Rebuild the public trust
During his first fortnight on the job, Mario Dion, the new federal ethics commissioner, has demonstrated a heartening thoughtfulness about what he, in his role, can do to restore the public trust after a year of ethical scandal in Ottawa.
Dion assumes the position amid rare scrutiny and a growing awareness that something’s not quite right with Canada’s conflictof-interest law and the office meant to enforce it. He has a tough job ahead.
The December ruling by Dion’s predecessor, Mary Dawson, that the prime minister’s holiday vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island was illegal brought to widespread public attention that such transgressions carry no consequences beyond public embarrassment. This, along with controversy over Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s personal finances, has raised troubling questions about ethical judgment on Parliament Hill and about the adequacy of the law meant to keep our leaders in line.
Dion has vowed to be “fearless” in his new role. To rebuild trust, he will have to fulfil that promise in at least two ways: by advocating for improvements to our loophole-riddled conflict-of-interest law and by moving beyond his predecessor’s legalistic interpretation of the job to something more akin to an ethical adviser.
In early interviews, Dion has acknowledged the clear need to improve the federal Conflict of Interest Act. Speaking with CTV News last week, he identified a number of areas of particular concern. The lax rules around accepting gifts should be tightened, he rightly argued. And when, as in the case of the prime minister’s illicit getaway, the rules are broken, there should be real and meaningful sanctions.
The conflict-of-interest law is meant in part to preserve the public trust. When the prime minister is found to be in violation of the law but faces no consequences, for instance, the opposite is accomplished.
One measure that Dion did not mention, but which he certainly should pursue, is the closure of what the opposition now calls the “Bill Morneau loophole.”
Morneau was allowed, by law and purportedly on the advice of the ethics commissioner, to maintain control over a large stake in his former company, even as he ran the country’s finances. It is established procedure, but not a requirement, for ministers to place their holdings in a blind trust as a way of avoiding conflicts of interest, real or perceived. That Morneau — and, we have since learned, at least one other in Justin Trudeau’s cabinet — did not do this is cause for real concern.
The Morneau affair also raised important questions about the role of the ethics commissioner, exposing the limitations of a narrowly legalistic interpretation of the role. If Dawson told Morneau that maintaining indirect control over his investments was allowed by the letter of the law without advising him that doing so would seem to violate its spirit, she failed.
Dion has said he believes part of his job is to push politicians not just to abide by the law, but also to seek to serve its spirit — and he’s right. The mere appearance of impropriety undermines trust and corrodes our democracy. The ethics commissioner should not just be an interpreter of the law, but also an adviser on ethical judgment.
Of course, not even the perfect law paired with the perfect watchdog would be adequate to the challenge of ensuring ethical government. Our conflict-of-interest laws will never provide answers for every ethical dilemma, nor should that be the goal. And, ultimately, the prime minister, his cabinet and other parliamentarians cannot outsource their own ethical responsibilities to a watchdog.
But Dion is right that we need a conflict-of-interest law that is clear and effective, overseen by a watchdog able to mete out meaningful sanctions when that law is broken. More than that, we need a commissioner who is willing to remind politicians that, when it comes to ethics, appearances matter a great deal.
Mario Dion assumes the position of ethics commissioner amid rare scrutiny and a growing awareness that something’s not quite right with Canada’s conflictof-interest law