We have a very good description on our website, which I would recommend. Anybody who has an interest should have a look at it, but it's grosso modo, essentially.
It can come from two sources. A member of Parliament makes a complaint, under the code, concerning the conduct of the colleague member of Parliament, or a member of Parliament or senator makes a complaint under the Conflict of Interest Act in relation to the conduct of the public office holder. That's the first source: A parliamentarian makes a complaint.
The second source is the commissioner being aware of something on his own volition, because the commissioner saw something on Twitter, in The Globe and Mail or elsewhere. We do some proactive monitoring of the web to see whether there's anything of interest in relation to MPs and public office holders. That's the second way.
In either of these two situations, the commissioner can only launch an investigation if he has grounds to believe that a contravention has occurred. It's not a fishing expedition or a witch hunt. There must be grounds akin to those required for the police to conduct certain types of powers they have under the code and so on.
If I have grounds to believe, we notify the person against whom the allegation is made and ask them to provide us with all the relevant material, evidence, and so on and so forth. We invariably have an interview with the alleged perpetrator—let's refer to him or her that way. We also interview other relevant witnesses. Usually, in an investigation, we have more than one witness. We have several witnesses. We try to conduct our investigations within a maximum period of one year, barring a very exceptional situation, and we table a report.
That's how it goes. I hope this answers the question.