Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, we'd have to have reasonable grounds to believe that. We do have the power of self-initiation, but we don't have a general audit function, so we rely generally on information coming to our attention in some way or form.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

In an official manner or in a—

[Mary Dawson]

Well, yes.

The easiest way is if a member officially sends us a letter and complains about some particular activity.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm not blaming you, but I think there's a lack of initiative that could come from your office in looking at these situations. I don't want to label you as a police officer as far as MPs are concerned; however, if somebody were to make a prohibited left-hand turn in front of a police officer, he wouldn't need anybody to tell him, but would go after that particular person. I think you as commissioner, with the staff you have, the role you have, and the responsibilities you have, should be able to see what's happening and to monitor what's happening in the House of Commons. There are only 308 of us.

[Mary Dawson]

But there are 2,600 public office holders we also have to monitor.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I see what you're saying.

[Mary Dawson]

The other problem, basically, is that if we don't know about something, there are so many possible things we could be looking for that it would be pretty hard to figure out what it was that we want to look for.

The other thing as well is that there's a role for the Board of Internal Economy with respect to members, and we're expressly prohibited from getting onto their turf. I would think that the situation you raise.... I'm not sure where the situation you raise would fall, and I'm sure there's an aspect of it that would fall on our office. If we knew about a specific case, we would certainly follow up.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Dawson, for appearing here.

I'm wondering if your office had planned to submit to our committee, on a yearly basis, recommendations for either changes or improvements to the code or the act.

I'll give you one example that Mrs. Jennings broached earlier. This is something that you identify in your speaking notes. You are currently prohibited from making any public comment relating to a preliminary review or inquiry. It appears that you're almost recommending that you be allowed to do so in the cases where the preliminary review turns out to be groundless. I think that's a very good thing for you to be able to do, whether or not you need the permission of the aggrieved party.

To me that would make sense. It would help to keep members from making frivolous complaints against one another for purely political reasons. When an allegation is made against someone, and it's reported widely in the media or becomes part of the public domain, a lot of members of the public assume it to be true. In other words, you're considered guilty on the basis of a bare accusation. To protect the integrity of members, it would be a good idea for your office to be able to come out in the public and say that you have not pursued the allegation beyond a preliminary review because you found it to be without merit. I think that would be helpful to the aggrieved party. It would help protect reputations. That's only one example.

Since you raised it in your notes, do you believe it is a responsibility of your office to come before this committee on a regular basis with recommendations for our consideration? Or do you think it's something we should be undertaking ourselves?

[Mary Dawson]

Last year, when we did the study on gifts, that was one item that we picked out of a list of about four or five others. I don't think we raised this one in that list, but I'm raising it now and I'd be quite pleased to deal with it, either as part of a review of the whole inquiry section or as a separate issue. If the committee so requests, I'd be pleased to put together a submission on that particular issue.

These matters come to our attention gradually and become evident as problems gradually. But that one really did concern me in a couple of cases where there was a misapprehension of somebody's behaviour that obviously wasn't fair. It would be instructive to know the thinking behind not proceeding with it.

I should note that if I'm in the middle of an investigation I can desist from the investigation if I find, during the course of it, that it was frivolous or vexatious. Then I can actually state that publicly; I have some capacity to do that. On the broader question of my not proceeding when I realize there is nothing there, it would be nice to be able to explain why.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I agree with you 100%. It goes back to my broader question: do you believe it is a function of your office to bring forward on a regular basis elements of the code or the act that you've found to need amendments or improvements? I would like to see that. You would be far more conversant with both the code and the act than members of this committee. Even though it's our responsibility to review it on a regular basis, we don't. We just don't. It would be helpful to me and other members of the committee for you to come forward and point out an area that you want us to consider. Let us do our due diligence and our investigation. But I think it would be helpful to this committee if you brought some of these items to our attention on a regular basis.

[Mary Dawson]

I'm not sure how else I can do it. I've put it in my annual report, and I've mentioned it in my speaking notes this morning and I'm saying orally, yes, that would be a good one to do. I'm not sure if there's any other mechanism for me to do it, aside from writing a letter to the chair, perhaps, but he already knows.

With respect to other things that we may find, I try to identify anything of significance in the annual report every year. So that is where the suggestions would be, and I know there's a five-year review coming up and there will probably be work around that. But the other thing is that when you put forward the proposals for the gift changes, we also came to you and said there were three or four other technical things that weren't killing us, but it would be kind of nice to get those cleaned up while you were at it, since you had to go to the House. You did that, and that was nice. So we got three or four of the technical oddities cleaned up then, too, and we're always prepared to do that. But we did a pretty good job of cleaning up the ones we'd noticed.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Are you satisfied, then, that if it's contained in your annual report and recommendations come on a yearly basis, that should be sufficient?

[Mary Dawson]

Not necessarily. If suddenly three months from now I see there's some sort of problem, I would perhaps write a letter to the chair and ask to raise it. You could let us know, too, anytime you wanted to. If there's anything you want to deal with, we're of course available as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madame DeBellefeuille or Monsieur Plamondon?

Monsieur Godin? Nothing.

Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you very much.

In support of where Tom was going with his line of questioning, I take from your presentation as well that you're not able to either confirm or deny whether you're in the midst of an investigation of a person. Even if they make a public statement that they've referred a particular case to you, you're not able to comment.

[Mary Dawson]

It's just the opposite of that. The only thing I'm allowed to confirm or deny is whether I'm in a preliminary investigation or if I'm in an inquiry. Aside from that, I can't go any further, and that's what creates the problem. They'd never hear what happened if I just desist.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I agree that it should be something we should be able to look at.

Further to the question that you responded to with regard to the staffing, are those people staying with the public service or are they going to private industry?

[Mary Dawson]

A number of them have moved over to the public service. My office is part of Parliament, and there's actually a little bit of an issue there because the public service is a different employer, but in the last year or two the rules were changed, which allowed the same movement into the public service from here. So it's easier now for someone to get a job in the public service from my office.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

And there has been an ongoing need in the public service as well for employees with backgrounds in values and ethics, for example, because all departments have created their own values and ethics organizations.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

So they would be sought after.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

So there's some tampering going on.

[Mary Dawson]

But that's not necessarily a bad thing, because they've had some experience.