Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 14th, 2021

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, I think we ought to look at who is the nucleus that constitutes a member's most influential...the people who are the closest to the member. That's the issue. We have a spouse, obviously, and we have children. Should we include other people? If so, who are those other people?

It's one of several issues that could be raised as part of a review of the code.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Brassard, go ahead.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In terms of interacting with police forces, such as the RCMP, can you walk me through the process when you receive an indication that there might be a violation of the code? At what point would you approach the police in a circumstance to get them involved?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Dion, go ahead.

[Mario Dion]

In fact, there are provisions, Madam Chair, right in the code, mandating certain things when it comes to whenever my work interacts or intersects with the work of law enforcement.

Section 29 says:

The commissioner shall immediately suspend the inquiry into a matter if

(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the member has committed an offence under an act of Parliament, in which case the commissioner shall notify the proper authorities of the commissioner’s belief.

So I have no discretion. Also, I have to cease and desist immediately if it is discovered that “the act or omission under investigation is also the subject of an investigation” by a law enforcement authority, or if a charge has been laid. In those three situations, I have to stop.

That's what we did in the Grewal situation three years ago, for example. I had to suspend when we were informed that there was an investigation and charges had been laid. There was also the Carson matter a few years ago, when the same thing happened in an investigation conducted by Ms. Dawson.

That's how it works, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 50 seconds, Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My next question revolves around proactive consultation with your department. I've recently become aware of a former senior aide to finance minister Freeland who announced that he has accepted a new job at the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Aneil Jaswal said his mandate included deploying $35 billion of taxpayer money to various projects around the country.

Were you consulted before Mr. Jaswal accepted this position?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 15 seconds, Mr. Dion.

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, any discussion we have with any public office holder or any MP is confidential. I am mandated both under the code and under the act to make sure I never talk about that. I am not at liberty to say whether we were consulted, and that's the way it is. Frankly, I don't remember whether we were consulted, in any event, because we are consulted often.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Mrs. Romanado, you have five minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Dion, thank you for being with us this morning.

This is a great segue, speaking about confidentiality. Subsection 20(3) of the conflict of interest code clearly states, “The commissioner shall keep the statement confidential”, whether it be initial disclosures or material change.

Could the commissioner outline protocols used by his office to ensure that all information provided by members of Parliament is kept confidential?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Dion, go ahead.

[Mario Dion]

The first measure that comes to mind is the fact that each and every employee at the office, without exception, has secret security clearance. Second, we use the networks provided to us by the House of Commons, and we're assured that they are extremely secure and encrypted. Third, we have a registry that is locked, basically, and requires a magnetic card. We also have 24-7 coverage by the House security service to make sure there is no intrusion into the office. Fourth, we also have a clear policy that employees should only consult a file on a need-to-know basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Romanado, go ahead

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I know that in a previous case, it was indicated that a breach did occur with respect to this requirement. Documentation was sent to an MP's generic MP account, and staff had full access to this information.

Has this occurred in the past? How often does this occur? Could the commissioner advise us not only whether this has happened in the past, but whether he has to report these kinds of breaches? If so, what is the oversight mechanism to make sure these kinds of errors don't happen again?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Dion, go ahead.

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, the example quoted by the member is actually the only example I am aware of in the last four years where an email was misdirected. However, it was still sent to an account that belonged to that MP. It was not sent to a third party. It was not sent outside of government nor outside the House of Commons. Instead of the P9 account, it was sent to another account, and we apologized for that. This is the only instance.

We don't have to report it. We're not governed by the Privacy Act. Unlike departments and agencies, there is no obligation to report any privacy situation, but in this case, I don't believe there was a privacy situation, because the account belonged to the MP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Romanado, go ahead.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

With respect to that, in all honesty, I think the information I'm providing to the Ethics Commissioner and his office regarding my assets and liabilities, including those of my spouse, should not be seen by my staff. If I wanted my staff to see it, I would make sure they have it.

I want to move now to the politicization of his office in terms of subsection 27(2.1). In the event there is a request to look into a situation where it is clear that there was no breach or the MP did not break the code, it says very clearly in subsection 27(6) that there are consequences for frivolous reports.

Have there been any frivolous reports in the last four years with respect to inquiries, with members being sanctioned for reporting non-meritorious requests?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Dion, go ahead.

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, the answer is twofold. We have not had what I would consider to be a frivolous or vexatious request made by any MP in the last four years. Therefore, we've had no situation where somebody was reprimanded for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Romanado, go ahead.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much for clarifying, Monsieur Dion.

Last but not least, you did bring up a question regarding gifts. I am probably one of the members of Parliament most frequently in contact with your office on this. I report, on a monthly basis, any gifts that I receive, even the smallest amounts.

Is there another option for members of Parliament to track gifts? As the gift policy says very clearly, if the amount is under $200 but within a calendar year it exceeds $200.... However, we never know what we're going to receive in a given year. Is there a better way we can be tracking that to make sure we're not submitting constant updates to your office?

I know I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Please give a brief answer, Mr. Dion.

[Mario Dion]

It is another possible topic for discussion under a comprehensive review, but at the present time I think you have 30 days to report any gift valued at more than $200, or which combined with other gifts would cause the total value to increase above $200. That's the way it is at this point. That's how we have to enforce the code.