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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleagues for giving me these two and a half extra minutes. I don't even know what to do with it. I'm too excited, like a poodle waiting for a visitor.

I think what Mr. Fergus said was right. I think that Mr. Dion has a lot of grace, because this is a very difficult thing. The more I listen to him, the more I understand that his task is colossal.

Earlier, I was talking about operationalization, in other words, the way in which the concepts established in the code are put into practice. I had given an example, and we had talked about it. It is very vague.

I find that it isn't obvious either about the types of ties whether they are friendships or family ties. For example, why doesn't family include, in some cases, close relatives like a father or mother, brothers, sisters, and so on? So you are a judge like Solomon in this process.

I have two questions that relate to the evolution of the code over time.

Do you find that over the last few years the code has become more and more concrete and that you have more and more guidelines to guide you in your work, as you wish? I'm not saying that you don't have good judgment, but there seems to be less room for interpretation and more guidance for your work. Do you feel that the code is moving in this direction?

[Mario Dion]

I was talking earlier about some case law. We have a compendium of the advice we have given and the decisions we have taken in investigation reports. This allows us to act consistently when the question is asked again. I would like to be able to publish some of these things, but I'm not currently able to under the code, for the reason I have explained to you.

Indeed, as time goes by, we become more and more precise. That said, there are thousands of possible situations, and it is always perilous to try to define in advance what the answer to a question will be, as it depends on a whole host of factors.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

So you're telling me that you're relying on case law, among other things, to guide your steps when you have to exercise judgment.

Did I understand you correctly?

[Mario Dion]

I was talking about the jurisprudence of the office, of course, in addition to the very meagre jurisprudence we have from the higher courts.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

All right, I understood that. That was the point of my question.

Also, is your job getting more complex now that we are in this new environment of the Internet and social media?

[Mario Dion]

No, I think our job is getting easier, in fact, because this brings more transparency.

Often, for example, there are photos of an event in which a particular person took part. This is one more tool that we have started to use. We only use things that are in the public domain, obviously. We are looking at this to see if there is a possibility of intervening with a member of Parliament or a public office holder under the Conflict of Interest Act.

In short, it promotes transparency and makes our job easier. Obviously, we don't believe everything we see on Facebook or other social media, but sometimes it gives us a lead to go and see if there's anything there.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I have one last question.

In your opinion, which element of the code is the most unclear and should be tackled the most because it causes the most problems when it comes to interpreting situations, analyzing facts and judging them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Dion, you have 50 seconds to answer the question.

[Mario Dion]

At the moment, the question of friends is central and very interesting, because it is all very vague.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Will you reconsider the definition of family?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Dion, you have 30 seconds to answer the question.

[Mario Dion]

No, as it stands, we won't revisit it unless the committee or another stakeholder requests it. For example, current MPs could consult each other or former MPs to see what they think of the code and whether there are things that are not working.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, you have five minutes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This conversation continues to interest me. One of the things that we are happily seeing in the House of Commons is an increasing level of diversity among the members who represent the different ridings of Canada. I'm wondering if Mr. Dion has any feedback that he'd like to share on how that might impact some of the things that members are faced with.

I also think about that when we talk about family and friends—as in the conversation we had here today—and how we define that. I can't help but think of my family from Stellat'en First Nation. If you are an older cousin, you are an auntie or an uncle. There are all of these very clear roles that you play, but it's not necessarily.... I always find it interesting when people ask me, what are they really? Are they your third cousin three times removed? None of that matters. That's just not how family is decided. I just want to recognize that in different cultures the definition of family can be very different. Of course, I would assume that at some point that would have a bit of an impact on how we look at these things.

The other thing that I can't help but reflect on is the fact that many folks, and many stories that I've heard from the LGBTQ2S+ community, talk about chosen family. I just think these are things to think about as we're speaking about this. Who defines what family is and what role that person has in your cohort? How do we define friends?

I'm just wondering, as we have these discussions, if there's been thought that your office has put into that—I can't imagine it wouldn't have. Is this something that, if we were to look at this department, we should be exploring further?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Dion, go ahead.

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, first of all, we already have some diversity within the office. We did a survey to determine...because it's important to reflect the population of those we serve, MPs and public officials. More and more, it's diversified. We've taken measures, for example, not to correspond with an MP or with a public official when we know it's a religious holiday in his or her religion, as a gesture of respect essentially. The same way we would not send somebody a letter informing them that they will be investigated on December 25, we will not send it on a Sikh holiday or on a Jewish holiday, and such holidays. That's a small thing but it's one example.

I must admit that the member has opened my eyes, however, to the fact that when the definition of family was crafted, it was crafted in 2004 or before, and it does not reflect any attempt to try to reflect the concept of a non-traditional family. That's another area where the committee could look, with our assistance, to see whether we can modernize the definition as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Blaney, go ahead.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you for that. I think it's an important conversation that we definitely need to be having over the next number of years as we become more holistic in our approach.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to have that moment of a question. I'll go to the next question, and I promise this is my last one. I only have about two and a half minutes, and I know we have a lot of important business to do in this room, Madam Chair.

One of the questions I have, and hope to have some clarity around, is about the role that Mr. Dion holds right now. I've heard numerous conversations today about how that role is limited and how sometimes it almost sounds like that could be a little bit frustrating.

I can't help but reflect on the fact that we've had members in this place talk about public confidence. I really appreciated Mr. Dion's comments that not only is that happening in Canada, where people are feeling less of a sense of public confidence, but that's happening across the planet. It's something that we should all be reflecting on, especially as politicians and parliamentarians.

I'm just wondering if Mr. Dion believes this office has the level of power required to properly implement the role. Also, within that lens, how do we increase public confidence within these roles that we all hold here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

I think your clock may have been off by a minute.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We'll let Mr. Dion respond, though.

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, it's a very complex and important question that's being asked. I was asked about the level of resources. Initially I answered a certain way.

Level of power is a different thing. It's entirely different. I was appointed. My training is that of a lawyer. My role is to implement the code and the act as they exist, not as I wish they would exist. At the appropriate time, I will be making suggestions because it is obvious that there is a lot of room for improving the impact that the office can have on the actual long-term situation of Canadians' confidence in their public institutions.

We could have more power, but for the time being we don't have more power. I'm trying to make the best out of the situation we have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

For the last round, we have Mr. Gerretsen for five minutes.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair

Through you to Mr. Dion, I want to try to play devil's advocate for a couple of issues here. When we talk about relooking at the definition of family or the inclusion of friends, at the end of the day is there not some concern that we end up opening things up in such a way as to create more problems, more inconsistencies or more confusion? I realize the desire for it, but at the end of the day a certain degree of responsibility, in my opinion, needs to be placed upon the individual to do what is right. If somebody wants to neglect doing what is right, in my opinion they will always find a way to do that.

My question, through you, Madam Chair, is whether Mr. Dion shares the same concern. If you start to amend definitions, include close friends and try to define what a close friend is versus an acquaintance, don't you start to run the risk of getting away from the principle of putting the onus on somebody to do what's right? Do you run the risk of perhaps creating more confusion down the road?