Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Bennett.

Mr. Albrecht, for five minutes.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for being here today.

You commented earlier that you're often reporting to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House affairs. I have the privilege of serving on that committee.

I recall a couple of weeks ago that you commented about this matter of having people from the private sector come to serve in the public sector. At that point you were very clear in pointing out the value of having these kinds of people serve here, and I think Canadians are generally very grateful that someone of Mr. Wright's calibre and credentials would offer to serve Canada in this way. Of course, we need to be sure that the guidelines and rules are followed, but I do believe, as you indicated, that we could actually be overly zealous in our efforts to follow the rules and actually discourage people like Mr. Wright from coming to serve here.

I'm glad you're here. Your comments were that we're doing well with the discussions in setting up the screens and that you're finding good cooperation from Mr. Wright. I think Canadians are happy about that.

I just want to refer to your remarks this afternoon. At the top of page 3 of your prepared remarks in English, under the heading, “Investigations”, you go on to use the term “examinations” at least eight times on that page and you never come back to the word “investigation”. Are we using those terms interchangeably or is there a major difference between your use of the words “investigation” and “examination”? Could you discuss that?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, I always have to stop to think of which word I'm using here. Basically the point is that under the act, if you carry out an investigation, it's called an examination. Under the code, if you carry out an investigation, it's called an inquiry. So when I use the term “investigations”, I'm usually trying to cover both of them.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

Then later, on page 3, you refer to reporting possibly “more stringent provisions related to fundraising” for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and then you commented that it's difficult to determine whether they're acting as a minister or a parliamentary secretary. Yet you're going to try to define that difference. I'm just wondering, how could you possibly do that?

[Mary Dawson]

I was actually making the suggestion that once you're a minister or a parliamentary secretary, whether you're acting as a minister or an MP, maybe the same fundraising rules ought to apply because it's a bit artificial to figure out which hat you're wearing.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Exactly. I simply wanted you to clarify that.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I appreciate you doing that.

Later on the same page you talk about “material change is not defined in the act”, yet in an effort to clarify that, you describe on the website.... I must confess, I don't surf the website of the commissioner of ethics very often, so could you explain to us how you have defined or described your interpretation of what material change is?

[Mary Dawson]

My associate has handed me my website page here. Do you want me to read you the one paragraph perhaps that sort of pulls it out?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Sure.

[Mary Dawson]

It says:

Clearly, a change that would require a public declaration on the public registry maintained by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or a change to an existing public declaration would always be considered to be a material change. Beyond this, whether a change to information provided in your confidential report is material will often depend on specific circumstances as well as your official duties and responsibilities.

Then I go on to say you should pay particular attention to this, that, and the other thing, and I make a big list there. Basically, I guess my message is that there are some things that are obviously material changes. Aside from that, it's not always so obvious, so the bottom line of the message is to consult us if you're not sure.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

It seems to be clear that there will still be quite a large degree of discretion on the part of the commissioner and those working in your office to work with the person who is asking the question, and as you pointed out, hopefully they would ask prior to rather than following the demand.

Thank you.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albrecht.

Madame Thi Lac, five minutes.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Commissioner, the penalties set out in the act are imposed only for failure to meet reporting deadlines, not for involvement in activities that are in violation of the act. Does that not prevent the process from being an effective deterrent?

[Mary Dawson]

I agree. The focus seems to be on the wrong thing, although it's good to get your stuff in on time, too.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

You said earlier that you rely on the information you collect. You do not necessarily do any investigations or examinations, but you rely on the information that people are willing to give you.

Is it a lack of funds that prevents you from doing more investigations or examinations, or is it a lack of staff?

[Mary Dawson]

No, I would do an investigation if I had reason to believe.... Normally, an investigation is triggered by the request of an MP. As soon as I get a complaint, I will look into it carefully and decide whether to proceed with it on the basis of whether reasonable grounds have been provided and a sufficiently explicit explanation as to what the offence is alleged to have been.

I also have the option on my own to self-initiate an investigation. I've done that a couple of times, and that's if something comes to my attention, not from an MP.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I will rephrase the question.

You said that you do conduct investigations and examinations. In the course of those investigations, however, you collected only the information that people were willing to give you, and you relied on the fact that the people disclosing the information were acting in good faith.

[Mary Dawson]

I didn't realize you were talking about when we were actually conducting the investigation. When we're conducting the investigation, we do a very thorough job. We interview a number of different people. We compare the different stories. We do a regular investigation job. In the final analysis, as in a court or anywhere else, you have to ultimately weigh what you've been told by everybody and try to find the truth.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Since the beginning of your mandate, in early 2008, you have conducted eight investigations further to specific complaints, but you determined that none of the complaints was founded. Is that correct?

[Mary Dawson]

No. There was one case early where I found there was a contravention. In fact, the House of Commons saw fit to change the rule, so in the future that particular activity will not be a contravention.

Basically it is correct. Within the terms of the act or the code and the other investigation I've done, I have not found a contravention. But in the course of doing those investigations, I think I've clarified the rules significantly. I've identified where there may need to be some amendments.

I have had some results. For example, people are no longer putting one party's logo on the cheques. Guidelines have been developed for fundraising. A number of results have come out of those investigations. But the fact of the matter is that I have not found that the individual has contravened the letter of the code or the act.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

You said that in one of those eight cases, the law or the rules were changed so the activity in question would not be a contravention. You said that in cases where the contravention was flagrant, a penalty could be imposed, but not by you.

What would be an appropriate penalty, in your view? What kind of penalty could you impose? What would you recommend as far as penalties go?

[Mary Dawson]

I haven't considered that question in detail to make a submission. Perhaps if there were a failure to comply with section 15--the activities that a public office holder is not supposed to do--it would be appropriate to have a penalty.

On the receipt of gifts they should not have received, perhaps there should be a penalty there. I could probably list eight or ten with no trouble at all that would make more sense than a failure to meet a deadline. That isn't to say there shouldn't still be a penalty for failure to meet a deadline; I'm just saying there seems to be a gap there. It's not something where the subject matter lends itself to an investigation, because it's a black-and-white case. It's like running a red light. They just did something they shouldn't have done, and there's no investigation necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Madam Thi Lac, merci.

Ms. Davidson, you have five minutes.