Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting me here to speak about the work of the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario and the Members' Integrity Act.
Today I want to provide to you an overview of the main features of Ontario's legislation and the activities of our office. I will also comment briefly on a few of the issues this committee will be considering in its review of the Conflict of Interest Act, but I won't go into too much detail. I believe I can best assist you by allowing members to ask me questions and by providing Ontario's experience on the topics that are of interest.
First a little bit of history. Ontario enacted conflict of interest legislation in 1988 and was the first province in Canada to do so. This included the appointment of a commissioner, an independent officer of the Ontario legislature. There is some significance to this. Ontario's elected officials have had the benefit of an independent advisor on conflict of interest and ethics issues for almost 25 years. I have had the honour of working in the office since it was established in 1988, and while it certainly didn't happen overnight, I have seen first-hand how elected officials have come to trust and rely on the office.
From the outset, the main goals of the office were to provide assistance to elected officials in navigating the rules, as well as to apply appropriate scrutiny to allegations of transgressions. We have also focused on increasing the level of awareness of the rules among elected members so that they become better equipped to identify and avoid potential conflicts of interest. We extend this work through our other mandates, which include providing ethics advice to ministers' staff as well as running the province's lobbyist registration.
Our office is an independent ethics leader serving the public interest by encouraging and supporting high ethical standards that strengthen trust and confidence in the Ontario government.
There are many similarities between the federal Conflict of Interest Act and the Members' Integrity Act. The conflict of interest rules are similar, and we also require the reporting of financial holdings of elected officials. There are, however, some differences, and I would like to highlight some of those.
I do want to be clear that while I do believe our system works well, my goal today is merely to provide information about how we do things in Ontario, and not necessarily to advocate for the same system federally.
I know that another witness, York University Professor Ian Greene, spoke to the issue of elected officials meeting annually with the commissioner. Ontario is one of the jurisdictions where this is required. I meet each year with elected officials to discuss their financial holdings. However, these discussions are about more than finances. They are about building a relationship between our office and elected officials and making sure they know that we are there to advise them on any ethical issues that may arise in their day-to-day work.
Generally, the meetings take between 30 and 60 minutes, and members usually attend without their staff. During the meetings we are able to have a full and frank discussion about many issues: policies on receiving gifts, sponsorship of summer barbecues, letters of support, the appropriate use of office resources—any issue the MPP may have. Our discussions and any subsequent advice that I may provide are confidential.
The meetings also help me to understand the realities of political life for these members, and they give me an excellent opportunity to educate our elected officials, which is an important part of our approach.
I sincerely believe it is this dialogue that forms a cornerstone of the success of the Members' Integrity Act in Ontario.
I also believe that these annual meetings help to encourage MPPs to seek my advice regarding their obligations under the act throughout the year.
In providing these opinions, the confidentiality of the member is protected, and we always strive to foster an environment where no question is considered too insignificant. We work hard to provide frank advice in a timely manner, and if the member discloses all the facts, they can rely on the opinion to their full defence. Though some questions take longer to answer, we regularly provide opinions within 24 hours of the request, something that members appreciate given their busy schedules.
It has been my experience that an elected official will not always be automatically aware of the potential intersections that may arise between their private life and their public life prior to entering office and during their tenure in office. There is a strong need for a neutral, independent advisor to assist the member in keeping on track.
Providing confidential opinions, together with our mandatory annual meetings, provide ample opportunity to assist the members in living up to these high expectations. The objective is not to make sure the member knows all the answers, but rather to make sure they know when to ask the question.
We also answer inquiries from MPPs' staff, and particularly constituency staff, who face many requests from constituents for assistance and intervention by members and require guidance on what activities are appropriate. I believe this has developed a culture among Ontario MPPs to at least be alive to issues that require greater consideration. It's my view, and it has been the view of previous commissioners, that the high number of inquiries we receive in a year, usually well over 300 in a non-election year, has a direct impact on reducing the number of formal complaints made under the act by one MPP about the actions of another MPP.
As indicated earlier, I believe our system works because it provides members with the opportunity to ask any question and to get frank advice in return. We also focus on training and education, particularly after elections, to ensure that new members and their staff know about the rules and know about our office, and to provide a refresher to returning members. To me, education is key in helping officials comply with the rules.
I have reviewed Commissioner Dawson's recommendations to this committee about the Conflict of Interest Act. While I don't see it as my role to get into any detail about them, I do believe that they are very thorough and are clearly based on the experience of the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner in fulfilling its mandate.
In reviewing the main themes of Commissioner Dawson's report, I noted two items that I felt I could speak to. The first is the issue of addressing misinformation put into the public domain. While Commissioner Dawson specifically mentions investigation work, I believe it is important for a commissioner to have the discretion to correct misinformation. In fact, when Ontario's Members' Integrity Act was amended in 2010, our office sought precisely this change. The act originally allowed me to publicly release an opinion I had provided to a member only if the member had provided his or her consent to me. This was usually fine, but we did encounter a couple of situations where a member publicly released only a part of the opinion, leading to what we viewed as an incomplete story. We sought and achieved an amendment that gives the commissioner the discretion to release the entire opinion if a situation like this happens again. Correcting misinformation by being able to speak to one's activities is important for both the commissioner and for officials.
Another one of Commissioner Dawson's priority areas was to harmonize the act and the members' code. This is something that makes a lot of sense to me and that l encourage the committee to strongly consider. As Integrity Commissioner, l have several mandates with intersecting areas of jurisdiction, with parties who interact with one another, such as elected officials and lobbyists. Having clear definitions, identical or at least similar language between legislation, makes my job a lot easier. The instances where the language diverges only lead to confusion among those who are affected by the laws and rules. This is a recommendation that just makes good sense. Ensuring better clarity of the language in the rules will help elected officials comply with them.
This concludes the key points l wanted to make today. l hope my comments have been helpful to you, and l am happy to answer any of your questions.