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

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, any line is arbitrary.

My predecessor had picked $30 several years ago, so I thought it would be safe to pick the same line considering inflation. That's all there is to it. It could be $50. It could be $45. Most lines are arbitrary in life.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, again, to Mr. Dion, I'm interested in just having a little bit more clarification on recommendation number two, which is to strengthen and align the rules of conduct against furthering private interests of friends and family members, which I think is important to all of us.

I think Mr. Dion is asking for an expanded definition here of family to also include friends' private interests. I'm wondering whether that would make it so that friends and extended family would have to do disclosure and whether Mr. Dion would see that as feasible.

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, our primary aim in this recommendation would be to make it clear that in conflict of interest matters, you have three categories of people. The first category is yourself, your spouse and your dependent children. It's what I call the “nucleus”, the closest people to you, including yourself. The second category would be friends and other relatives, as defined in the Members By-law. It's a second circle of people where you have to look more carefully at whether a conflict of interest is likely to arise. The third category is strangers. This includes anybody else for whom there is no reason to believe you would want to foster their interest.

That's what we're recommending. Just like in the Conflict of Interest Act, the friend is at the same level as the relative and the relative is more than the nucleus in the Conflict of Interest Act. All I'm suggesting is that maybe the House would like to consider doing the same thing vis-à-vis members of Parliament and the need to avoid conflicts of interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That brings us to time.

We will pass the floor over to Mr. Therrien.

Go ahead for six minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee and Mr. Dion.

I apologize. I have had some technical difficulties, but I am now with you.

We are reminded to put our questions to witnesses through the chair. You see, we are still learning things, even at my advanced age.

In one part of the code, it says: “... if the total value of all such gifts or benefits received from one source in a 12‑month period is $200 or more ...”. I would like to know what “from one source” means.

Let's use the example where a business or group of people with common interests give me $30 each. That can add up to a pretty high total, depending on how many people decide to give a gift. At that point, although the individual donations are less than $30 at the outset, the amounts can add up to well over $200.

I would like to get an explanation, but more importantly put the following question to the witness. I am putting my question to him through Madam Chair. Should we provide a better definition of what “from one source” means? First, is this defined anywhere? Second, could we make improvements to avoid these kinds of issues? This is for cases where there would be a problem. Our witness has perhaps already anticipated the question.

I would like to get information on this.

[Mario Dion]

In the current code and when we are doing our work, we always assume that “from one source” means that it is coming from the same individual or the same legal entity, as civil law calls it. So the source is an individual. For example, four individuals from the same family may each give someone a gift. In that case, we look at the value of the gift given by each individual, and not the total of the amounts. That is explained by the fact that those individuals have a specific, defined and unique legal personality.

That is how the code is currently interpreted, and that is also the interpretation we recommend.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

Have you ever been in a situation where, after looking into the source of gifts, you found that abuse had taken place? Has that happened before?

[Mario Dion]

To my knowledge, this has not happened since I have been in office. There are a lot fewer gifts exchanged or reported than you may think. I have never seen that type of a situation.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

When it is a matter of gifts, goods or money donations worth less than $30, I always wonder the same thing. We can sometimes receive gifts whose value we personally deem to be below $30, but whose value is huge in reality. We don't know how to gauge their value. In the beginning, we tell ourselves it must be worth $15 or $20, so we won't talk to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner about it. However, given our ignorance about the value of every single thing, we end up with goods whose value may be extremely high.

What will happen to me if I accept a gift whose value I assess at less than $30, but, following a complaint, I realize that it is worth a lot of money?

I assume that you advise us to meet with the commissioner in that case, even if we deem the value to be below $30. Is that right?

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, if there is a doubt in the member's mind, they should meet with the commissioner. Members can always consult our office. We never mind being consulted.

We are here talking about market value. We can try to determine that value with you to remove any doubt you may have. That is not a problem. As we are talking about market value, certain things are difficult to assess. Anyone who has watched the show Antiques Roadshow can confirm this. We sometimes think that an object is worthless, but it is worth a lot and vice versa. So you can reach out to us.

This is a matter of good faith. If you have received an antique Greek statue or sculpture, and you are claiming it is worth less than $200, if ever a complaint was lodged, it would be more difficult for you to prove that you believed in good faith that the object was worth less than $200.

To summarize, you should not hesitate to consult us. We would try to assess the gift's market value together.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

This happened to me in my previous life. I received a gift whose value was not high, but I was wondering what it was worth. So I had to check. We must be vigilant. As Mr. Dion said, objects may be worth a fortune without our knowing it.

Mr. Dion's brief talks about normal expression of courtesy. How can we determine the market value of a normal expression of courtesy? Could the witness give us examples?

[Mario Dion]

It is all a little vague. It can even vary within the same country, depending on the time period.

Let's look at the following example. You make a presentation at a conference, and you are given a bottle of wine. Its value is easy to check on the Société des alcools du Québec or the Liquor Control Board of Ontario website, for example. If you are given a bottle of wine worth $22, there is clearly no problem. If you are given a bottle of wine worth $426, it would be difficult for you to claim that is a normal expression of courtesy.

So we try to see what seems to be the practice in similar circumstances. It is very arbitrary. If the commissioner's office sends you an email saying that you can accept the gift, you are protected. So that would be the best thing to do. When in doubt, you should consult our office. You would then receive a written answer and would be protected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Therrien, your six minutes are up.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We are continuing with Ms. Blaney.

Go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you, I'd first like to extend my gratitude to Mr. Dion for today's information and his well-thought-out recommendations.

I have a few questions. One is around receiving gifts. We've had a lot of good debate around it, but I want to recognize that for some gifts, there's a cultural sensitivity to receiving those gifts. I have a lot of indigenous communities within my region. A big part of the culture is to share things to demonstrate that you've heard their words. It's not obligating you to do something; it is recognizing and having the member carry that as a gift that reminds them of their hearing of the truth of the community. I also know that in a lot of Asian communities that can be the same.

In the discussions that you've had, have you looked into how to review that component? There are some very sensitive cultural processes that could be very offensive, and when you're in a leadership role, you have to think those out.

In the work that has been done, has that component been brought forward, and do you have any recommendations you'd like to add that would help us navigate that more effectively?

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, we have indeed on more than one occasion—on several occasions since I've been there the last four years—come across situations involving indigenous peoples in particular, where we received some representations. I used to be involved myself. I had several dealings with aboriginal people back in the early 2000s when I was at Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada. We've secured some clear legal advice, and it's perfectly appropriate to consider, per subsection 14(2) of the code, “normal expression of courtesy or protocol”. Of course, that varies depending on who the donor is, what the culture of the donor is [Technical difficulty—Editor] comfortable to take that into consideration, and it could have an impact on the acceptability of the gift. We would never force an MP to return a gift unless it was clearly abusive, even under those protocols and rules of that particular community.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank him for the answers, through you.

I am also curious about your recommendation 3. I think it's is really interesting to think about how to make sure that what the member of Parliament is doing outside of their parliamentary duties is compatible. I'm curious if you could talk a little bit more about whether there's been any analysis done about what professions might be more acceptable or what other professions might be more concerning. For example, if you are a member of Parliament and you are able to sell yourself as a public speaker, an online content creator, a social media influencer or a brand representative, I think there could be some interesting conflicts there that we need to address.

Is there any interest from the department in fleshing out the type of work an MP could carry out while they are a member of Parliament, and perhaps even in what context?

[Mario Dion]

Chair, if our recommendation were to be adopted, we would be pleased to provide some draft guidelines for trying to determine which criteria would be used, and the criteria could be in the code itself.

There are some professions that basically have no bearing on the role of a member of Parliament. The one I talked about was a veterinarian; I think in that case it is far less likely there could be conflicts than if someone were practising law, obviously.

In practice, the situations that we have had are mostly either [Technical difficulty—Editor] who have large businesses they operate, and very often, legal practitioners as well, who have been MPs and legal practitioners at the same time. Again, it's a very small number. When I first started, we had 12 MPs out of 338 who had declared such an activity, so we're not talking about a large number. I was concerned about a few of these MPs who I thought were playing with fire and coming close to the line by practising, so I thought the House might wish to clarify that in the code. If it's incompatible in the view of the commissioner, it should not be permitted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have one minute left.

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

Through you, Madam Chair, I want to let Mr. Dion know that every once in a while—I don't know if the clerk can look into this—your audio is clipping out for short periods, and we're not hearing you. I haven't lost the content of anything yet, but it has happened a couple of times.

The other thing I have questions about is sanctions. I'm wondering how the commissioner determines their appropriateness. We've seen examples of small fines for what I perceive as pretty big failures to be transparent. Should sanctions include any expenses incurred by the Ethics Commissioner? So if a member doesn't do their due diligence to make sure that the information is there for the department to look at, should there be some sort of reflection of that in their fine?

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, there is always a great deal of confusion between the code on the one end, which is applicable to MPs—to all MPs, including ministers—and the Conflict of Interest Act, which is only applicable to other non-elected officials, as well as ministers. My point is that there is no sanction currently set out in the code. I have the power to recommend a sanction in the code. The House is the only authority that can sanction an MP [Technical difficulty—Editor] available by way of sanctions. Since the code was adopted, the only sanction that was imposed was the requirement for an apology, basically, in a few cases. It never went any further than that. There is no list in the code, so each case has to be weighed on its own merit by the commissioner on the one end, to determine whether I should recommend something. Then in my report to the speaker, I would make a recommendation, and then it's up to the House to decide what to do vis-à-vis the contravention that is found in the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Dion

I'm going to continue to round two. We will have five minutes for Mr. Duncan, followed by five minutes for Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Therrien will then have two and a half minutes.

Then it's two and a half minutes for Ms. Blaney, five minutes for Mr. Vis and five minutes for Ms. Sahota.

Mr. Duncan, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you to Mr. Dion, I just want to start on a positive note. I will say that in my dealings with your office, the customer service level has been excellent. The responses have been very timely and the answers very clear. That is much appreciated.

I want to maybe ask about recommendation number four. One of the things I think our committee needs to tackle is paid internships. Would I be accurate in saying, Mr. Dion—although it's not specifically addressed in your recommendation—that when you talk about working with the code for sponsored travel, paid internships would be considered kind of a comparable issue in your recommendation on that?

[Mario Dion]

In fact, a few years ago I ruled that an intern constitutes an advantage. An intern is like a gift. The value of the gift is what the intern gets paid by a third party [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Accepting an intern is like accepting your gift. Several MPs have declared that gift, and it has been published in the public registry. I've also ruled that an MP shall never accept a gift by an entity that is registered to lobby the House of Commons. A gift from a lobbyist is, by definition, unacceptable.

Any intern provided through a parliamentary program is perfectly appropriate, of course. We're talking about outside entities providing interns.