Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 29th, 2011

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

No, that's right, but you do have jurisdiction over the members of the party who would actually be directing this and making these calls, and of course those would be the people who then would be beholden to these large interests. We remember back in June, for example, when the NDP was filibustering back-to-work legislation, because the disruption at Canada Post was harming so many individuals and small businesses. We remember that the NDP was actually reading from materials that were provided directly by CUPW and in fact wearing CUPW paraphernalia into the House. Is that not an indication that perhaps they might be beholden to some special interests?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro. Your time is up, but I will again allow the commissioner a short answer, please.

[Mary Dawson]

I don't think I want to comment any further. I think I've said what's relevant.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Andrews for seven minutes, please.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you very much, Madam Vice-Chair, and welcome, Commissioner.

I have two questions on two separate issues. It's part of your purview to watch former public office holders after they leave Parliament. Have you found that this process has been somewhat challenging? Have you had many interactions with former public office holders in monitoring what they do for the period of time that is your responsibility?

[Mary Dawson]

There is no reporting requirement for former public office holders at all, so there's no need for anybody to inform me about anything. However, increasingly I'm getting a lot of calls from former public office holders, in particular with respect to their years of cooling-off periods, as to what they can and cannot do. I've had a number of calls, particularly from the politicians and the deputy ministers.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

That leads to my question about a former public office holder, Stockwell Day. I know he has contacted your office and he has reported through the media that your office has cleared him of his latest non-lobbying government relations firm. I wonder if you could please just elaborate a little bit on exactly what transpired after Mr. Day left office.

[Mary Dawson]

No, I can't. That's confidential between me and Mr. Day. If I started talking about everybody's request for advice from me and what I discussed with them, the whole regime would not work. There has to be confidentiality there. Anything that's told to me is told in confidence.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

It's very frustrating, then. How would we find out? Obviously they would go to you and then they'd come out and say, “I've been cleared of anything; I can carry on.” If they say one thing, how would we know this wouldn't be the case?

[Mary Dawson]

I can confirm that Mr. Day did speak to us.

You know, it's interesting. I've had a problem in the past with people who bring a request to me and release the request before I've even received it and before the person who's complained of receives it. That's a major problem that I find. By the same token, many times I give people letters of advice and they never seem to want to release them. There are a lot of letters. If somebody wants to release a letter that I've sent or a letter that they've sent to me, as long as it's not prematurely, I have no difficulty with people releasing those letters. It's just that I can't release them because it's confidential advice.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So at no point would you report that there's some problem with a former public officer holder?

[Mary Dawson]

Not unless I did an investigation and issued an examination report.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay.

The second part of my question is this. In your opening statement this morning you talked about heads of crown corporations and members of federal boards who fall under your particular jurisdiction. My question would be, have you looked into the recent events between the Minister of Defence and the chair of a public crown corporation board going to a luxury fishing lodge for a vacation? Has that been brought to your attention? Have you looked at maybe investigating whether this was a breach of ethics?

[Mary Dawson]

I've only seen press reports about it.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

You wouldn't self-initiate an investigation as such; it would have to be brought to your attention through a request?

[Mary Dawson]

And there would have to be reasonable grounds of a specified provision that had been contravened, yes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Let me ask you, do you see any potential of a minister of the crown going to a luxury fishing lodge of a crown corporation board?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, there could be contraventions in those areas.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

That's something that maybe we could formalize in a formal request.

How much time do I have?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You have another two and a half minutes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay.

After you do an investigation, in terms of penalties for breaches of this, do you find that there are none, and there are weaknesses here?

[Mary Dawson]

There are no penalties. My investigations are reported to the relevant person, either the House if it's the code or the Prime Minister if it's the act, and they're made public. That's the end of my part in it. I make it public. The other thing I do sometimes is make recommendations for changes when there are gaps. But once my report is made public...that's my role.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Do you feel there should be some sorts of penalties there for this, or is it just a role where, once your report is complete, the evidence speaks for itself and then it's public execution or not?

[Mary Dawson]

I think as I've said in connection with the administrative monetary penalty scheme, there could be broader provisions identified that don't require a full investigation and an inquiry. But in open and shut cases of contravention, such as if people did the things they were not supposed to do and there was no dispute about it, some of those areas could have penalties. It is a little bit counterintuitive just to have penalties for failures to meet deadlines, but I don't think.... I don't know. I'm easy on whether there are penalties for people who have had investigations. I'm not necessarily proposing that.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.