Shutting out media won’t help

Given all that has been happening in politics lately, on both sides of the Canada-U.S. divide, one might be inclined to conclude, without so much as a blink, that an ethics commissioner's request for greater enforcement powers should be granted outright.

With the prime minister’s illconsidered vacations and the finance minister’s dubious personal-fortune dealings having substantially gummed up the ethics-in-government machinery in Canada during the past year, it was hardly surprising to hear the newly appointed ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, suggest he needs more clout — in the form of harsher penalties and more control over information flow‚ — in order to rein in political misbehaviour.

Dion, who took office a month ago as the replacement for departed commissioner Mary Dawson, said this week he intends to be a “tougher” ethics watchdog than his predecessor. And given that Dawson had very little agency to impose actual, practical punishments when public officials went afoul of ethical guidelines — the stern suggestion that offenders should feel ashamed of themselves was about as far as her powers went — it’s easy to understand why Dion wants more weapons at his disposal.

But the changes he suggested last week — when he appeared before the Commons committee on access to information, privacy and ethics — include the possibility of imposing publication bans on information related to ethics investigations. The measure would fly directly in the face of the need for transparency in political undertakings.

Dion’s argument is that having information about ethics probes made public — both when a complaint has been filed and when an investigation has been launched —“pollutes the environment” in which the commissioner’s office would conduct its examination.

“For many Canadians, an allegation that a public-office holder has contravened the act is tantamount to a finding of contravention,” Dion asserted.

Several MPs taking part in the meeting rightly expressed concerns about Mr. Dion’s suggested limitation, citing the importance of media reporting in the uncovering of ethical wrongdoing.

Conservative MP Peter Kent, a former journalist, called the notion unacceptable.

“Any number of investigations by the ethics commissioner are actually undertaken because of media coverage,” he said. “Protections of free speech (and) journalist practice need to be defended and balanced.”

Inhibiting the media’s ability to investigate in the pursuit of stronger ethical enforcement in the political realm is a selfdefeating strategy.

Dion had other suggestions for the committee, including the notion that imposing financial penalties, rather than just “name-and-shame” verbal callouts, might act as a greater deterrent to ethical offenders. The new commissioner floated the idea of a fine as large as $25,000, coupled with possible suspension from sitting in the House of Commons, for those found to have contravened ethical rules.

It’s an interesting idea, but one can’t help thinking that even that five-figure fine — a princely sum for average wage-earning Canadians — could be dismissed as walking-around money by those Canadian politicians most notably accused of ethics violations in the past year.

There are challenges ahead for Dion. Even if greater punitive powers are granted, the new ethics commissioner’s enforcement task will be no less daunting than his predecessor’s.

—Winnipeg Free Press