Evidence of meeting #64 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was something.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
It would be helpful if you read your reports and this was in there. You can say, yes, I can see that happening—
3:55 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes. I actually called up a little list of what kinds of decisions had been made that we didn't go forward with investigations. Usually, it's because there's insufficient evidence to warrant going forward. For example, one of them wasn't really a gift or something. There are a number of different circumstances that just don't fit within the parameters of the act, or sometimes it's simply an allegation with absolutely no substantiation.
I could certainly think about categorizing those in a general way and giving a little bit more information on that, because I do give quite a bit of information on the investigations, but it's true that the ones that.... Now that's over the five years. He has that 83, or whatever it is, but there are about 20 a year or something that might be worth at least saying something about.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Talking about the cooling-off period and your recommendations 5-1 through 5-7, and reflecting back on a recent report you did on Mr. Loyola Sullivan—a public office holder and his breach as a public officer in a conflict of interest—if we make all these recommendations on the cooling-off period and it still happens, and there are no imposing penalties...I'd have to disagree with you when you say your report alone sort of does the deed. I don't think it does. It partially does, but when you look at it, there's no penalty: I got written up by the commissioner. Big deal.
4 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There could be an admin monetary penalty for the failure to report it in the 30 days, or whatever the deadline was, and I think I've said that would certainly carry on into the post-employment situation. So there would be some. But those penalties are really administrative. It's a matter for Parliament to decide whether in fact the regime I'm administering lends itself to significant penalties or whether that should be left to the government or somebody else to impose or to have the results.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
In your opinion, should there be significant penalties because you look at the cooling-off period and you write it up? You have written up a number of cabinet ministers now with no consequences whatsoever.
It has to be pretty discouraging that these offences are out there, and it happens, and then it's just brushed off unless there's a substantial penalty. Should there be substantive penalties?
4 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'm not of the view that there should be, but I recognize that there are a number of people who are.
I was fairly taken with the testimony of...what was his name? Professor...?
February 11th, 2013 / 4 p.m.
Nancy Bélanger General Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Green.
4 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Professor Green suggested this was not appropriate for the kind of entity that I am or that my commission is.
I think I am a fact-finding, advisory, report-making entity. I'm not so sure I should build myself up like a criminal court or something. If the thing gets bad enough or takes on the tenure of a criminal offence, then obviously it should go into the criminal justice system.
Personally, I think there is an effect if I issue a report. I think it's very embarrassing. The other effect is that people don't tend to do it again. As we build up a body of these decisions, my hope is that people will know not to do it.
4 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you.
I now give the floor to Mr. Carmichael for seven minutes.
4 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon, Commissioner, and to your colleagues.
Following up on your comment, I'm one who would agree, unlike my colleague, that the damage or impact on reputations, I believe, is significant. For anybody living this life, our reputation, who we are, what we are doing, and why we're doing it here, representing our constituents, is very important to us. I for one believe that the impact on one's reputation of a judgment of that nature is very great, so I would agree with you on that.
I want to cover a couple of different areas. With regard to gifts, etc., and not to the numbers so much, but I recall in one of your earlier visits before this committee that you talked about the strain on resources in your organization. One of the thoughts I have as I read some of these recommendations is that while I agree with you with regard to tightening up some of the gaps and filling in where a greater definition is required...have you quantified the financial impact on your organization and what that might look like?
4 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I don't remember saying I had a terrible strain on my resources.
4 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
That could be me. I may have listened to somebody else, and if that is the case, I apologize.
4 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I think it was a different person.
In any event, I don't think these recommendations would require much more work than we have now. We're quite well organized on our advisory role. Every person under both the code and the act has a designated adviser. One person looks after a particular person.
I recognize there may be some difficulty in reporting those gifts, but it just isn't right that people think they don't have to report or tell us, and they assume it's fine to have a gift that goes up to a value of $200. I thought if you put those two figures together there wouldn't be such confusion because you would only have to worry about one figure.
4 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Whatever the number is, I wouldn't disagree. It's in there now. I understand that. I wonder if lowering that amount creates a conflict in terms of the volume.
4:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I don't think that's a big problem.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
All right.
As we talked about, and as you laid out your eight points on post-employment, we heard from a witness the other day who talked about the impact of post-employment on public office holders at varying levels of responsibility and influence. One piece of the testimony I found interesting was about a sliding scale of time following leaving the position and being responsible to the rules. I wonder if you've ever considered that, or was that part of the consideration when the five-year rule was established?
4:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I don't have a five-year rule. That's under the Lobbying Act. I have a two-year rule and a one-year rule.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I have a two-year rule. I think that's something one could consider. It's not one of my recommendations, but it's not an outlandish suggestion.
It's interesting. I've always observed that two of the purposes of the Conflict of Interest Act are to “encourage experienced and competent persons to seek and accept public office”—that's paragraph 3(d)—and to “facilitate interchange between the private and public sector”. These post-employment rules go against those particular objectives, but on the other hand, they're attempting to protect the integrity of information and influence.
There is a balance. Usually it's one year. It's only two years for the parliamentary secretary and the minister, so in a sense, there is already the start of a sliding scale. I don't know whether you'd want to go too much less than one year, but it's not something that I think is outlandish.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
The balance in that is all I'm looking for. I did find the concept interesting in that, as you say, you want to encourage people to take on the role. You don't want to discourage them by post-employment penalties that are too onerous.
4:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Right. It's interesting, because there's no similar prohibition coming in; it's just going out.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
I have a question on one-on-one meetings with you and/or your staff—obviously, your staff more frequently. Do you feel right now that public office holders are receiving the amount of attention, one on one, in terms of guidance and direction from your team that they need in order to get the job done?
4:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Certainly those who want it get it, and a large number of people seek advice from our office on a regular basis. I'm sure there are others out there who haven't paid an awful lot of attention to the act. Those are the people for whom, perhaps, there should be some kind of.... I made a recommendation for at least one mandatory piece of training. Those who automatically come anyway for advice won't mind mandatory training; they will have already done it. I've suggested that happen in that first 120 days, when they're becoming familiar with the act.
It could be done in a number of ways. I couldn't do it all. I have 3,000 public office holders. But between the advisers and group sessions, it could be done.