Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

I must apologize because in the context of members of Parliament, under the code, there are no such obligations for members to be in compliance within the 120 days, and because we've had a number of turnarounds in the advisory role, unfortunately, some of the members' files had been put aside and were not the priority because we had the 120 days under the act. I apologize for that. As I mentioned, under the code there is no timeline for being in compliance, whereas under the act there is a specific requirement of 120 days.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you. I didn't want an apology. I was just curious how long it took to vet it.

Ms. Dawson, you noted there is no penalty for violations under the act other than failure to report. If you were to extend penalties for violations, in what areas do you think it would be most beneficial for you and your office to do the job you'd like to do, or enhance it?

[Mary Dawson]

I hate focusing on penalties, because the objective of the act is to get people to comply. As I said, I'm not looking to penalize people. I noted the irony that it's for the somewhat less serious infractions that there are penalties and there aren't penalties for the more serious infractions, but in no sense is it an irony that I'm not necessarily looking to fill the void with....

I continue to think that the most important remedy against failure to comply is disclosure. The public should be aware when their representatives are not complying with the ethical rules or the conflict of interest rules. I'm not necessarily looking for penalties for those other infractions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Rickford, please.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Dawson, for being here today, and to your staff with you.

I can appreciate the fact that you don't want to focus on penalties. I share the common belief and goal that this is really a process of getting to disclosure and leaving it at that. However, penalties do come up for discussion and I just want to flesh that issue out a little bit.

You mention in your annual report that you had implemented a penalty scheme provided for by the act and that you concentrated initially on compliance within 60- to 120-day deadlines for initial declarations by reporting public office-holders. In the next fiscal year, how do you plan to expand the penalty scheme to apply to the other requirements of the act? What are your priorities in these areas?

[Mary Dawson]

It's extremely difficult to be sure you know what you don't know with respect to gifts, recusals, offers of other employment. There are about six or seven things for which penalties are available. The only two we have a way of checking on, because there's a reporting requirement, is the 60-day and the 120-day. The other reporting is, in a sense, voluntary.

What we've done is to make sure that when we've done our compliance letter we list those things that people are supposed to be reporting to us within 30 days. Increasingly, I think we're trying to set up arrangements with particular offices, as I mentioned, with respect to gifts, so that there's a regular reporting of gifts. But if somebody doesn't tell us that they've had an offer of employment and they don't end up taking it, the chances are we will never find out about it. That's a problem.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Let's develop that a little bit. Which section or group within your organization would actually administer the penalty scheme? To finish out that line of questioning, do you feel you have sufficient resources to discharge this part of your mandate, given that you--

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, I do.

If somebody misses their 60-day deadline, it's at my discretion whether to impose a penalty or not. If they have a reasonable reason why they missed it by a week or two, I'm unlikely to impose a penalty. It's more in the flagrant cases that I impose it. The thing about the penalty isn't so much the money, it's the disclosure, because they're all reported.

Again, I've drifted a bit and I think I've lost your question.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Go ahead.

[Mary Dawson]

Similarly, with the 120 days it is even more so. Sometimes it's because our office is trying to work with that individual to figure out how they can best comply, and sometimes there are estates involved and so on. So the only time we would impose the penalty for missing the 120 days is when the person is simply not working with us or not complying.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

So it's a lack of communication between the two offices.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, when we're trying to proceed and they're impeding us from proceeding, then we may move to a penalty. But it's not the money, it's the disclosure and the way of seeing that the act is complied with.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Very briefly to finish, though, you do mention you have the power to assign penalties for non-compliance. I think it's up to $500, is that correct?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

You say you plan to assess more fines for missed deadlines in the year ahead possibly?

[Mary Dawson]

Well, it's a hard thing to say. We hope that people comply, and if they comply, we won't be imposing any fines. I think the thing we really did well this past year was to get virtually everybody putting their report in within the 60 days.

You see, it was very important to me that we not unfairly impose penalties on certain people we found out about when others.... I wanted the system to be clean, that we were imposing penalties fairly, so that's what we worked on last year.

How to go about dealing with the gifts remains a bit of a chasm, because the only way we find out about gifts is if somebody tells us. If they've come and told us past their 30-day deadline, I feel kind of bad imposing a penalty on them because they've come and told us, whereas the people who haven't told us, we don't know about. I have to figure out how to handle that.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I can appreciate that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, we'll move on.

Monsieur Desnoyers, s'il vous plaît.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Dawson, in your report you state that you do not have the mandate to resolve all ethical issues. As a new member of Parliament, I must say that your answers leave me somewhat confused. I do not feel that you have much of a role to play in terms of ethics. You hold the title, but the act does not contain the powers needed for you to fulfil your mandate as the ethics commissioner. I feel that I must come back to this issue because it would be important to rectify the situation. Earlier, my colleague asked you whether you had any recommendations to make in order to strengthen the act and clarify your mandate. This is something that is clearly addressed in your report. I am a bit confused when I hear you speak, even though I understand that you are not in an easy situation.

My second comment is on the post-employment. How can you carry out your mandate? It must be almost impossible to assess whether people are meeting their post-employment ethical obligations. What we have is wishful thinking, especially given the staff rotation in senior positions. It all becomes extremely complicated. I am wondering whether you have sufficient staff to carry out that work. Monitoring has to cover all public office holders in order to ensure that they meet their post-employment obligations, but I doubt that you can carry out that part of your mandate.

[Mary Dawson]

Starting with the second question first, on post-employment, I think my suggestion is that it would help if there were some kind of reporting requirement.

The problem with post-employment is the same as it is with the offers of employment that I was just talking about. For post-employment, they go out the door and that's the end of any reporting requirement. As with gifts or recusals, we have no way of knowing unless somebody comes to us deliberately. What we have done is put the post-employment requirements in our letter that we always write when somebody's leaving.

There's another thing we've done. When we do see an article in the papers suggesting that somebody's doing something they shouldn't be doing, we'll contact them and talk to them about it. Usually what they're doing doesn't come under our act, but it will trigger us to see whether it's related to something that is under our act.

With respect to strengthening the mandate, the word “ethics” is there. I don't think I would ever propose that it be defined in any particular way. The only way you'd strengthen the mandate, I think, would be to add additional specific provisions. It works both ways. The person has to know what it is they're responsible to do. I think whatever I did with respect to the broader ethical area would be to suggest, but not necessarily find or observe.

I don't know if that helps, but that would be my answer.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Do I still have some time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

There are still 2 minutes on the clock.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Very well.

With regard to post-employment issues, there is of course the Commissioner of Lobbying. She could probably give you a lot of information concerning those who... I imagine that many people engage in lobbying activities. Do you consult her on a regular basis? That could help you in your investigations or inform you of whom the lobbyists are. There are surely many people who lobby the government.

[Mary Dawson]

We're not entitled to discuss our clients with anybody, and that would include the lobbying commissioner. But we do have access to the public reporting requirements under the Lobbying Act and we have had occasion to check those when we've dealt with some situations.

For example, if you see something in the press about somebody, it would be quite logical to take a look--and we do--at whether they are in fact registered lobbyists and at the reports made under the Lobbying Act. But with respect to commissioners comparing notes, I think that's not permitted under the act.

Lyne.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

I simply wanted to add that the vast majority of public office holders are subject to the Lobbying Act, which sets out that they cannot lobby the government for a period of five years following their mandates. In other words, people who leave their positions must not engage in lobbying activities for a period of five years.