Information & Ethics committee  Yes, but I was just going to say that one of our recommendations is an honesty in politics rule that applies in the House, in Parliament, before parliamentary committees, everywhere. It's one of the biggest things that is needed to clean up this spin-counterspin and these false allegations.

Information & Ethics committee  The commissioner is an administrative tribunal. She's a quasi-judicial office already. She is judging. She is enforcing the law. She is finding people in violation. If you have an apparent conflict of interest standard, you must either have a regulation that says what it means, or she has to issue an interpretation bulletin, or no one should go forward.

Information & Ethics committee  No, and to be very clear, we're not calling for investigations to be made public, just the final ruling. If the final ruling is that the person was not guilty and the complaint was not filed in a public way, then the final ruling doesn't have to name who was complained about, but just give a summary so that you know the Ethics Commissioner did look into a case.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, that's fine. I have no problem with conducting these inquiries and examinations privately, but there has to be a ruling at the end. There are 83 situations that were complained about or that the Ethics Commissioner became aware of in the last five years, and we don't know what she did with any of them or why, except that she rejected them.

Information & Ethics committee  —but again, I'm not talking about naming anybody, if they're found not guilty.

Information & Ethics committee  You can't stop false accusations. There is libel law, so that's one protection you have. You can sue someone for libel. If you have the Ethics Commissioner—

Information & Ethics committee  I don't really see any conflict there. Do you mean right away as opposed to having to sit out for a time?

Information & Ethics committee  If they had had significant official dealings with them during their last year of office, which is what the rule is, they wouldn't be able to for one or two years. Otherwise, I don't really see how there would be a conflict with that, when to work with an entity like that.

Information & Ethics committee  Going and working...?

Information & Ethics committee  Actually, in that area she's issued a guideline that's multiple pages, very detailed, and gives lots of examples. I think the area of gifts, actually, that guideline, is the most defined line in the act currently, because of this guideline that the commissioner issued several years ago.

Information & Ethics committee  There's one other area, and it's set out in the act. The commissioner has not defined what it means, but you're not allowed to take improper advantage of your former office. I have sympathy for anyone who has left the public service and is covered by that rule. They don't know where the line is because the Ethics Commissioner hasn't defined what it would be to take improper advantage.

Information & Ethics committee  Training is important. There should be training right up front. There is a meeting once a year that everyone, or a member of their staff, has to attend with the commissioner just to update things, but there should be some up-front training. Principles are fine, but they're so vague that they don't mean anything.

Information & Ethics committee  In a free and democratic society, the democratic part trumping the free to go and do whatever—

Information & Ethics committee  —because the lobbyists' code has the appearance of apparent conflict of interest standard. That's why that standard needs to be added to the act as well.

Information & Ethics committee  Generally I think Oliphant had it right in his recommendations, and the Ethics Commissioner has essentially endorsed all of those in her report. A public office holder does not have to tell the commissioner that they are leaving, unless they have had an offer of employment before they left.