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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Commissioner.

My last question is in regard to the extension of family. This is interesting to me. I come from a big family. I was doing the calculation loosely right now. If I were to count.... You include in-laws and siblings, but you say it goes beyond that. If you were to include first cousins, on my spouse's side I have about 80 aunts, uncles and first cousins, and on my parents' side probably a little under that, at somewhere around 75. Some are estranged. Some are very close.

Once you put this out there that this is a part of the code, the media is quick to pick up on things that they may perceive to be a conflict. By the time you yourself can even make a decision on such a thing, a member's reputation can be ruined when they have nothing to do with a person receiving some benefit who perhaps a member has never even spoken to in 20 years. How do you view situations like that? This expansion of this definition, from practical purposes, seems a little troubling to me as a member. I think it looks good on the outside, but in practicality it creates a lot of difficulties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We are at time.

Mr. Dion, we'll give you 15 or 20 seconds.

[Mario Dion]

Maybe the committee should look at Statistics Canada data as to whether you are in a classical average situation. I don't think you are. How many people would be caught by this definition, on average, if we take Canadians at large at this point in time? I think it's far less than the numbers you've given us, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Dion, thank you.

Mr. Duncan, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you to Mr. Dion, going back to the job, just to get a clarification on that again, are you ruling out or recommending a full-time job or is it any other employment income while a member of Parliament? On this suggestion, I would agree completely that you couldn't be a full-time lawyer and a member of Parliament at the same time, but you might have time to practise one day a month, or in the summers when there's a longer recess. Are you banning any employment income at all as a member of Parliament? Can you clarify that between full time and part time?

[Mario Dion]

No, in fact, Madam Chair, it would be the other way around. It would be permissible unless the commissioner determines that it's incompatible. It would be perfectly okay for somebody in the summer, when the House typically adjourns for two months, to have an activity—no problem whatsoever—unless, of course, there is a conflict of interest. No, the focus is not on revenue. The focus is on the occupation: Is it actually possible to do both at the same time?

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

Thank you for that.

To get your thoughts on this, Ms. Sahota talked about this, the size of the family. We're talking off-line here about the size of our families and cousins and second cousins twice removed and the whole thing of where the line goes, but can you talk about the differentiation in or the impact of a conflict of interest between members of Parliament and cabinet ministers? I think there's a big step there, or a difference—

[Mario Dion]

Yes.

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

—when we're talking about the size of or the ability for a conflict.

They still exist—don't get me wrong—but perhaps when we talk about some of these other levels going further, there's my providing a communications contract to a friend in my hometown who does great graphic design versus a cabinet minister awarding a contract to a friend for a few million dollars. Can you talk about that, about how there could be a differentiation depending on your level of influence, for example, as a member of cabinet?

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, it's next to impossible to try to encapsulate an answer on something like this in a few seconds. Of course, the role of MPs is very different from that of ministers or senior officials. Their ability to make a decision on their own is much more limited than it is for these people under the act. But there are situations, nevertheless, in which they might find themselves discussing or voting on something that is not of general application, that could benefit a friend or a relative. That's what I have in mind.

Most bills deal with the totality of Canada's population or very large segments of the population, but some do favour some people more than others. That's what we're focusing on. If you have a relative or a friend who would be positively affected by a measure you have to consider or express yourself on, you should stop and think about that.

There is an existing provision in the code that says if you find there is a conflict, you should declare the conflict immediately to the Clerk of the House. Very few MPs do that, I'm sure fewer than have actually come across that situation.

Again, the reflex of figuring out that this is dangerous because I could unconsciously favour my brother-in-law, my grandmother or I don't know who if I take a certain position in this committee or on this vote is not about general application involving millions of people but is about a much smaller segment of the population.

That would be my answer.

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

Thank you.

In my remaining time here, I'm trying to get in a whole other file. I want to touch on the Vandenbeld report you did a couple of years ago. This is of interest to me, having been in municipal politics—and in the province of Ontario, for example, municipal elections are coming up this year—with respect to the use of one's name and title in the endorsement or influence of a candidate in a municipal election. In Ms. Vandenbeld's situation, it was her spouse who was seeking office in the City of Ottawa.

Could you talk a little bit more about that? Do you have any recommendations on our code review clarifying that a bit more? I look, for example, for where the line is drawn. Obviously, for a municipal candidate, to put it in a householder or in an official communication that's issued using our member's operating budget would be inappropriate, but again, there's the social media aspect of it or even going door to door for a candidate and saying, “Hi. I'm Member of Parliament X for this riding, and I'm out with candidate Y”.... Can you talk a little bit about that, again, to try to get something more black and white on this for members, not just for the evolving municipal elections but also for provincial or other elections?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We are at time, Mr. Dion, but I will show some leniency so that you can provide us with a response. And now that I'm interrupting, would you mind moving your boom to between your nose and your top lip just to see if that works?

[Mario Dion]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Online we're okay, but some glitch within the committee room means they are not hearing you. Let's try that for your response.

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, before I appear again, I will ask for a new device. It could be the device that's the problem.

Again, it's always dangerous to try to give general answers. The code, however, contains a provision that says very clearly that nothing in this code limits someone's ability to have political activities.

So what I would suggest is that the member contact me offline and we could discuss that. We could also consider coming back to the committee with a general answer about members of Parliament supporting candidates in provincial and municipal elections. What are the boundaries? What's permissible and what's not permissible? We could do that, if the committee so wished.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's excellent.

Thank you for your responses.

Now we will go for five minutes, again, to Mrs. Romanado.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Through you, I would like to thank Mr. Dion for being here.

Mr. Dion, in your executive summary on page 1, you say, “A broad spectrum of points of view have been taken into consideration” in preparing this report. Did you interview any members of Parliament?

[Mario Dion]

No, we didn't, Madam Chair. We took a passive approach through observations, through the media, through anything on the web and through anything within the office.

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

Thank you.

I think that's where you're seeing a lot of these questions coming up, because there's some confusion. When I was doing my MBA, every time I would ask my corporate finance teacher a question, he would say, “Well, it depends.” That's kind of what we're hearing from you: based on a specific case, it depends as to whether or not a gift is acceptable or if there is an actual conflict of interest.

In recommendation one, you are suggesting that the value of a gift under $30 not be declared. In terms of pratico-pratique, I don't know about other MPs, but I often get unsolicited gifts sent to me. For instance, on January 25, I received a book from somebody. I don't know the person at all, but they signed a book and sent it to me. When I flipped it over, I saw that it's valued at $28.

According to the code, if I get past $200 from the specific individual in any given year, that is when I have to declare it within 60 days. However, because it was January 25 when I received this book, I don't know if I'm going to get something else from this person. In terms of the tracking all of this, there is no tool currently, other than our own individual offices tracking the gifts we're receiving and logging them, to be able to determine whether or not the person has passed that threshold of $200. Currently what I do is that every month I send this to your office; I'm a frequent flyer. They always write me back thanking me.

Because it is very labour intensive, is there a plan to have a tool in place for members of Parliament to be able to do this declaration right away so that this way it's being calculated on your end? Subsequent to that, in terms of training, I agree that training is helpful, but given the labour intensity of tracking and logging all of this information, would it be possible to also perhaps think of training for staff members who are supporting us so that they can also assist in this regard?

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, anything is possible given the appropriate resources. It's for the House to decide what they would like my office to be doing, but at the current time, the obligation to declare, compute and determine when something has to be declared is with the MP, not with my office.

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

Okay. Thank you.

I know that my colleague would appreciate some additional time, so I will turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Turnbull.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You have two minutes, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you very much for your kindness. It's great to get in for another couple of questions here.

Through you, Madam Chair, I know that in recommendation five, Mr. Dion, you stressed how important it is that members “develop an understanding of the principles of the Code”, which I think is great. You've talked numerous times in your remarks today about developing “the reflex”. I think what you were referring to often was developing the reflex of knowing when members should be consulting your office. I'm interested from a training perspective about how you propose to help members develop that reflex and the good judgment that's probably needed in order to come out with the right decision.

In many of these situations, there's a lot of grey area, and it's very difficult to determine what is the most appropriate course of action. That's part and parcel of dealing with ethics and the types of roles we have, where there are many competing interests at all times. It's very situational. There's a lot of grey area. How could the training incorporate elements that really help members of Parliament develop the judgment needed to make the right decisions in these situations?

[Mario Dion]

Madam Chair, what we could do—and have done on some occasions in the past—is that we could have case studies based on real-life situations, while taking all the precautions, of course, to make sure that nobody would ever be able to guess who was involved.

I think real life is the best source of examples we can up with of some people having made wise decisions to consult us and some people having made stupid decisions not to consult us. It's a good source. It's less abstract, because, again, there are millions of possibilities, but when you look at real life, it's more restrictive than that, and we could come up with some good cases of real-life examples of what to do and what not to do.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I definitely support that, Madam Chair. I'll just ask one more question.

Going back to my colleague Ms. Sahota's comments about extended family and friends, I'm still concerned about that because I have no idea how I would ever fully comprehend the private interests of all of that extended network of people. I would have no knowledge of even some of my relatives' private interests in different things, where they invest, etc. There are many aspects of that. In some cases, the appearance of a conflict of interest can arise very easily in a situation and not really be merited, in the sense that the member wouldn't even have known about it.

This is very highly problematic in my mind. Could you speak to that and how you would resolve that?