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

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

If a member of Parliament, in using digital or social media, uses a number of hashtags or so on to say that they were at a charitable event for this charity, or they were at an event for this business in their riding, or they were using this type of equipment that they typically use to do whatever they might do, and then ended up working for one of those organizations in the period after their employment as a member of Parliament, how would the office of the Ethics Commissioner view the use? Would using those hashtags and so on be viewed as a furtherance of interest during a post-parliamentary career?

[Mario Dion]

My answer, Madam Chair, would be that we would view it objectively in light of the specific facts of the situation. How many times, since when, how strongly and so on would serve to determine whether there was an intent to position someone for life after Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Now we go to Mr. Gerretsen for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Dion, my first question is in reflection of what I've heard over the last hour and a half. I'm curious to know if you and your team ever stop and reflect on whether or not there's the possibility of overbureaucratizing a process at the expense of accomplishing the objective.

I reflect back on what I've been hearing because.... I'll go back to the example of Mr. Calkins, when he talked about the book, and you said if you return it the next morning, it's not considered a gift. What if I read it really quickly and then returned it? Is it a gift?

You talked about the example of the milk lobbying organization giving a $175 painting. I personally have no interest in art. If they gave me $175 worth of chocolate milk, that would be a lot more valuable to me than a painting.

You talked about the commissioner weighing in on whether or not people were working two jobs and if that's appropriate. I can't think of a line of work where the individuals who are in these positions make the job the way that they do. I don't know two MPs who treat the job in the exact same way. This job is so unique that people make it what they do for themselves and their constituents. Quite frankly, I'm the type of person who needs eight hours of sleep a night. I couldn't do two full-time jobs, but there are people out there who can. I can't understand why we would put the responsibility in the hands of somebody else to determine if they're working too much.

Finally, there's the example of the family situation. I can understand this and I can understand my immediate family, but I talk to my brother two times a year, at Christmas and usually around his birthday. I'm from a small family, unlike a lot of those we've heard about. I don't feel comfortable asking him what his investments are. It's not something that I feel comfortable with.

I'll come back to asking you the question that was slightly rhetorical at the beginning, but I do mean it in all seriousness. Do you ever stop and reflect on whether or not the processes that are being put in place are being overbureaucratized at the expense of accomplishing the end objective?

When I was in municipal politics, a code of conduct was so much more based on principles than on trying to define each and every rule, and, as demonstrated most eloquently by Mr. Calkins, it's very easy to drive a truck through the loopholes in these rules, if somebody really wants to. At the end of the day, it should be based on somebody's principles. That's my opinion.

I'd love to hear your response, although I've probably burned the whole five minutes, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

There is a minute and a half.

Go ahead, Mr. Dion.

[Mario Dion]

We haven't really stopped, because the way this is managed.... The code is defined by the House. It was defined by the House in 2004. My predecessor made numerous suggestions back in 2013, a few of which were adopted in 2015. We apply the code; we don't write the code. We come up with processes to implement what the House has decided in the code. We try to make it as unbureaucratic as possible, but in spite of all our best efforts, there are some provisions that require some bureaucracy to implement them.

That's my candid answer. We take what we have. It's like the police implementing existing laws. My role is defined in the Parliament of Canada Act. My role is to assist the House in implementing the code and I have the code I have. I didn't create the code. The code is there.

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

Through you, Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Dion for that, and I wanted to add my words to what others have said. Your office is by far one of the best in replying. They get back to me instantly when I email them.

I really do appreciate your openness and candour in having this discussion with us today.

[Mario Dion]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Dion, do you want to compliment your team as well?

[Mario Dion]

I would like to thank every member who made observations about my office. They were all positive, and I think they were well deserved. I would, of course, like to thank my team for making that happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That brings us to the end of our time with you, Mr. Dion. We would like to thank you and your team. There are a couple of outstanding items that members have asked you to provide. If you could provide those details and data through the clerk, we would appreciate that, as we continue our review and study of this.

Do you have any final comments?

[Mario Dion]

I would just say thank you, Madam Chair, and reiterate the fact that I'm available through a simple call whenever you need me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent. Please keep well and safe. Thank you for being here today.

[Mario Dion]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

With that, members, I know that we were going to continue in camera, but we're running out of time, and I don't know how long that will take. An agenda has been circulated to subcommittee members. All have responded to it. Of course, we'll have to entertain what we're doing after the next few meetings, but if suitable, I do believe that within this format, without going into detail, we could approve the series of meetings we have shared in that email.

Any thoughts?

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

Madam Chair, we're in agreement with the calendar as proposed. I apologize for the delay with our subcommittee, but it is good as circulated. We will have a couple of busy weeks.

So we're good with that. We can proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for that, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Therrien, would you like to comment? Do you agree?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

As I wrote earlier, we agree. No problem.

I must also commend you for your efficiency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

And you, Ms. Blaney?

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

We're good. I sent an email response. I'm fine with the calendar.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent. Thank you.

Mr. Turnbull?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes. Our team discussed the proposed schedule and it looks great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent.

With that, I wish everyone a happy Thursday. I hope you all keep well and safe.

We will see you next week.

Thanks, everyone.