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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We are at time, but, Mr. Dion, go ahead, please.

[Mario Dion]

There was action taken by the House in recent years to amend the Members By-law to extend the definition of family. All I am proposing is that we adopt the same definition for the purposes of the code.

On relatives, yes, it is very difficult. It is the case already under the Conflict of Interest Act for non-elected officials and ministers. There was the LeBlanc report a couple of years ago, which described how one of Mr. LeBlanc's 61 cousins was involved in a fishing permit that the minister had granted. I found that Mr. LeBlanc was in breach of the Conflict of Interest Act because he had knowledge of that cousin and knowledge of his occupation. It was possible that he would not have had knowledge, but he did have knowledge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Mr. Therrien, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Earlier, Mr. Dion said that the pressure is not on him, it's on the members. I listened carefully to Mr. Turnbull, who always asks excellent questions. After he spoke, I got to thinking. He said he had a big family and he didn't know what some of his cousins did for a living, and therefore, to keep from being pressured, he decided to leave it in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's hands.

Now, let's imagine a situation like that being referred to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, in this case Mr. Dion. After his assessment, he would tell himself that everything is in order, so he would give his approval to the member. The Commissioner is only human, so his decisions may not be perfect. Could a reporter do a very thorough investigation later on and let the cat out of the bag, which would put the member in a very unenviable position? Could that happen?

[Mario Dion]

According to one section of the code, if you ask for an opinion and you get it, that protects you during an investigation by my office. Obviously, it doesn't protect you from the media; that's another matter.

When you give the facts tothe Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, you have to give all the facts. We base our assessment on the facts presented to us. New facts may come out when a journalist takes an interest in an issue. Things can go that way in real life too.

We assess the facts as they are presented to us, we provide the member with an opinion and the member can use it to show good faith. However, a journalist may continue to focus on a situation and damage the member's reputation.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

So a member could be cleared by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, but maybe they didn't provide the information correctly or the Commissioner didn't have access to some information. Members can protect themselves by saying that they notified the Commissioner and provided the information in good faith. That way, they bypass the court of public opinion, so to speak.

I have one last question for you about penalties.

As a general rule, what penalties do you give out?

[Mario Dion]

We don't impose any penalties under the code, period. I remind you that we are here to talk about the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons, not the Conflict of Interest Act, to which members are not subject. Only the House can impose penalties on members who have breached the code. However, so far the House has never done so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much, Mr. Therrien. Your time is up.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dion.

[Mario Dion]

It's been a pleasure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, to the commissioner, I want some clarity. I listened to some of the responses, and one of the things I think I heard and I just want to confirm was that as things change—and the world is changing quite rapidly all the time—you cannot say, hey, this might be a problem, so everybody watch out for this. You have to wait for a member of Parliament to actually inquire.

I'm just wondering if you could clarify whether there is any process in place, such that if the commissioner in their role sees something that could become a problem for MPs, they could alert us to that. Is there one?

[Mario Dion]

Under subsection 26(2) of the code, Madam Chair, I have to have an MP ask me a question. I give an opinion. It is confidential and it may be made public only with the written permission of the member. That's the first one.

Second is that the publication says the commissioner is authorized to publish opinions “for the guidance of members, provided that no details are included”. I cannot publish anything unless it comes out of an actual request for opinion made by an MP. I cannot discuss hypothetical questions in public descriptions of what the code requires.

A few years ago I issued a bulletin on interns, for instance. This arose out of a situation in which an MP had sought our advice. It was fine. I was able to issue the bulletin on interns. I issued a bulletin on the provision by Enbridge of gas and barbeques to MPs for the annual picnic. Again, it arose out of a question asked by an MP. I was authorized to issue it.

The code is such that each time Parliament is dissolved, everything disappears. I basically start from scratch each time a new Parliament, a new legislature, is formed. Anything that was in existence on August 15, 2021, has vanished. We start from scratch.

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

Just to clarify—and I know my time is almost up—that is what recommendation six is really about.

[Mario Dion]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Is that good clarification, Ms. Blaney?

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

Thank you. It is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

Now we'll give five minutes to Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner. I have just a few questions. I don't mean to put you in a hypothetical situation, but given the discussions we've had here, I do have a few concerns.

I'm going to follow up on something Ms. Romanado brought up about the book she received. Would you perceive a difference between her keeping the book and her not keeping the book? Do you receive a gift if you don't keep it or if you do keep it? How would you expect members of Parliament to quantify or qualify that for the purpose of meeting the threshold?

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, you receive a gift only if you have failed to decline it. If you keep the book, you have received the book. If you return it the morning after, you have not received a gift. There is nothing wrong with accepting a gift when it is acceptable.

It's for the MP to decide whether giving the $28 book could be seen, by a reasonable person who has the necessary facts, as having been done in order to influence the MP or as having the effect of influencing the MP's judgment in future vis-à-vis the person who gave her the book. I doubt very much that a book worth $28 could do that with any MP, so I think it's perfectly fine to keep the book and [Technical difficulty—Editor] gifts from the same source within a relatively short period of time, 12 months. Then you have to compile that and declare that once you cross the $200 line.

It's perfectly fine to accept gifts when they're acceptable.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I don't know at what point I, as an MP, accept something. Do I accept it when my staff member picks it up in the mail room? Do I accept it when my staff member brings it through the threshold of my office door? Do I accept it when my staff member sets it upon my desk and it sits there for three months before I even acknowledge it?

There are a lot of questions about this, given the arbitrary nature of the $30 and $200 limits. I'm not going to argue your definition of “arbitrary” because there are always arbitrary things. I am worried, though, as your answers seem to indicate that I would have to return the book rather than just dispose of it. If I choose to just throw it in the recycle bin, have I kept the gift? Do I need to track that $28, in that particular example given by Mrs. Romanado? If I get a subsequent book that I choose to keep for $28, I now have a book that I've disposed of and a book that I kept and the combined value of them would put me above a threshold, even though I didn't keep one of the books and I didn't return it.

I understand the office has the ability to differentiate these things. We're all intelligent people. I am concerned that if we go down too many of these rabbit holes, we will find ourselves, as reputable and honourable members of the House of Commons, in situations where we're answering ridiculous questions from reporters and others about our integrity—through no fault of our own and through no fault of yours in the course of your duties. I'm very much concerned about that.

I'll just leave that with you.

I'm going to move on to the family portion. I don't know or I don't recall, but it would seem to me, as a member of Parliament who represents several thousand first nation people that their definition of who they call “family members” is substantially different in their culture than what my family definition would be. I know this is about the code, but does the definition in the act that you're asking to have put in the code account for that type of differentiation should a member of the first nations community be elected to the House of Commons?

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, my recollection is clearly that the act does not distinguish. I guess the applicable family law definition currently enforced in each province would apply.

I don't think any province has yet legislated to make any difference whether you're first nation or not first nation.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you so much, Commissioner.

Madam Chair, through you, my next question would be—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It will be your last question.