Information & Ethics Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

And just as a comment, it would be nice to reference that publicly.

In the Prime Minister's mandate letter he put forward the perception of conflict of interest. You've asked for a slight increase, largely just because of the benefits, if you will. With the number of investigations we've seen already in this short term of Parliament, most of them seem to have been referencing that mandate letter in terms of the perception of conflict of interest. They then go to your office, and I guess there is no ruling on the perception because it's outside of your code. However, it would seem to me that a number of these instances are coming to you because of that very perception of conflict of interest that's been put out in the act.

I would think that if we've already seen a number of particularly high-profile ones come to you, there would continue to be that increase, and without a ruling from you addressing that, I don't anticipate seeing them stop.

Maybe you could comment on that.

[Mary Dawson]

Because the majority of the cases we're given don't result in an investigation, I have gone out of my way in the last two or three years in my annual report to look at the nature of those various issues. In the previous report and the one to come, you'll get a sense of what those issues were that came to me and why they were not proceeded with.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

We'll see specifics on the justice minister and the agriculture minister, then.

[Mary Dawson]

You won't see specifics. You'll see without naming people. Where we've not opened a true investigation—they're called examinations—we don't talk about the people involved, people whose files have not been reported on. You will probably recognize some of the issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I know Mr. Saini and Mr. Erskine-Smith have questions.

We'll start with Mr. Saini.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for coming here again, Ms. Dawson.

You said that when you give a decision on a matter, you give it on a specific question on a specific topic. When there is some frustration, or when there is a lack of clarity, it's usually because it's a generic question.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, but I also issue no end of general advisories.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If a member comes to you, whoever that member is, and they give you specific questions about a specific event, with specific details about that event, and you render a judgment, that is rendered based on the specificity of the event, right?

[Mary Dawson]

It is based on the information we've been given about it.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

You make a public decision, or is that—

[Mary Dawson]

No, that's personal information. That's private advice.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If you choose not to pursue something after an investigation you've done, it's based on a clear question, on the specifics of the case, right?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, but if I don't have the facts I think I need to make a decision, I may go into a full-fledged examination.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

When a member comes to you and you clear them for an event or for certain things, that means you've fully looked at that question with the full details in front of you, and if you don't have the details, you would question that member for more information.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, I almost always, depending on the way the thing came in, give them a written response. I say, on the basis of the information they give me, which is x, y, and z, that this is my decision.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It must in some cases be frustrating for you if there are people who don't take your advice or who don't accept your determination of an event or a case. It must be frustrating to some extent, is it not?

[Mary Dawson]

If I hear that they didn't accept it and it was advice not to do it, then I would open an investigation.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I mean publicly. Once you come to a conclusion on a certain case, and other people talk and they say this and that, it must be frustrating, especially since you've done the investigation for that event or for that case.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes, there is a lot of misinformation out there.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you. I have no more questions.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

My question will require only a yes or no.

I've read some criticisms, which I don't accept, that of all the people who are complained about, only a very small minority are found guilty. In fact, most complaints uncovered in the media are public, because there aren't audits of the activities of members.

For clarity, I understand you wouldn't audit every member, but do any spot audits occur?

[Mary Dawson]

No.

When you talk about auditing, you're usually auditing an institution or something. These are individual people with personal lives. To audit every MP as to what the heck they're doing—and it's not just their financial affairs, it's what they're doing—would take a huge organization. It would seem to me that it would not be well received.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It's just a yes or no question about spot audits. The answer is no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I have a question or two.

How many people roughly—I know it fluctuates—fall under the category of the legislation, whether they're public office holders, members of Parliament, ministers. How many people does the legislation capture?

[Mary Dawson]

The act is somewhere around 2,500, I think. The code is somewhere around 308, or whatever your numbers are.