guidelines with respect to sponsored travel. These guidelines were approved by the committee at its last meeting. They do not change any of the code provisions. Otherwise, they would have had to be brought here.

A third subject matter was discussed in our committee, and that is guidelines on gifts and benefits. The SEO recommended code changes to bring flexibility, clarity and consistency to certain matters dealing with those aspects of the code. It is the fact that it is amending the code that it comes here today for the Senate’s approval. Once approved here, it, too, will become a subject of the website of the SEO and provided to senators to give them guidance.

The somewhat technical changes are twofold. One deals with ensuring greater clarity on the notion that neither senators nor family members shall accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that could be reasonably — and this is the addition:

. . . seen to have been given to influence the Senator in the exercise of a duty or function of their office.

In other words, it is prohibited unless it is seen to be part of the function of the office. You don’t want to have undue influence.

These are words that are used on the House of Commons side. They provide the similarity of treatment, if I can put it that way, between a senator or a member of Parliament in the exercise of their representative roles.

The second aspect is a very technical amendment with respect to making it clear that senators can request, in writing, the approval of the SEO for senators participating in programs of general application — government programs. If you wanted to buy an electric vehicle and you felt that it was something you wanted to disclose, you could get written confirmation that that is of general application, and that could be posted on your disclosure. It is simply to ensure that we are very transparent in receipt of any government program.

These guidelines will be issued, as I say, once we adopt this. I do believe that the three guidelines that I referenced tonight will bring a greater, frankly, modernity of view, transparency, flexibility and clarity to the work of the SEO. On his behalf, I thank the Senate for its consideration.

I would close by giving special thanks to the members of the committee: Senator Busson, who is the deputy chair, Senator Carignan, Senator Dean and Senator Ross, all of whom have supported this work in the months of this consideration.

I would call the question.