Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 25th, 2006

[Mary Chaput]

Yes, sir.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I have to tell you that I certainly recall, as the report confirms...and it gets back to a question Mr. Peterson, Mr. Stanton, and I think Mr. Chair asked, which was, why in the world isn't the Ethics Commissioner part of this? It doesn't matter because that's only advisory anyway. Hopefully it would become more than advisory since this is a pilot project. Quite frankly, I don't know why, and you have explained it, but since it's an advisory panel only, why shouldn't the Ethics Commissioner be put in there?

[Mary Chaput]

I can take another try at a somewhat unsophisticated answer for you, Mr. Chair, with your indulgence.

What we were trying to do to a certain degree was group together organizations with a common set of watchdog functions—not that they are completely homogenous. Obviously there are distinctions within the group, but they have a certain kind of relationship with citizens and taxpayers, as well as with parliamentarians and the government organizations over which they watch.

The one distinction that we did draw in talking this out was that the Ethics Commissioner watches over a different group of people or organizations, and from that point of view, to a certain degree, falls into a different bucket than the agents of Parliament, like the AG, who are charged with—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

They're all different.

[Mary Chaput]

Yes, they're all different.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

They're all different, and you can say that about everyone. The Official Languages Commissioner is quite different from any of them.

[Mary Chaput]

But the commonality of all of those five, which were included, was that they watch over the manner in which government departments, agencies, and the bureaucracy conduct themselves.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, with due respect, this committee may be able to change now that there's a different makeup, but clearly the intention, from the recommendations I've read to you and my own recollections, was that the Ethics Commissioner be part of it. We didn't want to put them off in another little box; we wanted them all to be part of the same system.

You said what you're thinking and I've said what I'm thinking, so I guess we'll call it a draw, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Why don't we ask one more question?

Since the Ethics Commissioner is still with the Board of Internal Economy, has there been a similar system set-up within the Board of Internal Economy to mirror the panel system, with respect to the Ethics Commissioner's request for increased funding?

[Mary Chaput]

I don't know the answer to that. My impression is no, but I would have to check on it for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

If the answer is no, then clearly it has gone completely against the recommendations of the committee, which specifically said that the Board of Internal Economy can do it. I could live with the Ethics Commissioner being with the Board of Internal Economy because of the statute, but the idea was that the Board of Internal Economy should become what you've now created, which is this panel. So okay, the Ethics Commissioner is there, within the Board of Internal Economy. But then why not have the Board of Internal Economy go through the same things with the Ethics Commissioner that the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner went through with the panel? I guess your answer is that it hasn't happened, or you'll check into it.

[Mary Chaput]

Yes, I would prefer the “I'll check into it” answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Zed.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I just want to add, at the risk of agreeing with Mr. Tilson on something, that my recollection is similar to Mr. Tilson's. Perhaps the clerk might want to get that information as to what we had agreed to, but it's clear that this is not what was agreed to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

There's no doubt that this panel idea does not mirror the committee's recommendations.

You've said that it flowed out of the recommendations of the committee, but I guess it's the bureaucracy's response to the committee's recommendations.

[Mary Chaput]

The only other shred of information I can offer on this front is that the Ethics Commissioner was invited to participate in the panel process and declined. That doesn't answer your question. It just adds a little bit of context to it. So what I would like—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Excuse me, Madam. If that's the case, then Mr. Tilson was right that notwithstanding that the act requires the Board of Internal Economy to do it, the panel was advisory only, and the Ethics Commissioner could have gone before the panel to buttress his request for further funds, with parliamentarians agreeing--one presumes--and then go to the Board of Internal Economy with the recommendations of the thirteen-member panel of the House of Commons. He chose not to do that. Perhaps when he comes on Wednesday, November 1, under estimates, somebody might like to ask him why.

[Mary Chaput]

With your agreement, Mr. Chair, we'll undertake to do some research on this and include what we can in getting back to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you very much.

Is there anything else, Mr. Zed?

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

My comments are along the same lines, and I think I alluded to it in my first question as well. Somehow, between the spring of 2005 and the fall of 2005, we went from the Board of Internal Economy to this panel, and I assume, perhaps, that when you bring this further information forward, it will enlighten us as to what in fact transpired there and who made the recommendations to create this thirteen-person panel. Was it the Treasury Board Secretariat, or was it some other office of the government at that time that in fact created what we now describe as this panel?

I would hope that would be part of the process, because it occurs to me, going back to the recommendations that were provided by this committee last year, that they envision that it would be the Board of Internal Economy that in fact would be the forum for these types of inquiries. Perhaps it's not a question, Mr. Chair, but to add to the information that might be coming forward at a later time, I think it would be worthwhile to have an answer to those questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Indeed, Mr. Stanton, thank you.

We look forward to your doing the research. It may end up being as simple as the government of the day didn't want to do it and they said, come up with something else, or it may be more complicated. Who knows? But if you can find out the answer for us, it would be of great assistance to us.

I have no one else on my list. Does anybody want to raise their hand?

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Looking at the report from May 2005—that's the report you're referring to—they had two recommendations essentially. It's pretty clear there in black and white. Recommendation two says, “the Board of Internal Economy serve as the parliamentary budget determination body”. Somewhere between then, in May, to when things were enacted.... Notwithstanding that, I think there was some merit, and certainly some arguments made, for the panel, so it's just a matter of ferreting it out.

I think you were touching on this. My question is going to be about how we follow up on recommendations, if we have a body that's making recommendations and the government says, yes, thanks, and maybe, maybe not, and clearly, as in this case, dismissed them. In your presentation you said that one of the things we can perhaps tighten up is how we track the recommendations themselves.

Turning to that, do you have a process in mind? I've worked in other sectors where we do this on a regular basis. We bring forward action items, so that if we did recommend A, we make sure it's followed up by indicating on it a date, who is responsible, and what needs to be done--to make sure if it wasn't done, that it gets done. Can you elaborate on that, or were you just identifying something that needs to be looked at? Do you have some ideas about how we can tighten that up, if there are recommendations that have been made by this committee to be followed up on, or how we might even just track them?

[Mary Chaput]

We didn't have a proposal in that regard. It only struck us after the single round we went through last year, where, when we charted it, I said to myself, “This is odd. We get recommendations from this body, and then where is the part that closes the loop?” It was once we started talking about this that we concluded there needs to be, obviously, more thought put to that question and some kind of proposal brought to the fore.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I think I can speak for all of us here that we would encourage you to do so, and that we would have some information we could follow up on so that we could support recommendations that have been made and help you do your job. I think that's the missing link here. Where did it happen--on the way to reform, or to incorporate--that things changed? As was mentioned, perhaps it was just that the government decided no thanks and moved on.

If you come up with something structurally, that would be beneficial, so that we can at least track it and have something in front of us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Indeed. Are there any other questions, then, colleagues? All right.

If you haven't noted down exactly what we wanted, you can always ask the clerk or our researcher, or check the transcripts, or whatever the case may be. When you give us back the answers, I'm sure they will enlighten us to a great degree.

May I, on behalf of the committee, thank all three of you for attending today and for giving us the answers you've given us. May I also thank you for saying, when you don't know an answer, that you would like some time to look it over, rather than trying to shoot from the hip. That's much appreciated. Thank you very much.

Our next meeting is Monday, to consider a draft report on the study of the alleged disclosures of access to information requesters.

We're adjourned.