Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the fifth meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is meeting today to hear from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion, on the committee's study concerning the review of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament.

Before I adjourn today's meeting, I intend to discuss certain issues related to committee business.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order adopted on Thursday, November 25, 2021. Members can participate in person or using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available on the House of Commons website. For your information, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entire room.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants and observers that taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from health authorities, as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy issued on November 19, 2021, and the House order of November 25, 2021, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain two–metre physical distancing and must wear a non–medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. You must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the provided hand sanitizer at the room entrance.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either THE floor, English, or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately and we will ensure interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings. The “raise hand” feature at the bottom of the screen can be used at any time if you wish to speak or alert the chair.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in the committee room. Keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

I would remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. I want to remind everyone that at the previous meeting, which was a hybrid one, we were able to have members of the committee interact directly with the witnesses by raising comments and responses through the chair.

I would ask that we take a breath between those interactions to ensure there is interpretation, which is all of our concern. As we long as we maintain a good pace, I will interject minimally. If I feel that it's getting too quick, I will provide some commentary. If you would like to avoid that, now you know how.

With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they're participating virtually or in person.

I would now like to welcome Mr. Dion back to our committee.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I have a friendly point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Chair, I ask the clerk for advice on this.

I always like to hear your voice for the first few minutes of the meeting, and this is a customary thing that the clerk has advised all committees to do at the beginning of the meeting, but we're two years into this. We know about the rules and clicking the buttons.

Regarding the witnesses, an example in this case is Mr. Dion—welcome back—who has already heard this from his previous testimony.

For your benefit and time, may I suggest that, going forward, we provide the witnesses in writing what you say at the beginning of the meeting, so that when the meeting begins, we can get right to it? I will leave it to the committee to decide, but it might be something to consider to help move our business along and get to some more riveting questions today.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will definitely take that offline and have that conversation, perhaps at a subcommittee.

Thank you for raising that, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Dion will be with us for approximately 90 minutes, and then, as I indicated, the committee will conduct some committee business for future meetings, if time permits.

Mr. Dion, please proceed with your statement.

[Mario Dion, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to meet with with you today. Like I said when I had the privilege to appear before you on December 14, as an officer of the House of Commons, when members call me, I always give them priority.

So I am happy that the committee members are undertaking a study on the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. The code is an important set of rules regulating certain aspects of members' activities. It benefits from being reviewed from time to time. This process will help determine whether rules are working and to address shortcomings identified by members or by other individuals who, like me, have some experience in the enforcement of rules.

The last review was completed in 2015, well before I was appointed to my current position in January 2018. I consider myself fortunate to have this opportunity to, in some way, contribute to the ongoing evolution of this important framework supporting our democratic institutions.

The committee has received from the office a list of six possible suggestions regarding the code and a selection of possible technical amendments that the committee may wish to consider. These recommendations were developed over the period of the last four years, since I became commissioner, with the participation of advisers and lawyers in the office who work with the code on a daily basis.

These suggested amendments are aimed at bringing greater accountability and transparency for members of the public.

Our first recommendation or proposed suggestion, if you wish, is to set a baseline minimum amount for gifts and potential influence, that being $30, all inclusive, in a 12-month period from a single source.

Our second recommendation suggests that we strengthen and align the rules of conduct against furthering private interests of friends and family members, bringing them into alignment with the Members By-law.

Our third recommendation would be to prohibit outside activities that are incompatible with a member's parliamentary duties and functions.

The fourth possibility of amendment concerns the building of coherence within the code for sponsored travel, which is considered a gift and must therefore be subject to the same acceptability test as any other gift.

The fifth recommendation would be to enhance the understanding of the code with mandatory training for new members.

Finally, the sixth recommendation would be to increase the commissioner's autonomy to amend forms and provide generalized guidance to help better explain the provisions of the code.

As I said, these proposals were developed over time through observation and reflection. I believe they would modernize and improve the rules related to gifts and conflicts of interest as they relate to friends and family members, and would better define the boundaries of permissible outside activities for members. They would also require members to spend some time learning the rules set out in the code, as experience has shown that ignorance of the rules is often at the root of contraventions.

Finally, if the House deems it useful, one of my suggestions is to provide the commissioner with additional authority and autonomy to address specific situations requiring general guidance.

It's the committee's role to assess the relevance of these suggestions, and I will of course respect the decisions of the committee. I would also be pleased to offer my views throughout this review, if you so wish, on any matter that the committee may wish to refer to me.

It is my role to help the committee manage the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. So I will make myself especially available while the committee is conducting its review.

I would be pleased to know your opinion, to note your questions and to provide you with explanations. I am ultimately a resource for the committee. I hope I will be able to help you decide what must be addressed in this review.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dion.

We will now start our first six-minute round of questions, starting with Mr. Brassard followed by Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Therrien and then Ms. Blaney.

Mr. Brassard, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dion, for being here today. I also want to thank you and your office because I've made several requests of your office, and those responses have always come back in a timely manner.

I want to focus on the recommendations because they are consistent with your appearance here in December. I know that the devil is in the details, and these are very high level recommendations. I'm sure my colleagues in subsequent rounds will have questions related to them, but I want to focus specifically on recommendation number three, where you say, “Prohibit outside activities incompatible with a member's parliamentary duties and functions.”

Could you expand on that, please?

[Mario Dion]

At the present time section 7 says that nothing in the code prevents members who are not ministers or parliamentary secretaries from “engaging in employment or the practice of a profession” or from “carrying out a business” and so on and so forth. So there is no prohibition against continuing or initiating a new activity, a new business, a new profession and so on and so forth.

Although in the last legislature, there were very few MPs who were carrying out a business or were employed elsewhere or involved in the practice of a profession, we find that, from a philosophical point of view, considering the nature of the work of an MP nowadays, the level of activity and so on and so forth, it might be appropriate for the House to consider whether this rule is still adequate in the circumstances, because it does give rise to a stronger possibility of conflict of interest, of course, if you operate a business or if you're engaged in employment while being at the same time a member of Parliament.

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

Thank you for clarifying that.

My next question relates to digital media. We've seen recent news reports of the leader of the NDP, for example, receiving a gift of a chair. This speaks more broadly to the influence of digital media and the platforms that members of Parliament have, with hundreds of thousands or millions of followers in some cases. They could use those platforms, for all intents and purposes, for commercial purposes, as we saw recently. I know that your office has been made aware of that situation.

You didn't address the digital media aspect in the role that MPs play, which could be related to digital media influencers, or having friends, families or spouses who are deemed digital media influencers.

Is this something that the committee should be looking at, Mr. Dion?

[Mario Dion]

I think the rules as they are currently written in the code would adequately cover those situations. The rules do not focus on the medium; the rules focus on the behaviour.

Section 8, for instance, says that a member shall not act in any way to further his or her private interests or those of a family member, or to improperly further the private interest of a private corporation. It doesn't matter whether you do so with a megaphone on the Hill, in a letter to someone, in a telegram or through Facebook. It's all the same. The medium does not matter.

The degree of influence, of course, could vary depending on how many people you actually reach with the medium, but the contravention itself would arise irrespective of the medium. That's why we haven't addressed it. We think the code is nimble. The code adapts to technological evolution—at least that's been my experience in the last four years.

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

Mr. Dion, the last time you were here I asked you a question relating to public confidence, and you mentioned at the time that there were several polls that were attributable not only to the code but also to the Conflict of Interest Act, and that the confidence that people have in their governments generally, both in Canada and abroad, is diminishing.

The challenge that we have right now is that when a member violates the code, the public perception, real or otherwise, is that there's only a very limited response available to us. In other words, it doesn't really deter, whether it's a $500 fine or an apology that isn't acted upon, or whatever is deemed by Parliament.

Is there a need to review a more substantive response to a violation of the code of conduct of members, as it relates to either financial penalties or other penalties, in your opinion?

[Mario Dion]

I'm not sure it's really for me to assess the situation. There hasn't been a single one in the last four years where [Technical difficulty—Editor] other types of penalties. We've had a number of inquiries involving members of Parliament, and there hasn't been a single situation where I thought that the existing regime was not sufficient to properly address it.

As for whether there is a demand on the part of the public for access to more penalties, I think there is, but in my opinion, at this point in time it hasn't turned out to be necessary.

I'll leave it to parliamentarians to determine, in order to have a credible response in principle, whether it's necessary to look at possible penalties under the code and to increase them or to give me more authorities vis-à-vis recommending such penalties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have about 35 seconds, Mr. Brassard, and remember go through the chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you, in your opinion what could be a good deterrent or what could parliamentarians offer as a deterrent, Mr. Dion?

[Mario Dion]

I think the suspension of one's duties for a few days or a few weeks, in labour law, has proven to be an effective remedy, so maybe that's a possible one for a member of the House of Commons who would contravene, in a very serious way, one of the provisions of the code. That's one that comes to mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Monsieur Dion.

We'll be moving to the next round with Mr. Turnbull.

I'll just give a reminder to all members to address comments though the chair, and not directly to our witnesses.

Thank you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, thank you to Mr. Dion for being here today. I really appreciate the report and recommendations and some of the thoughtful remarks that were provided today.

I have lots of questions. I know you're putting forward things, Mr. Dion, that I think have the best intentions of improving our overall Conflict of Interest Code for members, and also maintaining public trust and so on. There are many values I think you hold strongly, and I appreciate that.

With regard to recommendation number one, which is setting a baseline minimum amount for allowable gifts, I'm just interested to understand a little bit more your rationale for wanting to change that threshold from $200 to $30 per year.

I am struggling a little bit in my mind to understand the rationale behind $30. From my perspective, it would be tough to assume, from a reasonable person's perspective, that even a $200 gift would influence the exercise of a member of Parliament's duties. What I would like to understand is how $30 would change that. Can you explain that to us?

[Mario Dion]

Sure, I'm pleased to.

What we intended to recommend was quite different from what the member has described. What we are recommending is that if a member of Parliament receives from a source—a company, a person, an entity, a lobbyist—a gift that is valued at $30 or less, there is no [Technical difficulty—Editor] by somebody has been given to the member in order to influence him or her.

It's based on practicality. I don't think anybody would think that a member of Parliament can be swayed with a meal, with a sandwich, with a coffee, with a drink worth less than $30, and therefore we should—

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes.

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

My apologies, Madam Chair. The audio for the witness cut out at a very key point in his testimony, so we didn't actually hear his response. Is it possible for him to repeat that ? He was talking about that threshold of $30 and what would actually happen. We missed the actual response.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Your point has been made. Thank you.

Monsieur Dion, can you rewind a little bit, and we'll add that to Mr. Turnbull's time.

[Mario Dion]

Our suggestion in the first recommendation is to say in black and white in the code that if an MP receives a gift worth $30 or less, all included, from a source, no more than once a year from that source, then there is no need to analyze anything. It's perfectly acceptable. The MP gets the gift, the MP doesn't have to even think about it. It's fine because it's part of what is required for social relationships to take place. It's perfectly appropriate for an MP to accept a coffee from a lobbyist if it's offered to him at Starbucks, for instance. This is just to stop wasting time trying to explain to people that it's okay to eat two shrimps at a reception instead of five, you know. A gift of $30 is acceptable by this addition—there is no need to ask any questions.

We did not intend to affect in any way the threshold of declaration, which is currently at $200 or more. Our aim is to simplify and make more practical the small gifts.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you to Mr. Dion, I appreciate your response.

I appreciate that, and I think I misspoke when I was asking my question. I did understand the intention, and I am still not quite clear on why it is $30, versus $50, versus $150, versus $200. It seems a little bit arbitrary to me, so that's the rationale I'm really looking for.