Evidence of meeting #6 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-2.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Just before I was about to introduce our guests, you have a point of order, Mr. Zed.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
I'd like to ask this committee for unanimous consent to go to a steering committee meeting for just one minute so that we can invite the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to appear before October 4 in order to respond to allegations of a violation of the Privacy Act with respect to the revelation of the names of individuals requesting documents under the Access to Information Act.
That's my point of order. I was wondering whether there would be unanimous consent to go to a steering committee meeting for this purpose.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Is there unanimous consent to turn this into a steering committee meeting for the purpose of inviting the Privacy Commissioner next Wednesday?
3:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Okay. Mr. Chairman, I was actually just looking for a one-minute intervention.
I respect the fact that you've not given unanimous consent, so on that basis I would like to file a notice of motion that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada be invited to appear before this committee by October 4, 2006, in order to respond to allegations of a violation of the Privacy Act with respect to the revelation of the names of individuals requesting documents under the Access to Information Act.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you, Mr. Zed.
As you know, we have a rule in this committee that there has to be 24 hours' notice to receive the motion, so we'll have the clock start ticking at the appropriate time.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Once those 24 hours are up, then of course you're welcome to bring your motion forward at the earliest opportunity. Thank you.
Today we are very privileged to have with us the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Bernard Shapiro, and a phalanx of people from his office, whom I'll encourage him to introduce. We welcome everyone. We're looking forward to Mr. Commissioner's remarks, and then we'll have questions and comments, and hopefully some answers.
I will just remind committee members that we're starting a little late, but notwithstanding that, there is a vote in the House this afternoon, more or less at around 5:30. We'll see how the time goes.
Mr. Commissioner, the floor is yours.
3:35 p.m.
Bernard Shapiro Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
First I'd like to thank you for inviting me to meet with the committee. As this is my first appearance during the current Parliament, I wish you, Mr. Chair, and the committee all the best in your proceedings and business. My office and I look forward to working with you in the 39th Parliament.
Before I proceed, I wish to introduce the officials who are with me today.
They are: the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Robert Benson; the Director, Strategy and Policy, Mr. Stephen Tsang; The Director, Corporate Affairs, Ms. Lyne Robinson-Dalpé; and the Director, Communications and Parliamentary Relations, Ms. Micheline Rondeau-Parent.
As far as today's meeting is concerned, I do have a few brief opening remarks, firstly on the various issued related to the new Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, thereafter called the Prime Minister's Code, which was referred to your committee pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) on April 6, 2006.
Secondly, I will comment on the draft process and set of procedures for examinations of public office holders under the Parliament of Canada Act.
And thirdly, I will talk about my last annual report on activities in relation to public office holders, which has also been referred to your committee.
At the outset, I recognize that some or most of our discussion today may be affected by the coming into effect, or the possible coming into effect, of the Federal Accountability Act currently before Parliament. With respect to related substantive issues, members may refer to my testimony on May 16 to the House of Commons subcommittee on Bill C-2 and my September 5 appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which is reviewing the bill at the moment.
Briefly, I am pleased to see the initially proposed bill has been amended to include some of my recommendations, namely, a five-year mandatory review of the proposed conflict of interest act, a declaration in the public registry within 60 days of recusals by cabinet ministers, and sanctions for breaches of post-employment prohibitions by lobbyists.
In my final remarks later today, and looking ahead to future challenges, I will share with your committee some of my office's preparation and readiness initiatives in anticipation of the possible coming into effect of the Federal Accountability Act.
As a reference for members, on May 5 I sent the committee a briefing book outlining some issues on which I would like to work together with you in the coming months. Some are outstanding from the last Parliament, but others are new. Among these, I do have one priority that I would like this committee to address: a proposed process and set of procedures for the conduct of examinations on public office holders. Currently, my powers of examination in relation to ministers, secretaries of state, and parliamentary secretaries are prescribed in section 72 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
In support of these examinations, my office has developed a process and a set of procedural guidelines. These were provided to this committee in the briefing book sent on May 8 under tab 4. Without going into details at this stage, I would simply point out that this proposed process is very similar to the one used by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in the United Kingdom Parliament. As well, some of its proposals are based on my office's limited experience in the conduct of inquiry in relation to public office holders pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act--that is the Sgro inquiry whose report was released in June 2005.
Although the approval of this committee is not required, I would welcome a thorough discussion with the committee on this issue. Indeed, regardless of the legislation governing my examination powers--as requests may only be submitted by MPs, which will still be the case under Bill C-2--I feel it is important for you as parliamentarians to not only be informed but also consulted. This would enhance the transparency for Parliament and the public, and would provide legitimacy and credibility for the public office holders to whom this process would apply--particularly as the commissioner's investigative powers will be enlarged to include all current and former public office holders under Bill C-2--and for the parliamentarians empowered to make such requests.
Although this is entirely up to the committee to decide, my particular preference would be to work with a subcommittee of the group on this process, which is quite detailed and difficult to discuss in a large group, but that would be up to you to decide.
As the Prime Minister's code and my annual reports in relation to activities of how public office holders are referred to this committee, it is a suitable body to play that role. I look forward to working with the full committee or, my preference, a subcommittee, but whichever option the committee prefers.
Although my main estimates for the fiscal year 2006-07 were referred to your committee on April 25 of this year, they are not an agenda item for today's meeting. I would, however, be pleased to come back to address them in a separate meeting, if that is what the committee wishes.
My second annual report was released on July 19 and automatically referred to this committee. The report outlined the operational challenges of administering two different conflict of interest and post-employment codes for public office holders--the previous one in effect in the 38th Parliament--and the February 6 revised code of Prime Minister Harper. Indeed, a change in government always leads to a temporary increase in the office's workload insofar as it results in the appointment of usually 400 to 500 new public office holders, thereby creating compliance challenges represented by the turnover in the public office holder clientele.
At any given time, the client base for the public office holders' code is approximately 1,350 full-time public office holders and 1,940 part-time GIC appointments. In 2005-06, for instance, the office completed 1,196 cases, of which 228 were ones of initial compliance and 968 consisted of annual adjustments.
With respect to Prime Minister Harper's new POH code, its administration had to take into account some noteworthy changes from the previous code.
The first is the addition of a twelfth principle to the code in relation to its administration. On a corollary issue, it is worth noting that under the proposed Federal Accountability Act, there are no ethical principles enunciated. From my point of view, that is a flaw in the bill, as I have mentioned in my testimonies in both the House and Senate committees.
The second is an addition to my duties that provides for any member of the public to request an investigation into the conduct of a public office-holder through a parliamentarian.
The third change is that post-employment restrictions were enlarged with the inclusion of a five-year ban on lobbying activities by former ministers, senior public servants, and designated ministerial staff.
In addition, our usual operations consist of administering the reimbursement of costs associated with blind trusts and blind management agreements. In 2005-06, we revised the reimbursement rates for trustees' services based on a survey of Canadian legal and accounting firms. A similar revision will now take place each year.
The year 2005-06 was also challenging with respect to recusals. Our office recommended recusal on 15 occasions for former Prime Minister Martin as follows: seven recusals related to marine transportation policy, two to shipbuilding, one to the St. Lawrence Seaway, and five to other various issues. Similarly, there were 11 instances of recusal for former Minister Stronach, of which 10 dealt with auto and steel industry issues. There were also five other instances of recusal for various public office holders, including one for the Honourable David Emerson with respect to Canfor and another for the former ambassador to the United States, the Honourable Frank McKenna.
With respect to human resources issues, in 2005-06 our office employed 34 full-time equivalents. In managing our personnel, we established an employer-employee committee to provide recommendations on policies, practices, and procedures on human resource management issues such as training and professional development policy and leave policy. We also used, for our executive cadre, a 360-degree assessment tool.
As well, in conjunction with the House of Commons Information Services, we conducted in the fall of 2005 a threat and risk assessment for our data and information. Our most important security and confidentiality safeguard measures are listed in the briefing book already provided to you last May, in this case under tab 5.
Finally, with respect to internal operations, we initiated, with the assistance of the Centre for Public Management, an operational review to assess our practices in support of our clientele and their compliance with the two codes we administer in terms of their efficiency, appropriateness, consistency of application, and quality management approaches. This was done after consultation with the Auditor General, on whose list we never appear, because we're not included in her particular clientele; she suggested this would be the best way of substituting something relatively appropriate for our particular office.
In any case, as a follow-up to this review the office identified certain areas of action. In 2006-07 we'll work on the following specific ones: the merger of the executive and legislative affairs branches into one operations directorate; the enhancement of information technology, with particular focus on the digitalization of records; the delegation of authority, in order to have a flatter structure inside the group; and the lifetime assignment of a client file, so that particular advisors would be particularly familiar with individual clients.
I will now address, in conclusion, my office's preparedness in looking ahead to the implementation of Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act. If enacted in its current state, it indeed presents several challenges as it will result in a major structural change, the replacement of the currently distinct roles of the Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer with a new Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and would legislate for the first time a Conflict of Interest Act, covering much of what is now currently included in the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders.
Under that act, many new or expanded functions are proposed. These include: an expanded number of people potentially subject to inquiries, including any current or former public office holder, as opposed to the current situation, which covers only ministers and parliamentary secretaries; a prohibition on the use of line management agreements; a new power for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to initiate on his or her own inquiries on any current or former public office holders; the expansion of coverage in the new regime to a new category of ministerial advisors, who would be any person providing advice to a minister, either full or part-time, paid or unpaid; the use of administrative penalties up to $500; expanded reporting and monitoring requirements, including a new requirement for former public office holders to report to the commissioner when (a) receiving or accepting an employment offer during his or her cooling off period, and (b) lobbying former colleagues; and finally, an expanded public registry to include recusal information that would not otherwise breach cabinet confidences or harm national security.
These expanded requirements, as described in Bill C-2 as it now stands before Parliament, mean that the office will need additional human resources, particularly in areas such as legal services, for interpretation and compliance with the legislative regime and for the conduct of inquiries. A regime will also have to be developed to implement and apply the new administrative penalties.
As well, again, as per its current status, there will be many implications for the office's information technology and management systems, to support the reporting and monitoring requirements of the new system as well as to track the penalties.
Additional resources, financial or otherwise, will therefore be needed, for instance, in accommodation and physical security to deal with the expanded mandate and clientele.
In preparation, my office has already been considering the potential impact of the above-mentioned likely changes expected from the Federal Accountability Act and has initiated several measures in preparation for its coming into effect.
Any of our initiatives, of course, would need to be revisited and adjusted, as needed, in accordance with the final outcome of the legislation adopted by Parliament. Although some of the changes will require more time to implement than others, in the area of staffing and technological adjustments, for instance, we expect to be ready by 2007, at least for the beginning of the short and medium-term adjustments.
In closing, I repeat that we would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee or a subcommittee at its earliest convenience on the proposed inquiry process in relation to public office holders.
I'd like to thank you for your attention. My staff and I would be pleased to answer your questions to the best of our ability.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Thank you very much, Mr. Shapiro.
We'll now go to questions. During the first round, as we've previously agreed, the questioner will have seven minutes.
We'll start with Mr. Zed.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I may be sharing my time, but we'll see how far I get, if that's acceptable.
Thank you, Dr. Shapiro, for being before our committee today.
You once stated that the ultimate objective of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner is to sustain and, where possible, enhance public confidence in our system of government at the federal level and in our parliamentary institutions. I'm paraphrasing some things you've said over the years.
In a CanWest article that was published today, it was revealed that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler, along with several other members of the Prime Minister's Office, were informed of the name of a journalist, James Bronskill, who had made an access to information request to the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. If the action of the leaking of the name of a journalist, James Bronskill, contravenes the Privacy Act, I was wondering, is this behaviour ethical, and would you have the jurisdiction—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Mr. Tilson, I'd like him to finish his sentence, and I'll take your point of order.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
I wanted to know if you would have the jurisdiction to commence an investigation under your office.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zed is raising an issue that I would interpret as an inquiry for investigation. I don't think it's within the purview of this committee to get into a complaint by an individual, who appears at this point to be Mr. Zed and I guess other people. Most certainly, I think it would be most inappropriate for the commissioner to get involved in this type of discussion in a public forum on a matter he may be investigating. I think the question is completely out of order.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Well, I rule your point not well taken. Of course, the commissioner is entitled to answer in any way he wishes, or not answer in any way he wishes, a question posed by a member of Parliament.
I'll ask the commissioner if he wishes to answer, and if so, what's your answer?
3:50 p.m.
Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
I am not at all familiar with the event you describe, so I'm certainly not going to make any further comment on the substance of it at this time.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The objective of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, though, is about enhancing public confidence and, where possible, restoring or ensuring that public confidence in its institutions is maintained. Would you agree, Dr. Shapiro?