Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 5th, 2010

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Good day, Ms. Dawson, Ms. Bélanger and Ms. Robinson-Dalpé. I hope you didn't think I wouldn't put in an appearance. I wanted to be here for the second hour. Welcome to the committee.

It is a pleasure, as always, Ms. Dawson to engage in a discussion with you. In your letter, you specifically stated that you would be looking into Mr. Paradis' conduct.

As part of your investigation, will you also be reviewing the conduct of other people implicated in this affair? I'm thinking, for example, about former ministerial staffers such as Mr. Sébastien Togneri and Ms. Sandy White who ordered officials at Public Works and Government Services Canada to quietly expedite consideration of Mr. Jaffer's proposal.

[Mary Dawson]

We reviewed everything and determined that there was sufficient cause to examine Mr. Paradis' conduct. There was not enough information or evidence to warrant a review of other staffers' conduct.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Let me just understand. You are speaking softly, but you are telling me that you do not have enough information to investigate the conduct of other individuals. Is that what you're saying?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Exactly what would you need? Details of Mr. Paradis' role in this affair were disclosed to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Among other things, the committee was informed that Mr. Paradis was told of this via e-mail. However, the committee has no real way of verifying whether the information was retained or not. In fact, some information seems to have vanished, as if by magic.

As an investigator, do you have the authority to examine other e-mails that may have been exchanged between Mr. Paradis, the exonerated staffers and Mr. Jaffer?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

And will you be doing that?

[Mary Dawson]

I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

But that is what you have just done. In answer to the previous question, you stated that there was insufficient evidence or cause to pursue your investigation.

[Mary Dawson]

In the case of the other staffers, but we had sufficient—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Proulx, I know you have just recently joined us, but we have already covered that today. We are attempting to talk about the act and the code here today and not about specific cases.

Madam Dawson has shared with us that she can't speak on individual cases here today.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

She just did, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, and if she did--I recognize that she may be trying to correct it--she cannot.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Okay, could we let her finish her answer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, but let's ask questions pertaining to situations in the act and the code.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

So she can complete her answer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If she wishes.

I've heard this answer a fair bit today, but go ahead.

[Mary Dawson]

I can't comment on an investigation that I'm in the middle of. All I can say is that I'm doing an investigation.

If there are other suspicions about other people, then I look at what the suspicions are and see if there are reasonable grounds to commence an investigation, which I can do either by a complaint or on my own initiative. Obviously I had enough to at least proceed to an investigation with respect to Mr. Paradis.

I've said the one thing I'm allowed to say, which is that I have commenced an investigation, and that's all I'm permitted to talk about. Okay?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

That's fine. I appreciate your help. Even though the chair wanted you not to answer, I appreciate your answer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's good to see the cooperation is still there.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thanks, Chair.

Ms. Dawson, I want to talk a little bit about, for lack of a better term, the “harmonization” of the code and the act. I know that a lot of people are confused. The code, of course, applies to all 308 members of Parliament. The act really refers to public office holders, specifically your post-employment conditions and things like that.

We recently made regulatory changes to suggest that all members be under the act now, including members of the OLO staff.

Could I have clarification, please?

[Mary Dawson]

No, one mustn't confuse the lobbyist act with my act. The things that are going on relate to the lobbyist act.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Let me go back to harmonization then.

Would you recommend any kind of harmonization between the code and the act that might make functions within your office a little easier, a little more streamlined? Or is it a necessity that there has to be that distinction between the act and the code?

[Mary Dawson]

I think in some cases there has to be a distinction. One controversial one might be, should an MP be allowed to participate in other outside activities while he's an MP? I think most MPs would probably say yes. The code is developed by MPs for themselves. There may be some who would say, no, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything except be an MP. That's a controversial issue, perhaps, but it's one that you can understand, because your longevity is perhaps less certain than certain public office holders—not yours particularly.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Oh, oh! Thank you for that.