Information & Ethics Committee on April 10th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Good afternoon, colleagues. Today I want to welcome the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, and also the Deputy Commissioner, Simon Coakeley, and also Denise Benoit, who is the director of corporate management. Welcome to you.

It's been a while since we've had an opportunity, Commissioner, to share some time with you, and we have an opportunity now to, first of all, deal with our responsibilities with regard to the estimates, and I'm pretty sure that flowing from that the members will want to engage with you a little bit on where we left off before the little disruption we had since the last time we saw you.

So without further ado, I want to turn the floor over to you to address us with regard to your estimates first.

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson, Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss the 2008-2009 Main Estimates for my Office.

First, I would like to introduce two of my officials who are here with me: Ms. Denise Benoit, Director of Corporate Management, and Mr. Simon Coakeley, Deputy Commissioner.

Before commenting on the new fiscal year, I would like to say a few words about the fiscal year that ended on March 31.

As you know, the Conflict of Interest Act came into force on July 9, 2007. I was appointed to the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on the same date. I inherited an office that had been in existence for a number of years, initially as part of Industry Canada and since May 2004 as part of the Parliament of Canada.

Not only is the Conflict of Interest Act new, but the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons was also revised last June by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to take into account the creation of the new office and to adjust some of its provisions based on MPs' experience with the first version of the code.

This means that 2007-08 was very much a transition year for the office on a number of fronts. The transition work will continue into 2008-09. The office's mandate has been expanded in a number of areas—for example, I am now able to conduct examinations into alleged breeches of the act by a much larger group of people than was the case in the past. Previously, only ministers, ministers of state, and parliamentary secretaries could be the subject of an examination. Under the new act, all current and former public office holders could be the subject of an examination.

In addition, the move from a prime ministerial code—the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code of 2006—to an act of Parliament on conflict of interest requires a more rigorous approach. As I mentioned during my appearance before your committee last November, it's imperative that I apply both the new act and the revised MP code consistently and that I'm clear in the advice I give.

As we begin to apply and interpret the new act, we've often found a need to review the office's position on certain issues that were developed under the old code for public office holders, to ensure they're still appropriate. Furthermore, minor wording changes can have a significant impact on the interpretation. On some issues, guidelines will have to be developed and communicated, adjustments will need to be made to enforcement mechanisms, and staff training needs to be undertaken.

There's also been a fairly significant degree of staff turnover in the office, especially at senior levels, as is often the case when an organization goes through a period of uncertainty and undergoes a major transformation. Several key positions remain to be staffed. Meanwhile, we've hired a few term employees to fill in our immediate needs.

Prior to my arrival, the office had done a considerable amount of work to prepare for the coming into force of the Conflict of Interest Act, and staff in the office and officials at the Treasury Board Secretariat made a number of assumptions about the amount of work and about the resources required for implementing the new act. So in addition to inheriting the staff of the former office, I also inherited the 2007-08 main estimates, which were established by my predecessor in the fall of 2006 under the former regime.

Shortly after my arrival in July 2007, my office submitted a request through the supplementary estimates process for an additional $627,000 for 2007-08. Again, this amount was primarily based on assumptions made before the real impact of the new legislation was clearly known. As months progressed, it became evident that some of the predicted activities, including staffing, would have to wait until I had a better appreciation of the office's work and priorities.

Therefore, I should indicate to you that, in all likelihood, when I table my upcoming Annual Reports, I will be reporting a lapse of slightly less than $1 million for 2007-2008.

For the 2008-09 fiscal year, the office has been allocated $7.1 million in the main estimates in order to complete the transition to the requirements of the new act and the revised MP code. The ongoing transition work will require additional resources, but it's still too early in our process to determine our final ongoing requirements.

I will briefly describe the main areas of our activities and explain why there is a need for increase resources.

The single largest item of expenditure is for salaries and employee benefits. We're projecting an expenditure of $4.5 million in salaries and slightly less than $1 million in employee benefits. The main reason for the growth in the salary envelope is the additional workload brought on by the new act and a decision I made early in my mandate to create a small in-house legal services group; while many of the staff in the office have some legal training, the new act makes it critical, I believe, to have a dedicated legal services unit to guide us in interpreting the act.

As part of Parliament we must have independent legal advice, and of course we cannot seek the services of the Department of Justice. As well, given the nature of the MP code, the provisions of the act that are applicable to ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and the independence of my office, it wouldn't be appropriate to ask the parliamentary law clerk and his officials to provide my office with the type of legal opinion I'll be seeking.

Finally, while there are a number of very good law firms here in the national capital region that would be willing and able to provide this sort of service for a fee, I believe it really is a wiser use of taxpayers' dollars to develop the expertise on the day-to-day issues in-house and only resort to the private bar in exceptional circumstances.

As we move forward with the continuation of our transition, and particularly with the staffing of several key positions in the office, we are adopting a prudent approach in shaping the organization. Assessment and review of the structure and the resource expenditures is ongoing. We want to make sure they reflect the most effective way for us to deliver on our mandate.

In the non-salary envelope, the office has memoranda of understanding with other entities in Parliament and with Public Works and Government Services Canada in an amount totalling $650,000. These MOUs are all in the corporate services area and allow us to benefit on a cost-recovery basis from the expertise that already exists here in Parliament. The major areas covered by these MOUs are information technology services provided to us by the House of Commons and financial services provided to us by the Library of Parliament.

I'd like to express my appreciation to our colleagues in Parliament for the assistance they've given us in these areas. It would have cost us considerably more to develop and maintain the necessary expertise within the office.

The rest of our non-salary envelope, just over $1 million, is for normal day-to-day operating costs of the office, such as telephones, security, office equipment rental and purchase, books, periodicals, travel, supplies, and training and development of staff, as well as for a number of special projects we need to undertake in the upcoming year to complete the transition work in the office.

In this regard, we need to redesign our website to improve the information that's available to clients and members of the public, upgrade our online public registry for public office holders, implement a new online public registry for members of Parliament, and begin the redesign of our internal case management system.

Work has already begun in each of these areas and will continue at least through this fiscal year.

As I mentioned, this past year has been a transitional year for the Office, and there are continuing challenges to be met to create an efficient and well-functioning organization. I am confident that, with our dedicated staff, we will make good progress towards that goal in 2008-2009.

We will be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you kindly.

We have lots of interest here.

We have, in this order, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Nadeau, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Wallace.

Please go ahead, Mr. Pearson.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see you again. I remember that when you were last here, you had just been thrown into the hot water and you were trying to work your way through the understanding of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me.

Yes, Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought it was the tradition of this committee, or at least we had adopted the rule, such that each party would go in an order for a period of time. Is that not the approach we're taking?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, it is, and I filled out the form and that's the form I'm using.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Carry on, Mr. Pearson.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'm sure you've been on a learning curve, as we all have been on this. When you were before us you said you were about to undertake an organizational change--the challenge that was in front of you about strategic, legal, and communication strategies. I guess at estimates time we would want to know as a committee the changes you have been able to make and put in place.

Could you comment on the successes of those, or the difficulties you face?

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

I think the most important and the first change we made was to bring in our legal services unit, and it's pretty well complete now. We have four people who belong to that unit, and they've been fully occupied and working very well.

We also have our new director of corporate services here--Denise--who's also wonderful.

What else have we got? We have gaps. We have to replace our director of operations, who left a couple of months ago, and that's a major challenge for us to get the right person in that job because that's effectively much of the backbone of the office. We also have not filled the strategy and planning position yet. Part of what I'm thinking about right now is just exactly what levels those ought to be and how to distribute the weight in the various parts.

As far as I'm concerned, with the legal services there, with my deputy commissioner in place, and with my corporate person in place, I'm getting there. But we have a way to go yet.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Your main success and your main frustration...?

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

In staffing.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It's restructuring. It's staffing.

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

Yes. It takes time.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Also when you were here you talked about how you wanted to develop a communications strategy that just didn't involve people who were affected by the act. You talked about a broader public strategy. Do you remember that? I remember your actually asking this committee if perhaps we could be of assistance to you. I wonder how far you've come along on that. Are there ways we could further assist it? Indeed we can.

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

I'm finding I'm spending quite a bit of my time sorting out the appropriate interpretation of the substance of the act. So I'm somewhat loath to get it out too early, to say too much, until I have a really good feel for the limits of some of the provisions in the act.

However, having said that, I have been out making presentations to, for example, the session organized by the Library of Parliament some months back. My officers, on a regular basis, go out and meet with individual clients. As far as the public itself goes, there have been one or two occasions, but not a lot yet.

I think the main vehicle for reaching the public, of course, is the website, and there are two things that have been an issue in getting that up and going. I had left some of the material from the previous regime up there for a couple of months, and I gradually came to realize that most of it was not quite there, particularly in light of the changes in the act. So I effectively stripped that website a couple of months ago.

There are two things I need to do to get it restocked, and one is to get the structure of the website settled. We've worked on that, and I think we're pretty close to going on that. In fact, we've changed the structure already, and we have a few things up on the website, but we're working, one at a time, on some of the major subject areas.

The first one that will go up under the act is gifts, and I'm hoping to get that up within the next week or two. We had some staff issues on our telecommunications things too. So I'm hoping to get that out in the next week or two.

With respect to the MPs' code, unfortunately I can't put anything up in the way of guidelines at all because the guidelines have to be approved by the procedures committee, and we're trying to get our forms approved at this stage. Then we'll move on to our substance.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I understand.

Finally, when you were here I remember your also saying that recruitment and retention of employees was a problem in the past. Do you remember that as well? I wonder how you've made out with that in the time since you've been doing that.

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

A mixed bag. A number of employees left from the previous administration who have been very good, and I have to say, on the record, that I have really appreciated their help.

I have managed, as I said, to recruit some competent people, such as my deputy commissioner and my director of communications, but it is a slow process. I have lost some personnel. I lost a number of them. Of course, the deputy commissioner, immediately before I came in, had left and the head of operations left a couple of months ago.

It's easier now for people to find jobs in the public service. There's been a change in regulations, so there is more opportunity for people to move out as well as in. So I'm advancing, but it's going to take me another six months to get it 100% staffed, I think, with my permanent staff.

As I mentioned, I have several people on short terms who are highly competent, who are helping me until I get that permanent staff in.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you. We'll move on now to Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, there are a few things that are coming back to memory. There was a slogan at the University of Ottawa: “Have a coke with Coakeley“.

Do you remember that, Mr. Coakeley? We have recognized one another. In fact, we have not seen each other for a long time.

That said, good afternoon Commissioner and Ms. Benoit.

Since Bill C-2 was passed, we have been moving from an old system towards a new one, towards a new way of functioning. Is that why the budgets are different and the structure is different?

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

Are you asking what the differences are between then and now?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

Yes, I believe we are in the midst of structural change. However, the Office is not that different from what it was before.