Evidence of meeting #3 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was code.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Madam Chair, my understanding is that it is not required that they be declared. Sometimes people wish to discuss those with us, and that's fine, but there is no requirement to declare anything under $200.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I'll forgo that. I can't cast the whole question in 30 seconds. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you. We will go to the next round.
Mr. Duncan, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dion, for being here. I've had the pleasure of hearing you speak at committee, and thankfully, as a two-year member of Parliament, I haven't had to deal with you too much other than at committee, which is probably a good thing.
We've had different questions about training and the proactiveness of making sure members are aware of the code. I just want to focus on the other half a little bit. I think you may have addressed this to a certain extent, but I just want to get your views on this.
When there is a contravention or a report that recommends something—I guess it would be specific to the code or the act—is there any...? There's nothing mandatory, obviously, but what do you do for compliance, to make sure that individual members or persons who are found in violation are aware and don't break the code again? Is there any formal process in place?
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Madam Chair, there is no formal process. It's still rare that we conduct inquiries into the conduct of members of Parliament. I was looking at the list. In the last four years that I've been here, we've had a total of seven inquiries—only seven—and in those cases, I only recommended a sanction once, which was to apologize to the House, which was done by the member in question.
We do deal religiously with every complaint sent to us by any member of Parliament. We study it very carefully and quickly. We have a certain number of days, under the code, to review it, but it's good, because it seems that the vast majority of MPs do not encounter any difficulties in not contravening the code. We also monitor social media. Sometimes we learn stuff through social media without an MP having complained about anything.
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
To build on that, if there's been one case of having some sort of pardon, I think this is why a review would be good, to look at both the pre- and the post-education aspects of things.
Having a protocol or a formal process in place could ensure that even if a report is issued, and perhaps nothing is found, education can be done about why it was done or things that the member could do in reaction to it. I guess that would be both for the code and for the act that way, but I think it speaks volumes to why a review would be needed.
I'm glad Mr. Calkins did some follow-up about the foundations of the code, which are good, so it's not critical, in the sense that there are no major gaps. Earlier, with Mr. Brassard, you listed some ideas, some suggestions for improvement to the code. Can we get an idea...? I'm not going to hold you to a number and bullet points, but are you talking about numerous small changes? How many are you talking about, in context? That's just for us to understand when—I won't say “if”—it's a matter of the mandatory review.
How many changes do you see yourself recommending?
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Madam Chair, I currently have fewer than 10 on my list of so-called substantive changes. I could easily produce a long list of what I call technical changes, in which I have more limited interest but which would still be useful to consider.
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Building on that, in the engagement with your office in terms of outreach you do with stakeholders or other experts in this field, do you think there will be other stakeholders from across the country—academics, experts with backgrounds—who would be recommending any other changes? Have you had a lot of correspondence or outreach to your office with suggestions further than your own?
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Not many, Madam Chair, but I know we have a few people—I call them constant observers—especially in academia, who have a keen interest in issues related to parliamentary ethics. I am sure that several individuals would be interested in contributing to a review such as this one.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
My questions are for Mr. Dion.
Mr. Dion, I don't envy you at all. Before I entered politics, my job in the private sector was sort of the equivalent of a conflict of interest commissioner for an association of pharmaceutical companies. So I understand very well the key role you play. I think the vast majority of MPs, if not all of them, take your role seriously and do their best to comply with the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.
My question relates to the notion of friends. You said that it would be important to expand the current definition to include them, but as you know, MPs don't lack friends. There isn't an MP who doesn't have an impressive network, be it in their riding or across the country.
How well do you plan to set out the new definition of what MPs should declare, should your recommendation to include friends be adopted?
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Madam Chair, in the context of the Conflict of Interest Act, I had the opportunity in the “Trudeau III Report” and in the “Morneau II Report” to deal with the issue of friends and to propose fairly clear guidelines. There are six or seven criteria that cover, for example, the frequency of association or the total duration of the relationship. Another criterion is whether one goes to the other person's home to eat a meal alone or in a group. These are indicators of a friendship.
Of course, everyone has their own definition of what a friend is. Some people have 4,000 friends on Facebook. They consider these people to be friends. Others will only have three or four people in their entire lives that they consider their friends.
So this definition is very difficult to map out. I would tend to have a fairly restrictive interpretation of the term “friends,” for it to play a role. It has to reach a certain threshold, because you don't want it to become ridiculous either. If I asked you to think about your friends and list the 10 closest to you, you would be able to do it, and so could I. You might want to think about not acting differently towards these friends compared to how you act towards other people, quite simply.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I thank Mr. Dion for his answer.
Mr. Dion, I have a rather philosophical question. As commissioner, don't you think transparency is the most important thing?
As for me, I am an MP from the National Capital Region. I have been in the region for over 33 years. It is always said that people rarely stay in the region as long as I have. Many people come to Ottawa and then leave the region. In my case, several people I know and consider friends work in government relations and other fields.
What matters most: that I am transparent or that, as a precaution, I no longer talk to people I've known for some 30 years?
Liberal
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Actually, it's a combination of the two.
Often, under the Conflict of Interest Act, a public office holder, principal or otherwise, will declare to us on their own initiative the presence of one or more persons they consider to be people that they should not interact with in the course of their duties, given the closeness of their relationship. So transparency is important, because then you create filters under the act.
For instance, it is stated that Mr. X is a friend of Mr. Fergus. That way, everyone knows. Moreover, Mr. Fergus asks his office to ensure that he is never called upon to handle a file concerning Mr. X. This is transparent.
In any event, even if Mr. Fergus has a similar relationship with Mr. Y and does not declare it, he is also required to stay away from files that concern him. He knows that. If someone ever makes a complaint, I will have to check whether he has the same kind of relationship with Mr. Y without declaring it.
So both elements should be considered.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
If suitable, just because we're running nice and tight on time, if it's okay I would like to give both Mr. Therrien and Ms. Blaney five minutes rather than two and a half minutes.
Are there any concerns? No.
Mr. Therrien, you have five minutes.