Ethics watchdog lacks bite, says it might be time for MP code of conduct

MPs and cabinet ministers behaving badly?

The House of Commons ethics watchdog says she can’t do much about it unless it involves shenanigans with private interests.

But in her annual report Thursday, ethics commissioner Mary Dawson suggested the Commons consider a code of conduct for members.

Dawson said she regularly gets complaints from people who think politicians are abusing their positions or behaving inappropriately.

“Misleading statements, personal attacks and the like that come with the partisan nature of political life are often distasteful to many Canadians,” Dawson wrote in her reports on both the Conflict of Interest Code for MPs and the Conflict of Interest Code Act.

“Some assume that this sort of behaviour must be covered by one or another of the various accountability regimes in force. In fact, there is no comprehensive regime that governs political conduct in general.”

Dawson said some of the cases she’s been asked to look into, but couldn’t, included the use of MP mailings or communications in an overly partisan manner, using partisan labels when announcing government initiatives, or breaking the confidentiality of the budget process.

Her office examines cases involving MPs and public office-holders and their dealings with individuals and businesses outside of government — everything from accepting gifts to where they work after leaving politics.

She noted that she sometimes refers issues to other bodies, include the Speaker of the Commons, the lobbying commissioner, and the chief electoral officer.

“However, none of these authorities appears to have within its mandate the responsibility for regulating the ethical aspects of partisan political conduct,” she said.

She said that simply throwing up one’s hands on political conduct does “a great disservice to our democratic institutions and to Parliament itself, and can only erode the confidence of Canadians in our systems of government.”

She suggested that the Commons could come up with a conduct of conduct, relying on either voluntary compliance or perhaps overseen by a ex-parliamentarians from the various parties.

But Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch said there’s nothing to prevent Dawson from cracking down on ministers who engage in inappropriate partisan activity. He noted there’s nothing in the Act that says furthering one’s own personal interests is limited to private financial interests.

He used the example of Conservatives appearing in public with giant cheques of government cash emblazoned with the Conservative party logos.

“She’s made up that loophole to let cabinet ministers off the hook,” Conacher said.

“It helps you get re-elected, which helps you keep a job, which is more money that some of these people have made in their lives. If that’s not furthering your private intersts, then what is?”

As for Dawson’s own area of responsibility, she also sees room for improvement.

She noted that despite previous recommendations, there is still no way to track what happens to public officer holders such as ministers and parliamentary secretaries once they leave government.

There is a cooling-off period that prevents them from directly dealing with or working for entities with which they had contact in government. But there is no requirement for them to report on where they go and no sanctions if they break the rules.

Dawson also described some of the difficulties she encountered in trying to get documents for her investigations.

She said although she is subject to strict confidentiality rules, she still experienced delays in getting some cabinet records.

And she said the Commons would not give her emails from a particular MP’s office directly. The MP was able to get the emails first and decide which ones to give Dawson afterward.

“This situation raises serious concerns about the integrity of the inquiry process,” Dawson wrote.

“I hope to have an opportunity to work with the House of Commons to establish a process that will allow me to obtain direct and full disclosure of documentary evidence.”

Conacher has complaints about Dawson’s own reporting record, calling her “lap dog”to the Conservative government.

He points out that although she knew of 45 public office holders who did not submit their paperwork in time about their financial holdings, she only issued six notices of violation including five monetary penalties.

She had seven requests for investigations into ethical breaches by MPs, and 15 from the public, and undertook three full-scale inquiries, but did not find any violations.