Evidence of meeting #21 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was criminal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Do you agree then that the Prime Minister is not above the law and he should not be allowed to act with impunity?
5 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Nobody is above the law.
5 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
How do you feel about the statement by the RCMP in their criminal brief that they took into consideration public interest, as it would undermine the integrity of democratic institutions? That's one of the reasons they never charged the Prime Minister.
5 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
As a citizen, I would respect their judgment, because I'm not familiar with all the facts of the case. It's their job, as well, to establish these things and to go through a checklist of sorts. If that's their conclusion, I have no reason to believe that it was inappropriate.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
If you look at the decision tree that the RCMP used as they went down the matrix, now that we know that the Prime Minister did not give himself authority to accept a gift, ultimately, it should have led to a fraud charge. They deferred first to the Ethics Commissioner's report, seeing that they thought that the Ethics Commissioner would have referred to them the details of the report if they thought something was criminal.
Now we know that Mary Dawson wasn't even aware of paragraph 121(1)(c) of fraud against the government.
I ask, as you dig into or you look at this, doesn't it appear that the Prime Minister is above the law if it should have led to a charge and it didn't?
5:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'm afraid I don't have anything more to say about that.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
With that, it is now time for Ms. Saks. You have up to five minutes.
May 12th, 2022 / 5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank Monsieur Dion for joining us here today.
This committee has spent considerable time going over the issues that were mentioned. They've been thoroughly aired and, as you mentioned previously, they're closed.
For the sake of understanding process, can you describe how your office maintains the division between your mandate and criminal investigations, and why that is so important to what we do here?
5:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It's more than a division. It's an absolute. We have no.... Section 49 is the bridge between our office and criminal prosecutions. Other than section 49, I play no role whatsoever in the criminal process.
I refer the matter to the local authorities, or I cease and desist whenever I learn or I'm told by a local authority that they are investigating. There is not much by way of traffic between law enforcement and my office.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you for that clarification. It's really important for all of us to understand that process.
Previously, you mentioned one of the six changes to the conflict of interest code for MPs. Perhaps you'd like to go through the other five and explain which is the most urgent and why.
5:05 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I would start by saying that nothing is really urgent. I had six concrete suggestions to make to continue to go forward in a certain direction.
The first one was that we should, like we have in the Conflict of Interest Act, include friends in the circle of people who MPs are the closest to when it comes to conflict of interest issues. Currently, only the small nuclear family is to be treated specially in the code. Friends have been in the Conflict of Interest Act since 2006, and I suggested that the House would maybe want to consider the inclusion of friends as well—as close associates, if you wish.
The second one was on outside activities. There is a section in the code that allows MPs to have professional activities outside of their role as an MP. In fact, it clearly authorizes it. Nothing in the code prevents members from doing that. I've suggested that maybe we should look at having some kind of an analysis to make sure that this does not lead to a situation where a conflict of interest could arise. Section 7 is very general in its terms as it is, and maybe it should be looked at.
The third one was a suggestion that in the area of gifts, we should not waste too much time looking at any gift valued at less than $30. I don't think that anybody in 2022 would believe that an MP can be swayed with a gift worth $29.99. We spend some time looking at those things, not only at my office but in MPs offices as well, and didn't think it's a useful, worthwhile time.
Sponsored travel is a fact of life. Before the pandemic, there were 80 trips or so on an annual basis involving MPs and sometimes their spouses. The test applicable to gifts is not applicable to sponsored travel, and it escapes me why it's okay if it's a trip and it would not be okay if it were something else. Some of these trips are quite expensive.
The fifth one was giving me more authority to issue some general guidelines to assist MPs in interpreting the code. As things are now, I need the formal approval of PROC before expressing any view of a general nature in writing. I would like to seek more authority, with a review after the fact, as opposed to a review prior to issuance. It has the potential of taking many months before I can actually send out a message of a general nature to MPs.
I'm sorry for the length of the answer.
The last one, of course, was on mandatory training for MPs. There are six altogether, plus nine technical suggestions—very technical ones.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Okay. I'll ask one very quick question.
How do Canada's rules compare with other western democracies? Are we up there, down there? Are we on par?
5:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I have not done a really concrete serious analysis, so I'm afraid I cannot answer that. Because I was too busy in my first years of involvement in the commissioner's office making what exists in Canada work, I have not spent much time doing comparative analysis.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Pat Kelly
Now we go to Mr. Villemure.
Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much.
I want to tell the Commissioner that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) still thinks Canada is one of the best countries in the world, in that respect.
The whole time I worked in ethics, I was asked why the Commissioner did not impose monetary penalties. I, for one, have always found that ethics is not for sale.
I'd like to hear what you have to say about that.
5:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The reason I don't impose monetary penalties is that the Commissioner doesn't have that authority unless it is conferred by the code or by statute, in the case of public office holders.
Your committee is interested in both the code and the act.
Should the Commissioner have that authority? I think so. However, it shouldn't be used arbitrarily. We would need procedural safeguards beyond what we have now before we could impose significant penalties.
Right now, all we can impose is a kind of ticket. It's called an administrative penalty. It's imposed in a fairly summary and simple way, because it's limited to $500, worst case scenario, for a public office holder. Generally, the penalty is $250 and sometimes it's only $100.
If we were to impose much higher penalties, we would have to create a mechanism to do it properly under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Do you think it would be a good idea to create a mechanism like that?
5:10 p.m.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Personally, I believe we should have an objective external forum that would make decisions on consequences for those who break the rules. In the case of MPs, due to the division of powers, only the House of Commons can punish an MP.
The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner can recommend penalties. I haven't had to recommend severe penalties, beyond apologies, and so on. I think that's sufficient, and anyway, it can't be changed for constitutional reasons.
With respect to holders of public office, I send a report to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister decides what to do with it. In the four and a half years that I've been in office, I haven't heard directly of any consequences arising from the reports I've submitted.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Actually, the individual faces social consequences simply for having broken the rules.
Thank you very much.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
I think, where the challenge is.... Forgive me if I've missed this, but when your recommendations on regulatees go to the PM, the obvious question is, what happens when it's the PM who's in contravention? Can you speak a bit more about what that forum might look like and how we might be able to provide that improvement? I would agree that it shouldn't be a political decision made by the House, in that regard.