Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, the guidelines are another thing; they are out of our bailiwick.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand that, and I wish they weren't.

I think this is what many members have said around here, that we seem to have two streams of accountability: one under the Federal Accountability Act, being the conflict of interest; the other being the PCO code for ministers and ministers of state and other public office-holders, over which you have no jurisdiction.

[Mary Dawson]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

So there's a mismatch between your mandate and the tools you have to discharge that mandate, and I guess that's what we want to look at.

[Mary Dawson]

I haven't looked at them lately, but I'm not sure how extensive those are. Those may not cover the whole bailiwick that you want to cover either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

But they do cover--

[Mary Dawson]

They cover political activities, basically.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The major additional element is political activities of public office-holders.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

And that's why the Prime Minister, in his note, described them as complementing the Conflict of Interest Act, because it has a new section that makes it a more comprehensive regime. Unfortunately, that comprehensive regime is not totally under your mandate.

[Mary Dawson]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think we understand each other.

Members, Mr. Siksay had asked whether we should consider having someone from PCO talk to us about these guides. If it's the will of the committee, we could do that on November 17. Has there been an opportunity to discuss this?

Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think we can talk about committee business in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It's just to get rid of that point, because I think we're running out of questions and we're going to adjourn.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Then let's adjourn and go in camera to talk about committee business with respect to adding things to the agenda.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I don't think we have to go in camera.

[An hon. member]

It sounds like it to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right.

Madame Freeman had a brief question and so did Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Let's finish our questions and we'll be able to excuse the commissioner.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

On page 22 of your report, you state the following: “Investigative work is conducted in strict confidence by my office. Only when I complete an examination are my findings made public.” The report goes on to state that where you do not proceed beyond an initial complaint, you find it unfortunate that you are limited in your ability to make public your reasons for not pursuing a matter, especially in cases involving well-publicized and controversial allegations.

What do you suggest should be done to deal with such a situation?

[Mary Dawson]

I haven't got a draft at hand, but I would suggest that maybe I be given the authority to release my reasons for not proceeding with an investigation.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

In your report, you state that when you do not proceed with a complaint, you cannot make your reasons known, especially in well-publicized cases. I do not want to refer back to what we have been talking about earlier, but in well-publicized cases, when a complaint is filed and you cannot proceed with it, you cannot disclose the reasons for your decision. You find that unfortunate. I am therefore asking what you would propose to correct the situation.

Is my question now clear?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, your question is clear.

As I say, I haven't got a draft in front of me. I haven't exactly thought about how, but an amendment could be made to allow me to use my discretion, perhaps, to disclose the reasons I did not proceed with an investigation.

For example, the reason could be that it was outside my mandate. Nobody knows that and so they don't know why I haven't proceeded with the investigation. Or there could be examples where there are misrepresentations by people as to the situation that I can't counter.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I would like to ask you a very hypothetical question. With regard to the allegations that are currently before us, if for whatever reason you could not proceed with your examination, you could not inform the public of the reasons why you cannot proceed with the examination.

[Mary Dawson]

Or do not want to. Yes, that is the situation.

When I'm dealing specifically with the individuals involved, I usually write them a letter explaining the situation. If they release that letter, and it's up to them, that's at their discretion. That is the only way that reasoning could be released that I can see.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

You refer to correspondence. Is that the correspondence you send to the complainant or to the person against whom the complaint is made?