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.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I'm not sure I'm clear if it's been fully reviewed as it relates to the word “entity” and who that would describe.
3:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It would have to be a case-by-case....
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
So it may describe a municipality or a first nations community that a member would represent.
3:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes. It would depend.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you.
You talked about harmonization of the code and the act as it relates to the ability to do a preliminary investigation. Obviously the code allows for that, and the act doesn't allow for that.
You're suggesting that should be a requirement, or something that should be changed, so that's one, and getting agreement on that. Do you want to go further with that?
My understanding would be simply that you want the ability to see if an investigation should be launched or not, should resources be allocated to something that might be frivolous.
3:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's right. I think it's a useful provision in the code. It seems to have worked well, and I don't know why it couldn't also apply in the act.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
In terms of frivolous complaints that come before your office, we all understand that we live in a hyper-political environment where sometimes these things may be frivolous, either intended or not. The challenge for members of Parliament is that the only thing we have to go out to our constituents is our reputation. In doing so, your office obviously plays an important role in either protecting reputations or in helping somebody else. I think your desire to be able to speak or to clarify the record might be in attempting to protect the members of Parliament in cases where reputations are being slain unnecessarily, using your name.
3:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It could go either way, actually. It could be somebody saying that I'd said it was fine and I hadn't said it was fine. It could be somebody saying somebody did some dastardly thing that they've told me about and I'm investigating it, and I'm not. It could be any number of situations.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
It seems to me that a number of different organizations have undertaken a number of precautions to ensure that their membership is protected until such time as a guilty verdict has been rendered. I look at the College of Physicians and Surgeons as well as a number of different professional organizations that have a number of things to ensure that reputations are protected until such time as a guilty verdict has been rendered.
Have you undertaken any consideration of anything in your purview that needs to be enhanced so that you might be better able to protect the reputation of somebody who may be unnecessarily hindered as a result of an investigation or a frivolous accusation?
3:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Probably the one that comes to my mind is that recommendation that says that people putting in complaints shouldn't be releasing them to the press before they've told me they've put them in to me and before the person that is complained about knows about it. That's another one of my recommendations.
I would say that was probably the most problematic area.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
So what would happen in that case where the decision was released to the media? Would you suggest that you would not investigate if in fact the information is released publicly before you were made aware of it?
3:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, I would suggest that would be a contravention of the act.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It could be.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Mr. Warkentin, your time is up.
I will now give the floor to Mr. Andrews for seven minutes.
February 11th, 2013 / 3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to our panellists today.
Carrying on with the conversation about your recommendations regarding 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4, you were just speaking about a member refraining from commenting publicly on an investigation and your allowing a preliminary view of requests and so on.
It's a two-way street. Obviously part of the communication is letting people know that there's an investigation ongoing, and you can't do that unless you go public. How do you square that circle? It's often charged in the media or elsewhere, and if neither party is commenting on it, then it just goes up into a vacuum. Do you see that as being a problem?
3:55 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No. The media can call me and ask me whether I've received a complaint and I can answer that question. I'm not sure if that's quite what you're getting at, but there's not a huge delay between the time somebody sends a complaint in to me and I say that I've received a complaint.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
When you say correct public misinformation out there, how far do you want to go? It's like one step, and then it's two, and then you're into the debate.
3:55 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There is a balance. Certainly I'm very conscious of protecting people's reputations when they shouldn't be attacked needlessly.
I've had several cases, for example, where an MP has gone out and said they had taken something to the Ethics Commissioner and she said it was just fine, and I haven't. I think it should be within my power to say “No, I did not say that.”
I'm not even sure that the act as it stands right now doesn't allow me to make some public comment. The provision in the act is restricted to once an examination has begun, but there's a general philosophy in the act that I keep things confidential, and also in the Parliament of Canada Act.
So all I'm really suggesting is that there be some kind of a provision to make it clear that I can cover off misleading information.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
So you've had examples where members of Parliament have said they've come to you and the commissioner has said it's okay, and that's not actually the fact.
3:55 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes. Usually it's because they may have said yes, it's fine, but in fact it wasn't a matter that could be dealt with under the act.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Wouldn't you feel it your duty to speak out on that regardless of what you're allowed to say or not say?
3:55 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, and I think I probably would be allowed to say that because it's not while I'm in the middle of an examination, but what I'm saying is that I think that role should be clear. I think there should be some parameters around that, such as when there's a misrepresentation, or a misunderstanding or something.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Mr. Conacher was here last week and he said that you've initiated over 100 investigations, but you've only put out 17 rulings. His suggestion was that every time you do an investigation, you should have some reporting mechanism, not necessarily saying what was involved or who was involved, but the broad strokes of what was alleged or asked, and what the ruling was. Do you see that as a useful suggestion in changing the act?
3:55 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I actually saw that as kind of a useful suggestion, yes, not necessarily to change the act, but I'm asking myself whether there's not a little bit more in that line that I could put in my annual reports.
Again, it's a balance between protecting somebody's reputation being impugned unnecessarily, so of course one would have to not mention the individual. Sometimes the situations are notorious, or are in the media, so just saying what it was about, somebody would know which case it was.
One has to be quite careful in that area, but I'm thinking about it.