Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 8th, 2018

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Earlier in your presentation, you talked about sanctions. I think Mr. Kent referred to it, and I'd like to understand that, too. I see you flirting, say, with some ideas. Would you consider financial penalties or other types of penalties? Do you have any idea how you are going to define the concept of sanctions in order to strengthen the act?

[Mario Dion]

The financial penalty is the first that comes to mind. Of course, currently, the act expressly excludes any sentence of imprisonment under section 126 of the Criminal Code. I don't think I'll ever talk about jail time in the case of a violation of the act. In any event, if the violation is sufficiently serious, certain provisions of the Criminal Code could apply. So we are talking about financial penalties.

Loss of employment is another possibility, in the case of someone who is appointed and, not elected like you. Indeed, compliance with the act is a condition of employment set out in section 19 of the act. This means that if a person who has been appointed by order, for example, commits a sufficiently serious violation of the Conflict of Interest Act, that could lead to that person's being fired. It is currently already set out; it is a condition of employment. In labour law, we could therefore consider dismissing someone who has committed a violation of the act, depending on the seriousness of the violation.

I know that, in some places, the possibility of imposing certain sanctions on a member of Parliament has been discussed. It is the House, in fact, that is the master of its discipline and procedure, but in the event of a violation of the act, a member's right to speak for a month or a temporary suspension of the right to sit could be withdrawn. The House would be able to impose that. This is theoretically something that could be considered as well.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Are you going to study this closely?

[Mario Dion]

Yes, with other organizations within the machinery of government, I hope so. We must also consider our limited means.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Of course.

This morning, you presented something that I think is interesting: We are more interested in prevention than being forced to impose sanctions. In terms of prevention, you are talking about training and, I imagine, working with public office holders.

Do you have any other ideas as to how we could incorporate preventative measures so that we or other public office holders can play our role well?

[Mario Dion]

According to Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, who has 14 years of experience in the office and so who has a bit of a better idea than me of what she's talking about, the vast majority of people, 99%, have no problem complying with the legislation. They want to obey the law, they respect deadlines and other requirements. There are very few people who are causing problems at our office. We will probably focus on them, so that we will be a little harder than my predecessor was in terms of the penalties and the means used to force people to observe the act.

The penalties are quite limited at the moment. As you know, we have the power to impose penalties of up to $500, but sometimes there are other ways: The caucus, for example, or the Prime Minister in the case of a minister or a parliamentary secretary. However, it is theoretical. No minister or parliamentary secretary has caused any problems so far. However, if that happens, we might consider being a little bit tougher when it comes to compliance. It is unfair to the 99% of people who respect the plan to let someone not make a statement, for example. We are currently dealing with a fairly recent case. It doesn't involve a minister or a parliamentary secretary, but we will take steps to force that person to take the issue a little more seriously than it has been to date.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith]

That concludes our seven-minute round.

To begin our five minute-round, we have Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dion, thank you for being here today.

Does the category of ministers, parliamentary secretaries and public office holders include the office of Prime Minister, or is that separate?

[Mario Dion]

The Prime Minister is a minister, isn't he, Ms. Richard?

[Martine Richard]

Yes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

So he is subject to the same legislation as everyone else.

[Martine Richard]

Yes.

[Mario Dion]

Yes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Good.

Earlier, you talked about the possibility of elected officials receiving certain sanctions. It is certainly a very delicate subject. When you take away a member's right to speak, right to sit and right to vote, does that really punish the MP or does it punish the people the MP represents? It's also a question that must be asked. If the alleged act is at the line of what is acceptable, it might be better to change the MP and have the population represented by someone legitimate. This is an issue that may need to be addressed.

[Mario Dion]

As I said earlier, if the violation is very serious, Criminal Code provisions may apply in any case. Should the violation be very serious, the MP may lose his or her seat.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I partially agree with you on the notion of “friend”. Indeed, the words “friend” or “close family” can mean brothers or brothers-in-law, for instance.

People may wonder why an MP is now receiving certain invitations or gifts worth more than $1,000 or $1,500 when the MP wasn't receiving any before being elected. If I'm invited to a $500 dinner, for example, and I don't have to pay, I have to wonder if I would have been invited before becoming an MP.

[Mario Dion]

Before accepting the invitation, you can call us to find out what we think. We are objective and we have an overview, which the MP doesn't necessarily have. We give advice on these issues, but people don't have to follow it. For example, we can tell MPs that we strongly recommend that they not accept invitations like that. If an MP decides to go anyway and someone complains, we will find out. That's why we need to be consulted.

Some of your friends or family members may have an interest in you that isn't friendly or familial, which is why they offer you certain things.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I find this interesting.

In our public service, we must make a difference. Being a member of the House of Commons has a lot of advantages. However, when we use these benefits, the line is sometimes very thin, especially with our family members. We have a system of travel points, and we can also use certain advantages. Of course, we had lives before we were elected; there are spouses and children. However, we sometimes see some MPs abusing these benefits.

Have you considered some limitations on these benefits?

[Mario Dion]

As I initially said, we work with a framework, an act and a code. The focus of our mandate is to determine if a situation presents a conflict of interest or not, a conflict of interest being a conflict between one's public duties and one's personal interests. This is the only thing we look into. We are not responsible for morality in general, or for the acceptability of a given behaviour, or whatever. That is not at all my responsibility.

With gifts, for example, a series of things is outlined in the code and the act. Some aspects of conflicts of interest are covered. However, it does not cover all behaviour of MPs, ministers or parliamentary secretaries. It just covers conflicts between public roles and the personal interests of individuals, their families, or their friends.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Earlier, you said that we should take more time to review our code and attend a training program every year or every 18 months.

In the event of a problem, can MPs say that they weren't aware of the code to try to circumvent some of its obligations?

[Mario Dion]

In the field of law, there is a very well-known principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance of the law excuses no one, and it certainly can't vindicate anyone.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Do you know of any ministers or MPs who may have played both sides against the middle by telling themselves that they had the right to do something, even if it was not entirely ethical?

[Mario Dion]

I have held this position for less than a month, and no such cases have been brought to my attention. Has it happened in the past? I don't know.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

We carry out our mandate in good faith. We use the information that is given to us to provide advice. If we are not informed of a situation, if an MP or a minister does not consult with us, we cannot provide advice. In that context, we don't necessarily know what situations are coming up.