Information & Ethics Committee on May 12th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 21st meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, December 13, 2021, the committee will be studying the main estimates and hearing from today's witness, Monsieur Mario Dion, Ethics Commissioner.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021.

Today, with Commissioner Dion, we also have Sandy Tremblay, director of corporate management.

Mr. Dion, you have up to five minutes for an opening statement.

[Mario Dion, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today as the committee considers the 2022-2023 main estimates for the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

To begin, I will share some brief background information about the office for those of you whom I have not previously met in my four years as Commissioner.

Our main goal is to help regulatees, namely public office holders and members of the House of Commons, know and follow the rules of the two regimes the office administers: the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

We fulfill this mandate through our experienced staff. There are slightly more than 50 people who work for the office, and our budget is devoted mostly to paying their salaries. In fact, 82% of the budget goes towards salaries.

You were likely in communication with an adviser from the office, as all the members who completed their initial compliance process were in contact with an adviser from the office.

In addition to advisory services, which are the most visible part of what we do, all of the work of the office supports regulatees, directly and indirectly, and builds an understanding of the rules.

Employees provide communications, outreach support and investigative services when allegations of possible issues are made, and they also provide legal expertise to me in conducting all these activities. They maintain the technical and financial framework for the office's operations and assist me directly. Nearly 70% of the budget is dedicated to program-related functions.

It was a busy year in 2021-22. The advisers' workloads increased by 43% in this fiscal year over the previous one. This is a natural outcome following an election, of course. It requires additional work under both regimes, such as completing the initial compliance process for all MPs, newly elected or re-elected, and for new ministers, new parliamentary secretaries as well as new ministerial staff. As you know, there is a significant turnover of ministerial staff after an election.

Prevention is the major focus of the regimes that the office administers, and education is key to prevention.

In the past fiscal year, for the first year ever, we surveyed public office holders to help us better understand their needs. The response rate was high and yielded positive responses. The analysis is nearly complete, and we will not only use the results to better align our business approaches, but we will ensure it's made public to support transparency in our work. We plan to conduct a similar survey of members of Parliament, this time under the code, in this fiscal year.

I believe that the vast majority of regulatees are honest people who want to follow the rules. My role and the role of my office is to provide what is needed to achieve and maintain compliance. I believe regulatees are accountable for their own compliance with the rules and must develop a reflex to act ethically and educate themselves in order to ensure compliance. The office will continue to strengthen its focus on education and outreach in support of this.

We have maintained our primary focus on assisting, advising and directing regulatees as well as monitoring their actions.

In the main estimates, you will see that there is an increase over the previous year of $473,000, mostly devoted to the payment of pay increases—economic increases to employees—as well as benefit plans, from the adjustment of the rate as determined by the Treasury Board.

It is also to prepare training and communications materials for our new case management system, which will come online during this fiscal year. We need to prepare both staff and users for this new system that will be introduced.

Therefore, it's benefits, salaries and making sure that people understand the new system before its deployed. The last area is to ensure that we comply with the new requirements under Bill C-81 on accessibility.

The office is already taking steps to improve the accessibility of documents used on social media and in presentations. Accessibility is not just required, it is key to meeting the needs of regulatees and the public.

I hope the committee will find this information helpful.

I'd be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

For the first questions, we will have Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Dion, for joining us today.

Are you familiar with section 49 of the Conflict of Interest Act?

[Mario Dion]

With regard to section 49, I will open my statute. I'm sure I'm familiar with 49—I think I know what it is—but I always open the statute. It's the provision that requires me to suspend an examination when one has been started, if I believe on reasonable grounds that the public office holder has committed an offence under an act of Parliament in respect of the same subject matter.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Have you ever had to suspend an investigation because you thought there was a contravention of an act, including the Criminal Code?

[Mario Dion]

Yes, I have, on one occasion, and my predecessor did so as well on two occasions. It has been applied in practice since the act was adopted.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Are you familiar with paragraph 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Dion?

[Mario Dion]

I am less so, but of course I am somewhat familiar with it. At the Department of Justice I was responsible for providing the permission provided for in paragraph 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

There's been—

[Mario Dion]

I don't have the Criminal Code with me, however, so I cannot read it.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Okay. I do have paragraph 121(1)(c) here, and I will read it. It says:

being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;

I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Dion, of the stories that are out now, of the criminal brief from the RCMP on the first “Trudeau Report” of 2017, in which the RCMP had considered a charge of fraud against the government under paragraph 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

In an interview given by your predecessor, Ms. Dawson said that no one made that connection for her with criminal authorities on that investigation.

In light of the new information, do you think that first report, “The Trudeau Report”, should have been suspended and turned over to the RCMP?

[Mario Dion]

With the benefit of hindsight, of course, anything is possible.

I don't have a view because I don't have detailed knowledge of what was available to Ms. Dawson when she conducted the investigation back in 2017, so all I have is what I read in the media. I'm sorry.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Based on the stories that are out there and based on the RCMP criminal brief that was gotten through access to information, it was quite clear that the RCMP defers to the Office of the Ethics Commissioner to make those section 49 references to them.

Do you believe that, since we don't have a statute of limitations in Canada, we should making that referral to the RCMP at this point in time?

[Mario Dion]

The investigation was concluded three years ago, and I don't believe.... It was five years ago, I should have said, or four and a half years ago. The investigation is over, and I don't believe I have any jurisdiction to reopen any investigation.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

As you are aware, new evidence has now been presented. If you look at the decision tree used in the RCMP's matrix, under paragraph 121(1)(c), they made the decision not to charge the Prime Minister because they did not know if he had the authorization from the head of government or the head of his department to accept the gift, the very luxurious vacation package.

Now we know, from the Prime Minister's own admission in question period, that he did not give himself permission. Do you believe, with your legal background and your time spent at the Department of Justice, that this new evidence would show that there was a potential fraud against the government?

[Mario Dion]

It's for the RCMP to determine whether they wish to institute proceedings, and I will be watching with interest what they decide to do.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

When you as commissioner look at the responsibilities under section 49, if you came across any information or evidence, you wouldn't hesitate to turn that over to the RCMP and suspend your investigation.

[Mario Dion]

I wouldn't. I have in the past. I will in the future whenever I have the necessary facts in order to do so. It is a mandatory provision, so it's not a choice that the commissioner has. The commissioner has an obligation to refer it to the police force that has jurisdiction, so we are watchful for that in conducting our own investigations. We always have that in the back of our minds.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dion, thank you for appearing before us today. It's a pleasure to have you here.

I'd like to start by asking you about your appearance before the PROC committee in February. You said you believe the conflict of interest code is functioning well, overall.

I'm hoping you can describe that comment and the motivation behind it. Why do you feel that way about the code?

[Mario Dion]

When you read our annual report, which will be tabled next month, you will see that we've conducted, I think, 600 different transactions with members of Parliament who had obligations under the code. We provided them with advice. We come across a few situations, from time to time, where the code is not as clear as we wish it were, but, by and large—99% of the time—we are in a position to apply the code and feel confident that we're able to do that.

That's why I described the code as working well. Of course, anything can always be improved and everything is evolutive. The requirements will continue to evolve, but for the time being, the code is perfectly functional as far as I'm concerned.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you for that.

We're here today to talk about estimates and the budget. I note that, since 2015, your office's budget has increased by a fifth. I think you mentioned that 82% of your budget goes toward salaries, and that expense really went up over the course of the past year or so.

I'm wondering whether finances are any sort of obstacle to you in fulfilling your mandate—whether you have enough money to do the work before you.

[Mario Dion]

The way the mandate is structured.... I am quite fortunate, because the Parliament of Canada Act says that, each year, I shall estimate what's necessary in order to carry out the mandate and send the Speaker my requirements. I am in a very privileged position. We've never had any difficulty carrying out our mandate with the resources we have, because we've asked for increases, from time to time, when they were necessary, as is the case this fiscal year.

We have enough. We've had enough, and we will, I believe, continue to have enough.