Information & Ethics Committee on June 14th, 2007

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

I think the one that worries me the most, or is the most important right up front, is to get it properly staffed. There are a lot of holes in the organization, I'm told, and it's important to get the right people on staff and get it up and moving. I think it will take some months to actually get it properly functioning for that reason. That's a concern in my mind.

Then I will be very interested in satisfying myself that I understand the scope of the job and what's possible and what shouldn't be done under the job. That I will do by reading, consulting, and hopefully talking to the appropriate people on the Hill as well.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Have you had a chance to look at other jurisdictions in terms of models, or is that something you want to look at?

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

Not really, no. I've really had no briefings on this material.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have just one final question, Chair.

You mentioned that you'd like to see more resources to staff further. Are you talking in general or are there specific ideas you have in mind in terms of what kinds of staff complements you would need?

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

I'm not sure if I'm asking for more at this point. I haven't even gotten into it that deeply. But I do recognize that there's more of a legal overlay now. There are some legal proceedings, and it would be important to have adequate legal advice.

I'm going to have to assess.... I don't even know exactly what the breadth of the staff is at this point, but I know there are a number of vacancies, and I know that the mandate has changed somewhat. So I think we'll have to look very carefully at the organization and the number of staff.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I just want to sum up, Chair.

From our perspective, we believe you're eminently qualified and wish you good luck. A friend of mine, Mr. Broadbent, commented on your stellar work in the past, and if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Ms. Dawson. It's great to have you here this morning, as I said in our greeting on the way in.

I concur, and I'm sure other members from this side of the committee table will concur, that there's no doubt you're certainly bringing the qualifications and experience that are needed to this role.

In reviewing your resumé and background I couldn't help but notice that you were actually very involved in the drafting of two pieces of legislation that hit quite close to home with this committee—the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. As you may know, they are two of the pieces of legislation—but not the only two—that we deal with on a regular basis.

It did actually bring up the question as to whether, in the course of your work at the Department of Justice and in your dealings in the public offices that you have held over the last few years, there was at any time any involvement with the drafting or amending of the conflict of interest codes for members or public office holders.

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

No, I've never been involved in that particular aspect.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Of course, the work that you've done for the Department of Justice over the years reaches back a ways. No doubt the country has had an experience over the last few years in dealing with constitutional questions, and without the benefit of that good advice from the office it would be very difficult for elected officials to plot the kind of course that they need to.

I wonder, and this is perhaps in reference to Madam Lavallée's question, if you could describe briefly the context of how that works. Elected officials set the policy agenda. You're working in the public service. You're an expert in your field. You draft legislation. Describe briefly how you're in a position of taking that direction and how that works at a practical level in your department.

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

In the Department of Justice, for example?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes.

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

Well, there are different roles. There are many different inputs to the political desires. There's the policy advice, the legal advice. I've worked in a number of different roles, as you noted.

In drafting legislation, one starts, of course, with a memorandum to cabinet and a record of cabinet decision that gives you very detailed instructions. You have a minister instructing you, but you also have to keep an eye on the cabinet decision, so already there's a balance there. Very frequently there are matters that aren't covered in the decision that have to be dealt with in the legislation. You would bring them forward and discuss them and suggest what might be done. But of course it's always the minister's decision and ultimately the government's decision as to what goes into the legislation.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Dawson.

Mr. Chair, I don't really have any further questions, and I wonder if it would be appropriate at this point to at least put a motion to the committee to affirm the nomination of Ms. Dawson.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I suppose it's in order, but I'm going to ask your indulgence, Mr. Stanton. There are three members of the committee who have not spoken, and I think it's fair that we hear from them first. If you could wait until after at least those three people have spoken, then we could consider a motion.

Mr. Pearson.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Ms. Dawson. It's nice to have you with us this morning.

You mentioned in your presentation this morning this transition you're hoping to manage well between the previous commissioner and you. And you talked about the fact that for the first time in this area some new rules have been established.

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

Legislated rules, yes.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Legislated rules.

I'm sure you've had a chance to go over some of it, but what do you think are some of the key ones?

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

You know what? I went over quite a bit of material and I'm not very good on the specific details at this point.

The main part of the legislation is the enforcement of conflict of interest issues themselves, such as gifts or financial holdings and that sort of thing. The sense I get is that there's more breadth in the House of Commons code than in the legislation, although there's an overlap in application of the two of them. But these are things I really want to study carefully and get a good briefing on. I want to understand how what existed before relates to what exists now. And I think there's quite a bit of work to be done to sort it all out.

In the course of sorting it out, I'm hoping I'll even be able to establish some sort of teaching instruments and also be in a position to provide a little bit of education as to what's in there. I know it's misunderstood and it's a complex area, but I wouldn't know quite what to point to right now.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Happy reading, Ms. Dawson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Dawson, on reading your resume and the notes that you have supplied to the committee today, I see that you have a strong attachment to Canadian politics and culture and an abiding interest in and desire to serve your country. I have no problem with that. You claim that as a public servant, you have always felt honoured to have an opportunity to serve your country and your fellow citizens.

According to your resume, one of your responsibilities was to provide legal and legal policy advice. That means you were responsible for the legal team, for dispensing advice on matters related to Canadian unity and the Quebec government's secessionist policy, and for heading up a team of lawyers and other Justice Department employees. You also led a legal team and managed all aspects of the Supreme Court Reference on Quebec Unilateral Secession, as well as briefed ministers and media. If I understand correctly, you headed up the department's legal team in the case of Option Canada and took the lead on the files mentioned earlier. Even though you did so at the minister's or Prime Minister's request, given the possibility of a conflict of interest or because of your personal ethics, you were aware of what the Prime Minister or minister was asking of you where Quebec was concerned.

I realize that we are talking about past responsibilities that you were instructed to carry out. However, in light of your personal ethical beliefs, have you ever asked yourself if you were acting ethically by casting Quebec aside and trying to find ways to silence its voice? That is where my question is leading. Have you ever asked yourself any questions, or did you simply close your eyes and throw yourself into your mandate, focusing solely on Canada's interests at the expense of Quebec's interests? That is where a conflict of interest comes into play. If a problem should arise, which way are you going to lean?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Vincent, you're probably bordering on solicitor-client privilege, but she's a lawyer and can answer for herself.

[Mary Elizabeth Dawson]

I would like to answer the question in English, if you don't mind. It would be easier for me.

I'm not 100% sure I have all the thrust of your question, but I have never had difficulty in following the instructions of my ministers or the government in trying to achieve what it was that the policy of the government was to achieve.

Now, my interest and advice has always been on the legal plane, so there has never been, that I can think of, an instance where I've done anything that I have thought was in any way either unethical or illegal. I don't know how else to answer that question. The government believes strongly in the unity of Canada, and the secession reference was taken to the Supreme Court in a desire to get the rules of secession clear. That was not a difficult task for me, as a lawyer, to follow through on, because it's a good thing to get the law clear on these matters.

I never felt a conflict of interest in any of those jobs.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

The question is as follows: at some point, as Commissioner, you will receive instructions from the minister. What will take precedence then? Will it be the minister's decision, or will your ethical consideration for other individuals or potential conflict of interest situations prevail? That is the main issue. There is a difference. As Commissioner, you will be the one to decide. Once again, will you abide by the minister's rules and apply them, setting aside all the while your own personal convictions?