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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, I'd like to ask a follow-up about whether PROC is still mandated to approve those guidelines within the code itself. Is that the case? Would that be something that you would be seeking to change? It seems a bit onerous for someone in your position who's looking at the many questions that come up with interpreting the code. I'm sure you get lots of calls.

Would that be something you'd be interested in trying to waive, which is that PROC would need to actually approve those guidelines?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Please ask your questions clearly through the chair.

Mr. Dion, go ahead.

[Mario Dion]

The code currently requires that the guidelines be tabled with the committee and be approved by the committee. Subsection 30(2) says that I cannot issue guidelines unless they're approved by the committee, and they have to be reported to the House of Commons. They only come into effect once the report has been concurred in by the House.

It further goes on to say, “Until the guidelines and forms are reported to the House, they shall remain confidential.” I cannot even talk about guidelines or say anything about guidelines until such time as they have been reported to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I certainly would like to register my interest in seeing guidelines produced in the future at some point. I'm sure we can have discussions as a committee about that and see what the will of the committee is. I feel like they're necessary.

Mr. Dion, in your role, I feel like your office is probably receiving all kinds of inquiries on a regular basis about how to interpret the code. I know I've used the office quite a few times to ask questions when they've arisen. I'm sure other members do the same.

I wanted to ask you, through the chair, about where you feel additional guidance is most merited, based on the volume of inquiries that you get.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Dion, go ahead.

[Mario Dion]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a somewhat difficult one because it fluctuates with time. There used to be a time when the key issue was the acceptability of gifts. Since COVID, people don't go anywhere and do not get any gifts. Therefore, gifts are not much of an issue at this point in time.

The key issue today is the notion of significant change. When is a change significant enough for the duty to inform my office to arise? It's vague in most members' minds, and we don't have the authority to set parameters except to say that they have to be material changes. “Material” means something that affects the initial statement that was published on the registry. Does a change of $10 on one's mortgage constitute a significant change? I don't think so. Where is the line? Is it $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000? That's topic number one.

Topic number two is letters of support. Many members inquire about letters of support. They ask what they can say, what stationery it should be on and so on. We could have a guideline on that as well.

There are several subjects like that. It appears the prevalence is around the issue of significant change and letters of support mostly, and to some extent gifts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you very much for that answer. That's very helpful.

From my perspective, I subscribe to values-based ethics, which is more about building character. I think ethics is more of a practice than it is about just sheer compliance. Of course, compliance is very important.

What I would like to see.... There are several ethicists who are world-renowned. They talk about ethics as developing situational awareness and situational intelligence. Looking at case studies and doing training is very important.

Mr. Dion, would you agree that more training is required?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I will give Mr. Dion a brief moment to answer.

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, without a shadow of a doubt, I wish MPs would take more time to participate in training that we currently offer, in addition to more sophisticated training, such as the one mentioned by the member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Here's good news: Santa is listening.

I want to remind you to always address your comments and observations to the chair.

Mr. Therrien, you have the floor.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to extend my greetings to Mr. Dion and thank him for joining us today.

I have a few quick questions.

You spoke earlier about the definition of “family” and the possibility of expanding it to include friends, in terms of offences that could be punishable by your office, so to speak.

Let me ask you a question. I don't want to get political. However, when Mr. Trudeau was talking about the WE Charity and his mother, I was intrigued to hear him say that his mother wasn't part of his family. That's when I realized that his family included him, his wife and his children. That's what I understood.

Is that right? According to the definition of “family,” for example, wouldn't my mother or father be part of it?

[Mario Dion]

That's correct, but only for the purposes of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament. We're talking about the code here, not the Conflict of Interest Act. Obviously, things vary greatly between the code and the act. Mr. Trudeau, along with all the ministers and parliamentary secretaries, is subject to both the code and the act.

According to the code, the family includes the spouse and dependent children, period. This includes children under the age of 18 or children over the age of 18 who are financially dependent on their parents.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Okay. I didn't mean to attack anyone, but I found this situation intriguing.

You spoke of revising the definition of “family” and perhaps introducing the notion of friends.

Do you think that this definition should be revised to include brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers, or are you comfortable with the current situation?

[Mario Dion]

The code contains provisions that prevent a member from improperly favouring any other person. In this case, the test is simply a little more rigorous than it would be for a defined family member.

I don't think that it's necessary to expand the definition of “family”. The code really refers to the family unit, or the nucleus, as we say in Latin.

However, the issue of friends bothers me a bit. You could favour a close friend in the same way that you would favour your son or your wife, and that wouldn't violate the code.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

With all due respect, I find it difficult to imagine that a friend could be considered an influence on a person's actions, but not a father or mother.

[Mario Dion]

These are precisely the types of issues that would be worth analyzing and that the committee could address. I'm sure that there are a number of views on this issue. I simply referred to this issue as an example of something that could be addressed by the committee and could be amended.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

The Bloc Québécois would have liked the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to be able to act in a more stringent manner. For example, in the Aga Khan and SNC‑Lavalin cases, there were reprimands, but nothing more than that.

Do you think that you should have more power to act on your decisions, so that you really play a deterrent role?

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, we're here this morning to talk about the code. That's important to note.

Regarding the code, there's a constitutional barrier. Only Parliament can punish its members. It isn't for me or anyone else to impose a sanction on a member of Parliament, because only Parliament can do that.

However, in my reports, I can recommend a sanction and specify which one I'm recommending. That said, the House of Commons decides whether to impose a sanction.

With respect to the Conflict of Interest Act, that's another matter entirely. The act doesn't even let me make recommendations for possible sanctions. My role is limited to analyzing the facts and reporting my findings to the Prime Minister, period.

Would I want it to go further? Perhaps. However, we could discuss this issue as part of a review of the act, in another committee.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Well, that's exactly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Therrien, you have a minute and a half left.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Dion, that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm wondering whether you should have more power. However, the legislation that governs your role doesn't allow for that. Parliamentarians should take action to change the legislation so that you can have more of a deterrent and punitive effect when required. I think that it's missing the mark a bit when you share your decisions or your thoughts and there are almost no consequences.

I would like to ask one last quick question.

How much time do I have left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 50 seconds left.