Information & Ethics committee  I don't have that answer. On our website we list the contracts we issued for each legal firm. I wasn't prepared for that question.

Information & Ethics committee  Seven cases.

Information & Ethics committee  In total, under the public office holder code, there's been only one—Minister Sgro. Under the member of Parliament code, there have been seven investigations: four in our 2005-06 year, three in the current year.

Information & Ethics committee  In our office we have jurisdiction under two codes. So my response could be broken down into investigations under either the public office holder code or the member of Parliament code.

Information & Ethics committee  Do you want it by year?

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, that was one—her first one. There was a greater amount of money spent there, because we retained counsel to undertake the interviews for us. In the subsequent ones, we used inside personnel to conduct the interviews. However, as we proceeded with some of these inquiries, we found we needed to obtain legal opinions on the application of certain provisions relating to parliamentary privilege in the Parliament of Canada Act.

Information & Ethics committee  I just want to clarify something. I said it was in the Grewal-Dosanjh case, but it was in the Harper-Emerson case.

Information & Ethics committee  That's correct.

Information & Ethics committee  We actually dealt with this issue in the Grewal-Dosanjh inquiry that was conducted under the member of Parliament code. The issue there was also the status of an individual to raise a complaint. We have cited some references in that, so if you wish, I can bring that document to your attention through the chair.

Information & Ethics committee  The Parliament of Canada Act says that it's a member of Parliament or senator who can make the request for an examination in relation to the public office holders who are covered. That's what the act says. The amendment in the code was making a statement that could have been interpreted in two ways.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In relation to the second part of the question, in formulating section 35 of the draft policy, we went to the U.K. or Westminster model, and this is one provision they have specifically in there. In the conduct of inquiries in the British Parliament, any attempt to obstruct an inquiry process is considered contempt of Parliament—or can be, if it's reported.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thanks for the question. This is something that has come up in the inquiries that we conduct. Again, if I can draw the distinction between the public office holder code, which is not this one.... Under the public office holder code, the Ethics Commissioner has the power to summon or subpoena information; under the member of Parliament code, he does not.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  We made the comment in an issues and challenges paper that the Ethics Commissioner should have that authority.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Although we haven't had any situation of this up to this point in time, through the existence of the office we have had disclosures from individuals where they come to us and they have interests in a private corporation. As a consequence of having interests in a private corporation, they may be a guarantor on a significant amount of loans, and that significant amount of loan may be with a particular financial institution.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  But the code requires a liability. It doesn't make a distinction between a mortgage, a loan, a guarantee, and so on.