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

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

Building further on that about third parties, where do you get the degree of separation a little bit? An organization perhaps has a paid internship program and would lobby the House of Commons. What about an organization that is considered a not for profit but receives funding from organizations? You don't necessarily have that disclosure. Where does the line go on that in terms of that level? There could be a degree of separation just through the funding model and the mechanism of how an internship program would be set up. Would that be fair, that it gets a little more complex there?

[Mario Dion]

Yes, it does, and we've had a few situations where we have analyzed, in conjunction with the MP, whether the gift was or was not acceptable, considering the funding structure. It's a clear factor in determining whether it's acceptable.

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

I think this is something, as we consider recommendations and look at this, that we have to get right. I see the value of internships in Parliament and around the Hill in bringing young people and giving them experience, and wanting to get it right. I look forward to some further discussion on that issue.

One of the other things I wanted to talk about was the definition of “friends” in that issue. I can understand the intent of it, but the enacting of it could be tough. I looked through the analysts' document for us today, which talks about the definition of friends on your website as “individuals who have a close bond of friendship, a feeling of affection or a special kinship with the public office holder”.

Mr. Commissioner, I would have a problem, in that I feel I have a lot of friends or a lot of people who feel they're my friends in the work that's going on. Family is one thing. If you're a cousin, you're a cousin. If you're a sister, you're a sister. In our role, I'd like to have a lot of friends, and people think that I'm friendly, but that's a lot harder to define.

I respect the attempt at a definition or interpretation of a friend, but it gets into a really grey area. Is being a friend travelling together once a year? Is it sitting together at a community event? Is it being at a wedding party together? The definition of that to me is still very vague in the optics or the intention of it versus the enactment. Do you have any plans to try to define “friends” more definitively when we're talking about this?

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, we looked at this. It is very difficult to define. Again, as mentioned in response to an earlier question, there are cultural differences as well. The concept of a friend varies from one culture to another, potentially. We each have our own definition of who's a friend. Some people feel they've had two friends in their lifetime and some people think they have 2,000 friends. It's very flexible.

In the “Morneau II Report”, I had to look at the issue. I applied the criteria developed by my predecessor, which you just read out. It has to be done on a case-by-case basis.

In practice, what an MP could do is discuss the relationship with us, and we would essentially make a determination as to whether this person is or isn't a friend. In case there is a complaint, we could determine in advance whether somebody would be considered to be a friend according to these criteria, and again, the MP would be protected.

I'm afraid it's impossible to come up with a complete, forever applicable definition. It's absolutely impossible to do that because there are millions of permutations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Duncan, that brings us to time. I'm sorry I didn't give you a warning. I didn't want to interrupt.

Mr. Fergus, it's five minutes to you.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the commissioner for being here and for his testimony, but also for his document that contains the proposals we should consider.

Mr. Dion, frankly, we could spend a lot of time exploring the consequences of the proposals presented to us.

That brings me to my personal experience. I know that we had an opportunity to discuss this in December, but I would like to talk about it again, and you could clarify a few things.

When I was working in the private sector, I was lead director of ethics for a business association. We quickly came to the conclusion that it was very complicated to have a code that had so many rules it became as thick as a phone book.

I would like to talk about your fifth recommendation. I know that you have tried a number of times to encourage members to attend training on their obligations as set out in the code. That said, have you thought about doing something unusual, akin to what we did when I was working in the private sector? Instead of proposing a host of rules to regulate members' activities, have you thought about proposing, for example, 10 commandments that would tell members what the appropriate way to act is? I am thinking of something very simple, such as recommendations to follow. I am not talking about recommendations like the ones you have already proposed, but rather about a document that would be limited to a few numbered guidelines for conduct setting out ways to behave that are not perceived as a conflict of interest.

Perhaps simple rules would encourage members to think and to contact you to discuss and determine whether something is acceptable or not. For instance, what is the difference between a $30 meal and a $32 meal? I think Mr. Brassard asked this question. I think the intent behind the meal is the most important thing, and not the amount.

I apologize for talking too much. Take all the time you need to answer this question.

[Mario Dion]

I feel that the current code contains clear and simple rules. A few of them leave a lot of room for interpretation, but most of them are clear and simple.

A lot of work was done prior to 2004, as well as afterwards. It is hard for me to see how we could design something that would be much simpler than what we currently have. We would have to think in a completely different way. In Westminster-style parliamentary systems, this is the type of code we are used to, and it works. I think it is clear.

That is why I recommend mandatory training to emphasize the general principles. People have a natural tendency to focus on details and forget about general principles. So that is the aspect on which I would like to focus the training, which would consist in explaining general principles in a way to enable members to know when to consult us. The first thing to do is to develop the habit of identifying potentially problematic situations and, consequently, consulting our office. It is impossible for a member to understand the system as well as someone who has been working in our office for 15 years. When in doubt, the member must consult us. Once we come up with a solution, we put it in writing in an email. That way, the member is protected. So everything is clear, everything is possible.

That is the way to do things. Members must develop the habit of determining whether there could be a problem. They should also try to consult us before taking action, rather than after taking action, although that is also possible.

[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.

I'd like to come back to the source of gifts we might receive. You answered me, but I'd like to go over it again anyway because I'm not sure I fully understood.

Let's say I receive seven or eight gifts over the course of a year, and I inform Mr. Dion of each gift. Will Mr. Dion automatically check to see if the gifts have come from the same source?

[Mario Dion]

Yes, we do check.

First, as I said earlier, there are few instances where members receive gifts. It's pretty rare.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Well, I, for one, don't have any.

[Mario Dion]

We're talking about 338 members receiving perhaps 100 gifts per year at the most. Also, it's rare for any one member to receive many gifts. It's very rare, in fact.

Yes, we do look at where gifts come from. One of the reasons we release the source of gifts is that a journalist might become interested in a member who has received gifts from companies or individuals who are associated in some way. We release the giver's name because it forces the member to reveal the source of the gift and we can carry out an analysis. In practice, however, it's not really necessary to do that because very few members receive more than one gift.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

As I understand it, Mr. Dion does this systematically without any problem. I'm asking these questions because I'm not familiar with all aspects of the issue. I've never done this kind of work. So it's hard for me to fully grasp this as well as Mr. Dion does.

I don't quite know how to say this to Mr. Dion, but I find he has an extremely difficult job to do. He must feel a great deal of pressure. Even though he has a very specific code of conduct, there are still a lot of grey areas.

For example, who is considered “family”? I see that we're looking at broadening the definition of family, and the last time we met with Mr. Dion had said he intended to expand the concept.

We're also looking at the concept of friends. What constitutes a true friend? We don't want to hear “a friend is a friend” like they did at the Charbonneau commission. So we need to define the word “friend”.

First, I'd like to know if the Commissioner feels that pressure in assessing the grey areas.

Secondly, could he be criticized or even lose his job if he were to find a certain behaviour acceptable but the people think it's inappropriate because partisanship might have been involved?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You don't have much time left, Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

They were good questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have 15 seconds to respond, Mr. Dion.

[Mario Dion]

Yes, I do feel some pressure. However, it's the members who must adhere to the code of conduct, not me. I'm a resource person there to help the members. So the pressure is not on me.

I can't be removed, I'm a bit like a judge. Whether or not people agree with my decisions, I will be in place until January 2025.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

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

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

Thank you, Madame Chair, and through you, I've heard clearly from the commissioner that there is a lot of room for increasing the confidence of Canadians in their public institutions, and I think that's something that as members of Parliament we should always be having vigorous conversations about.

I'm wondering if the commissioner could talk about any other tools or resources that other commissioners have in other jurisdictions that have the power to enforce some of these standards, or that would potentially be recommended to build up that public trust in these institutions.

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, in Canada, I believe that we at the federal level have at least as many—and sometimes more—tools than they have at the provincial and territorial levels domestically. Since I've been here we have not done an international comparison to see how in 2022 the ethical rules governing elected officials are applied in comparable countries. We haven't done that, and the committee might wish to consider doing that in its review. We would be pleased to participate and assist in doing that, but we haven't done that, and these do evolve. France came up with a new institution two years ago called La Haute Autorité, a very [Technical difficulty—Editor], and I frankly have not had time to study how they have done things since then. That's one example. The United Kingdom is reviewing its current approach vis-a-vis the same question as well.

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

Thank you so much for that. I think it is something that we should be looking into.

Through the chair, I'm also just curious, Commissioner, about training. The last time we were speaking together, we talked a lot about training and its importance. Of course, we were seeing a lot of new MPs coming into office and they were doing a lot of training. I understand that one of the gaps, of course, is that there isn't a formal training process.

I'm just wondering about two things. What information do new members need to be provided with upon assuming their role to ensure their full compliance and understanding of the timelines? The other part of that question is, what kinds of updates do you think MPs might need to have about compliance as they go through their years of service?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We are at time, Mr. Dion, but [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Mario Dion]

What I have in mind are the fundamentals of the code that would be explained to MPs upon being elected for the first time—no more than two hours. Then, if any significant change is made to the code or its interpretation, we would have refresher training for MPs available online. Everything would online.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's excellent.

Mr. Duncan, the floor is yours for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, Madam Chair, one of the grey areas, Mr. Dion, that I feel is often avoided for being, for lack of better words, a can of worms is, as Mr. Brassard was talking about earlier, the digital influence or our digital work. As an example, I go to my community and use a hashtag or tag for a business in my community that is seen by thousands of people and perhaps generates interest in their page and so forth. We've got into accepting or promoting gifts or linking and promoting charities and so forth.

Do you see yourself making further black and white declarations of what would be acceptable on social media for members of Parliament?