Information & Ethics Committee on June 10th, 2014

[Mary Dawson]

I'm not sure that the ones I get complaints about are any more meritorious than the self-initiated ones. That's the first comment.

The second comment would be that what happens in one investigation doesn't really retard what's going in the other investigations, particularly. The main delays.... Now, it depends on whether I'm under the code or the act, but I follow pretty well the same procedure. The procedures under the code are more laid out. They're more fulsome than the ones under the act. I find that they're good procedures, so I tend to follow the same ones under the act.

I receive a complaint or decide there's a problem, I notify the person who is complained against, and they have 30 days to respond. I always hear them first. I call them as a witness. Then there are other witnesses who I need to call. The main problem is the availability of people to appear.

Generally speaking, and in fact always, I think, the reports that are delayed are delayed because there are problems in getting all the information I need. There are sometimes long gaps between one step and the next step in an investigation. The other thing is that generally, people bring their lawyers if they're the person who's complained against. Sometimes the lawyers will raise issues that have to get dealt with.

It takes time. I do them as quickly as I can.

With respect to the self-initiated, my test is very similar to the one for somebody to give a complaint, except that it is I who has to have reasonable grounds. With respect to the ones that I get complaints about, it's the member who brings the complaint who has to have reasonable grounds and has to show me that he has reasonable grounds. They're not very far apart, those two, so it's the same criterion.

People have suggested over the years that maybe the public should be able to make complaints too. Effectively, I think they do manage, because I look at media reports, and I look at complaints that come in from people who are maybe in the government but not in the general public. I also get letters from the general public. I look at them all.

The first thing I do if it's from the public, for example, is notify the person complained about and tell them that this has come in. I ask if they have anything to say, then maybe look around a little bit more, and then decide whether it warrants an investigation.

It's amazing. I have found that somewhere between only a third and a quarter of the investigations I do are from complaints, which I find quite interesting.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You talked about spending time with other jurisdictions, with other countries and so on. Are there some specific lessons learned or best practices you've picked up from those other jurisdictions that you would recommend?

[Mary Dawson]

Not a lot. Some jurisdictions have less complicated regimes, and some have ones as complicated. Ours is one of the more fulsome ones, so there's not an awful lot going on out there. I'm sure...in fact, I have the feeling there's one I'm forgetting that might be a good idea, but I've just forgotten what it is at the moment. Occasionally there are ideas that could be picked up.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You talked previously—I can't remember what meeting it was—about smaller offices needing to operate in as lean and efficient a manner as is reasonably possible. Do you envision some changes to your office, things that you could do differently within the office, to accomplish that?

[Mary Dawson]

No, not specifically. I've been at it for seven years, and I think it has kind of smoothed out and we're doing what we can.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Your priority for your next two years of the mandate is really just to carry on and...?

[Mary Dawson]

I identified a number of priorities.

We're improving our registries. Before now, you had to go in separately to see a member and a minister if it was the same person, and we're going to try to fix that. We're continuing to pull together our precedents in an internal manual for the staff. We're improving our electronic system of precedents to make them much easier for the staff to find.

I have a list of three or four other things. There are a lot of things that we're still working on. I have a list here somewhere.

We're going to set up a system of checking our performance measurement. We now have a strategy that we've developed, so we're going to start actually doing performance checking of some of the activities we do.

We're looking at succession planning issues. We've just developed some competency profiles, so we will start to now do a better job, I think, of perhaps hiring people who could do a number of different jobs in the office. But we are a small office, so there will always be ups and downs in there. Corporate memory transfer is important to us. We're looking for ways of making that corporate memory accessible to the staff.

There is a lot to be done, but there's no glaring problem at the moment, I don't think.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You have 15 seconds.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'll cede that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thanks, Mr. Hawn.

We'll now move to Mr. Ravignat, please, for five minutes.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Dawson, I would like to come back to a question from one of my colleagues. You said that the investigations on Mr. Wright and Mr. Carson have been suspended. You have also said that five other investigations are still in progress on the Senate scandal.

Could you indicate which investigations those are?

[Mary Dawson]

No. Some are in the public domain, but for others, no one knows that they are in progress. My policy is to not give any information if I am conducting an investigation on someone and the public doesn't know about it. First, we must complete the investigation and establish a connection to this issue. I think two or three investigations are in the public domain, but I forget which ones exactly. There is one on Mr. Lynn. However, a few cases are not public.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Okay.

You said that your office was going to have to fundamentally change its practices if you had to monitor 280,000 public servants. What you are required to do seems completely ridiculous.

I hope your office will be overhauled at least and that other offices will be able to help you as well.

Furthermore, I would like to talk about the definition of partisan activity. As you know, Bill C-520 will go forward, with changes, but the fact remains that we believe that the way this bill defines partisan activities is fundamentally problematic.

You said that you did not think monitoring partisanship was part of your role. Could you elaborate on the issue? How do you see this issue and the way it has evolved?

[Mary Dawson]

In the legislation we are discussing, a very important concept is the concept of private interests. There is a conflict of interest if the conflict is with private interests.

I had determined that private interests did not include political interests. The same is not true for partisanship. There is no indication in the code or the legislation that leads me to believe that I was supposed to look after political affairs. I had to make a few decisions quite early on and I said that if I had to address political or partisan issues, the legislation or the code had to be changed. I don't think I can go beyond my mandate.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Let's talk specifically about Mr. Wright's case and your investigation being suspended. I gather this investigation is still suspended because it deals with the same subject matter, in your view. Clearly, it is not up to the government to determine whether that is the case; it is up to you to do so.

Could you be more specific? Why do you fundamentally believe that this is the same subject matter?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

We'll need a short answer, please. The time is just about up.

[Mary Dawson]

I have seen the comments in the papers and I have been in contact with the RCMP. I think the RCMP is still dealing with the $90,000.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Zimmer, for five minutes, please.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Dawson, for being here today. I have just have a couple of questions for you.

We've talked about the mandate and about the act. I talked to you before, as well, as a member of PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee. What is your renewed mandate for this particular term? You've been here; you're certainly not a stranger to the position. What's your renewed mandate for your position?

[Mary Dawson]

Do you mean what do I want to do?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes.

[Mary Dawson]

I'm quite interested in finishing off a few things. I would love to see some changes as a result of the five-year reviews and help to make that transition. I don't know what the chances of that are. I am in the midst, as I mentioned, of a number of investigations. I would rather like to finish them, because I'm well into some of them.

In terms of my act, you're either there or you have to be reappointed. There's no extension, for example, available for the commissioner under the act, or I guess under the Parliament of Canada Act. In judicial offices, sometimes there's a provision that allows you to finish a case you're working on, and there's no such provision there. This will always be the case; whenever my term ultimately completes, there will be unfinished business.

There are a number of things I am interested in finishing. There's that, and we're also into a number of interesting projects to help our corporate memory. I wouldn't mind getting a little bit firmer there. We're just starting, as I say, our performance measurement strategy. We're in the middle of a number of exercises, and I'd like to see some of them through.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I represent 105,000 constituents from Prince George—Peace River. For members, we represent our constituents; that's our prime job here in Ottawa.

Perhaps I can use the terms “undue influence” and “due influence”. I don't know if “due influence” would be accurate, but we'll go with it anyway; I think it says what I want it to say.

How do you differentiate between undue and due influence? We talked about whether we're having dinner with a certain group or we're having dinner with a certain constituent. To me, a constituent has the absolute right to tell me what they want me to do. That is my obligation as their representative.

It gets a bit interesting when you talk about undue influence. If it's my constituent, I need to lend them my ear and I need to listen. I guess I just want to know your definition of what that is, and what's acceptable and what isn't.

[Mary Dawson]

I think you have pretty broad latitude as a member. I—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Well, even as a parliamentary secretary, because you're still a representative of your constituents.