Information & Ethics Committee on April 20th, 2009

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank Ms. Dawson, Ms. Benoit and Ms. Robinson-Dalpé. I find you have accomplished a remarkable amount of work since you arrived. Of course, this happened at a distance, you yourselves said that it was a huge job to consolidate and reorganize the office since you received your mandate.

My first question is on the budget and on the budget process. You said—and this is the rule, of course—that you present your budget to the Speaker and not to the Treasury Board Secretariat. Does the Speaker conduct a critical analysis of the budget?

[Mary Dawson]

I don't think so, but I really have no way of knowing.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I want to make sure I understand. One would be tempted to think that because you present the budget to the Speaker, he has a say in the matter. Does he tell you what he thinks about the budget and how you choose to spend the money? Does he study the budget?

[Mary Dawson]

I don't think so, but I don't know for sure.

[Denise Benoit]

Under the Parliament of Canada Act, at least given the way it is written, our budget depends on the main estimates. That's all. It must be included in the main estimates because the money ultimately comes from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Whatever the case may be, the role of Treasury Board is not to contest the budget.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I don't want to embarrass you by asking that question. I'm trying to understand why you have to go through the Speaker to deal with the Treasury Board Secretariat.

[Denise Benoit]

I think that the objective is to make the distinction between the two existing processes and not to be included in the applied process within the public service or in the case of those who are part of central administration. In our case, this is not the normal process. Instead, it is as if a side door was used to add this to the document.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Yes, I am well aware that we want to distinguish between the roles. If you had to submit this budget to the Treasury Board Secretariat, questions would have been asked and an analysis done.

Am I mistaken then, in supposing that by putting it to the Speaker, you are addressing a more neutral entity even if it is for the purpose of analysis?

[Mary Dawson]

It's given to the Speaker because we are administering something for the House of Commons. I don't think it would be acceptable for the House of Commons to be subjected to the overview of somebody in the executive branch. We manage both the MP code and the act for public office holders. I think that's the fundamental reason.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I am well aware of that, Ms. Dawson, but why does the Speaker not do a critical assessment of the budget, since he is the one who must receive it on behalf of the House? It basically means that he has to assume that responsibility from the House, correct? It may not be up to you to clarify this issue, but it seems that there's something about this that isn't clear.

[Denise Benoit]

Based on the way that it's being presented, it is submitted to him only to ensure its inclusion in the budget.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

So you feel that this is a formality.

[Denise Benoit]

Quite so.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

This is automatically done to make your decisions official.

With regard to the priorities that you set, how did you make your budget decisions? I'd like you to speak to us in particular about the final choices that you made.

[Mary Dawson]

I'll turn that one over to Denise.

[Denise Benoit]

What is important is administering our legislative mandate. As you noted, we maintain the same budget. When it was increased during the first year, it was really to ensure that we could pay all the salaries and cover the organizational chart.

As I told you, our budget is quite small. It is $1.8 million, not including salaries. Once the expenses associated with the memorandums of agreement and the organizational services have been made, very little is left. We determine how much we need based on our planning and by determining the needs with each director. We are talking here about normal office needs.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Does the Treasury Board have the power to approve your budget? Based on what I'm told, your decisions are final. I won't make any comments, but I am somewhat surprised nonetheless. With regard to management of staff, I understand that my colleagues have asked questions about this. In fact the Office of the Ethics Commissioner had the same problems as you previously. There was significant staff turnover. From the outside this doesn't seem to be related to promotion but rather a problem with the working conditions or the nature of the job itself. Have you asked yourself that question? Have you assessed the situation? From having worked in labour relations, I believe—and perhaps this is a bias due to my former occupation—that generally people don't stay for two specific reasons: working conditions or the nature of a job. Did you look at these two factors and, if so, what conclusions did you draw?

[Mary Dawson]

When I took on the job as Ethics Commissioner, I think there was a fair bit of unhappiness in the office because they had drifted for a number of months without a leader, or with an acting leader, because there was a period of time before I was appointed. So I think there was probably a larger proportion of people leaving during that period than there would usually be. There was an unsettled period of a good six months, really. So that's part of the problem. That was about two years ago.

But the other issue is a systemic one that I think applies to most small organizations, which is that there simply aren't a lot of promotion opportunities for people who want to move forward, because there aren't that many positions to move forward into. So it's quite natural that after some years in our organization, if there's not a position open for them to move up to, they'll look outside.

I think there are those two reasons.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I understand your answer, but it surprises me somewhat. It seems to me that even in a small organization someone who is doing a good job and who stands out can also benefit from positions elsewhere in the public service.

I don't want to insist on this because we have talked about it enough, but this remains a mystery to us. I understand that staff turnover is a challenge. You have a lot of work to do. We have talked a lot about the issue of gifts and all that. What is your major challenge in terms of priorities—it might not be major—in order to help guide the committee and the House in terms of what you see happening next? What challenge will you have to deal with over the next two or three years?

[Mary Dawson]

I think the biggest problem is making sure we cover those areas that we have no way of finding out about. I'm still struggling with what we do about that.

But I think the main thing we can do is continue to publicize the requirements and continue to make ourselves available to explain the requirements to people. One of the challenges will be continuing to find venues to speak to people. We've taken a lot of initiatives in sending out written communication, much more so than was done before I came into the office, I think.

There is also an inherent challenge in interpreting both the code and the act. Some of the sections are not easy, and every case has its own facts, so the interest and the challenge in the job for the advisers is in making sure that they find consistent advice and good answers for the many different kinds of circumstances that are presented to them.

We will be exploring some areas of particular difficulty in our annual reports this year, which will be out in another month or two. Obviously the most difficult area is that concerning gifts. Beyond that, there are some decisions we have to make surrounding what outside activities people can participate in. That's another one that takes a fair bit of time.

Can you think of any others, Lyne?

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance and Advice, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

I would say employment offers.

[Mary Dawson]

There is the question of employment offers, sometimes, and post-employment issues. They're all intellectually challenging decisions that have to be taken on how to interpret the breadth of the act and to decide just where to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Merci, monsieur.

On this, so there is no confusion, this committee is currently reviewing your estimates and has the authority to approve them or recommend their reduction as well. So there is some scrutiny, Ms. Dawson, and you're doing it right now.

Mr. Saxton, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Commissioner, thank you for coming today. I'd like to repeat what my colleagues have said about the orientation for new MPs. I thought it was very helpful. I'd also like to add that your staff has been extremely helpful, and I appreciate that. Thank you again.

It would seem reasonable that people in public office in Canada--and by people in public office I mean in both houses of Parliament--should be held to the same ethical standards. Would you agree with this?

[Mary Dawson]

I don't think I can comment on that. A decision was taken by members and by senators as to how the situation would work, and there it is. I walked into a given situation and I don't think I have any choice as to how it ends.