Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup. It's a great pleasure to be here today. I really appreciate the invitation. I'm particularly pleased, because there are at least two members of this committee from my home province of Alberta. I recently discovered that my dad was dentist for the member for Red Deer, as well as for me.
Advancing ethics legislation is a bit like pulling teeth. It almost always comes as a result of a scandal. Sometimes it comes as a result of thoughtful deliberation. I'm really hoping that the recommendations that are discussed today can be proactive and can prevent future scandals as a result.
I spent four years working for the Alberta government—three years as a middle manager for social services, and one year as an assistant to a cabinet minister. During these four years, Peter Lougheed was the premier. He set an example by having unimpeachable ethical standards. He was in large measure part of my inspiration for the study of ethics in the public sector.
There are two points I want to make today. First of all, the conflict of interest regimes in Canada that work the best are those that require elected members to meet in person with the Ethics Commissioner or someone in the commissioner's office on an annual basis to discuss the member's disclosure statement. Secondly, I think it's important for this committee to re-examine the recommendations of part III of the Oliphant commission report that are within the jurisdiction of this committee, and to consider implementing the recommendations that haven't already been implemented.
First of all, compulsory meetings with the ethics commissioner—what became known as the Canadian model of the prevention of conflicts of interest involving elected members—began with the creation of the position of an independent conflict of interest commissioner, now referred to as the integrity commissioner, in Ontario in 1988. The Ontario legislation provides that all MPPs must submit a confidential disclosure statement to the commissioner within 60 days of an election, and that they have to meet in person with the commissioner to discuss that statement within another 60 days. Usually it's a lot quicker than that on both counts. The disclosure statements have to be updated annually, and there are required annual meetings, once again, with the commissioner. The commissioner also has the power to investigate complaints about alleged violations of the rules. On average, there has been an inquiry about once every two years.
From its inception, the Ontario approach was meant to be primarily educative, and thus preventive, and only secondarily investigative. The approach has been highly successful. The number of serious allegations of breach of conflict of interest rules dropped on an average annual basis by 90% after the new regime came into effect. Because it has worked so well, it has been copied in every jurisdiction in every province and territory across Canada, and now for the Senate and the House of Commons with some varied approaches. Now we are getting into the municipalities as well.
In every instance where this Canadian model has been instituted, there has been a drop in the number of allegations of conflict of interest. The least successful regime in terms of reducing the need for inquiries about allegations of breach of the rules is unfortunately the House of Commons and the cabinet. More allegations of breach of the rules are investigated by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner per member than for any other legislative body in Canada. I think this is because there is no requirement to meet with the commissioner or someone in the commissioner's office. Between 2004 and 2010, the commissioner conducted annually, on average, four inquiries into credible allegations of breach of the rules. This is far too many. It leads to negative publicity about the person being investigated. This isn't the fault of the commissioner. It's because of the weakness in the preventive part of the Conflict of Interest Act.
In my experience, the great majority of the elected members in every party are honest. They enter into politics to serve the public good.
Most of us think we're ethical so we don't need to pay close attention to the rules, but conflict of interest is not always an easy concept to understand in some situations. That's why it is useful to obtain the personal advice of the Ethics Commissioner or one of her staff. As well, once personal contact has been established, it's more likely that an elected member will go to the commissioner or the commissioner's office for advice when unusual situations arise.
In Ontario, MPPs request advice from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner five to seven times a year on average. From what I can understand from Commissioner Dawson's report, it might be once or twice a year for the House of Commons. These informal inquiries are part of the preventive approach of the Canadian model, and they're more frequent once you have these compulsory meetings that not only help prevent conflict of interest in individual situations but create a rapport, trust, and a willingness to use the system.
Up until 2012, Commissioners Shapiro and Dawson between them had issued 19 reports resulting from investigations into allegations that MPs or cabinet ministers had violated either the code or the act. I've read all of the reports that resulted from these inquiries, and I've concluded that many, if not most, of these 19 inquiries would have been unnecessary or would have been much shorter had there been a previous personal meeting between the commissioner and a cabinet minister or a staff member and the MP.
My second recommendation is with regard to the recommendations of the Oliphant commission. Part III of the commission's report contained a number of recommendations for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mrs. Dawson, who has implemented all of them, for the Prime Minister's Office, and for this committee. I contacted the Prime Minister's Office to find out if they are contemplating implementing these recommendations. I got an acknowledgement, and they said they would get back to me, but I'm still waiting.
A number of recommendations affect this committee and its jurisdiction. I'm not sure if any of the recommendations have been implemented yet, but if not, I'd like you to consider them.
With regard to the educational role of the commissioner, the commissioner's office runs voluntary training sessions on the Conflict of Interest Act and Code. Only about half of the MPs attend, according to Mrs. Dawson's annual reports. Very few ministers attend. Oliphant recommended that attendance at these training sessions be compulsory for ministers and that party leaders should make them compulsory for their MPs.
It was recommended that after the filing of disclosure statements under the act and the code, there should be compulsory in-person meetings between the staff in the commissioner's office and the ministers and MPs, as is the case in most Canadian jurisdictions, including the Senate. To date, there haven't been any inquiries conducted by the Senate Ethics Officer. I think it's because the required annual in-person meetings have an effect in terms of preventing behaviour that could lead to allegations of conflict of interest.
The conflict of interest and lobbying rules have improved greatly in Canada since 1993-94. They are now amongst the most rigorous in the world, but there are still some loopholes that I think need addressing.
What Oliphant recommended was that the definition of employment in the Conflict of Interest Act should be clarified:
employment shall mean...any form of outside employment or business relationship involving the provision of services by the public office holder, reporting public office holder, or former reporting public office holder...including, but not limited to, services as an officer, director, employee, agent, lawyer, consultant, contractor, partner, or trustee.
In regard to the Conflict of Interest Act, Oliphant recommended that the definition of conflict of interest should be broadened to include an “apparent conflict of interest”. For example, this is the case in British Columbia and some other jurisdictions. It simply ensures that the legislation goes a little bit further to require members to observe the highest standards.
The Conflict of Interest Act should be amended so that post-employment provisions clearly refer to work done in Canada or anywhere else, according to Oliphant.
The Conflict of Interest Act should be amended to prohibit public office holders from awarding contracts or benefits to persons who may be in violation of the code, and if these public office holders are uncertain, they must check with the Ethics Commissioner.
The act should be amended to make it a non-criminal offence to fail to meet disclosure obligations.
As well, there should be an appropriate appeal mechanism regarding post-employment decisions of the commissioner that involve procedural fairness and transparency.
In conclusion, I think the Conflict of Interest Act has done a lot of good. It's always a work in progress. In Ontario, the legislature, every once in a while, acts proactively to tighten up the rules, instead of doing that because of scandals. I very much hope this committee will consider doing the same thing.
I look forward to your questions.