Information & Ethics committee  Thank you very much.

Information & Ethics committee  I think there is actually a way forward. I think you set out the dilemma quite well. The way forward again is looking for the principled middle ground. One that comes up a fair bit in this accountabilities sphere is the idea of advanced judgments. So you say, look, I want to take on this role and can I get an advanced ruling from you the commissioner on whether I'm running afoul of the rules?

Information & Ethics committee  Sure. Advance rulings—we'll start with that—are not uncommon. For example, they're a routine part of how our tax system works. In this field, the Ontario integrity commissioner, for example, would say the most significant part of her work is the advice-giving, which runs the spectrum between someone saying they want to go to an event, here's who's sponsoring it, and asking for advice on whether they should go.

Information & Ethics committee  It's a real challenge, because I think you could do a real unfairness by preventing a public office holder from effectively being able to have a livelihood. But it's a hugely sensitive area of concern, both temporally—wanting, in other words, to make sure that there is that cooling-off period—and also in an ongoing sense of wanting to make sure you're not trading on access to public information or decision-making in order to gain a private benefit.

Information & Ethics committee  The best solution I can think of is to try to use the principles to find that middle ground. For example, you could say that a minister should never have anything to do with a constituent who is coming before a regulatory or other body. But these are politicians, and the nature of representing a riding and a constituency is that you want to help.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, I think that's fair. It's a tough concept to get your head around. The same person you voted for—who was on the campaign hustings, who is part of government, who is a political player in a very significant sense—needs at the same time, wearing a different hat, to be an impartial person exercising statutory authorities for the public interest.

Information & Ethics committee  It's a very intriguing issue. It's not just citizens, of course, but in some cases it may be people doing business with government; it may be a whole range of people who will come into knowledge of what they consider to be a potential conflict. I can't think of a principled reason that we wouldn't want to hear those concerns.

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, my own view—and, again, it's not a partisan view, but just looking at the evolution of this—is that the act is an improvement on what came before it. The dynamic that you haven't mentioned, though, which is an interesting one for all of you around the table, is that it's not a static process.

Information & Ethics committee  I take a different view from the commissioner on this. I have a lot of respect for her and for others in the field. For example, David Mullen is a colleague in this field, and we both served as integrity commissioner for the city at different periods. We take a different view. His view is that no gift should be under the radar.

Information & Ethics committee  It's an excellent question, and there are experts on other jurisdictions who have looked particularly at some recent innovations. This same process that led to the Conflict of Interest Act five years ago is ongoing in several jurisdictions, often in the wake of a scandal. I'm not aware of one that has been held up as the model, just as the different provincial statutes now give us a range.

Information & Ethics committee  I'm glad you asked that question. When I say the public knows, what I mean is the distinction between a private interest and a legitimate public authority is pretty clear to people. For example, it may be the spouse, the sibling, or a whole bunch of proxies where we would assume you're going to be affected by your child's interest.

Information & Ethics committee  I think the act in fact does that. Section 4, for example, refers to private interests and the public authority. It's simply leaving language that is instructive and value-based for the commissioner to interpret and apply, potentially using guidelines or scenario-based advice.

Information & Ethics committee  I think there is some risk in the sense that the more jeopardy you add, whether monetary policy or other kinds of sanctions or discretion around remedies, the more someone who's subject to this can legitimately say, “I deserve more process. I deserve more of a chance to be heard.”

Information & Ethics committee  Sure, and it won't take long. We have considerable jurisprudence on this point through administrative law's “reasonable apprehension of bias” test, which is used by administrative decision-makers and regulators, by quasi-judicial and policy-based entities. So we have a lot of basis to say when, in the eyes of a reasonable person, there is the perception of a lack of impartiality.

Information & Ethics committee  It's an absolutely critical puzzle, in a sense. Look, I have no partisan axes to grind on any side here, but I think it's clear to anyone that you would defeat the purpose of giving sensible advice and being able to engage in investigations, which sometimes need to be developed away from the public glare, if the entire thing was transparent from start to finish.