Let me see if I can take the member's last question first, Chair, and then go to his first question.
Part of the rule of law is that the administration of justice is open and transparent. When ordinary people break the law, subject to publication bans covering young offenders and witnesses, subject to that narrow area, their wrongdoings are made public. That's part of an open and transparent system of justice. That's why we moved away from Star Chamber. Openness and transparency in the administration of justice is a centuries-old right and principle that we observe here in Canada, so I don't see why public office holders should be any different. For common folks, their transgressions are made public. Public office holders shouldn't be in an exalted position in that respect.
You asked about which recommendation dealt with the consequences of finding a breach. I'll clarify again. For those 17 breaches in the last 12 months alone—there were more previously—it only applies to the areas where the commissioner can impose a monetary penalty, which is none of the 25 prohibitions and only 13 of the 19 positive obligations. It's our recommendation 17, which says:
The Act should be amended to provide as follows: After the Commissioner’s finding of a breach of the Act by a public office holder, the public office holder’s employer or appointing authority...shall be given 30 days to confirm the employment or appointment, as the case may be, and to publish reasons for the decision. If the employment or appointment is not confirmed within 30 days of the finding of a breach, then the public office holder’s office shall be vacated.