Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 15th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Madam Dawson. If you have any details on the difference between a “friend” and an “acquaintance”, I'm sure the committee would welcome those definitions.

Mr. Turnbull, we'll go to you for six minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all of our witnesses for being here today. It's really great to hear your remarks. I did read over the things that were sent in advance. Although you didn't get time to lead with your opening remarks here on the panel, I can assure you that most of our members are probably reading them. Thank you for submitting those.

I will say off the top that I really appreciate Mr. Dion's recommendations. I definitely agree with mandatory training for new MPs and publishing guidelines. Those are really good recommendations. Some of the other ones I have some concerns with. That's not to say I'm not supportive; I just have a lot of questions. One of them is about the minimum threshold for gifts in a single year.

Ms. Stone, through the chair, I looked at the U.K. version of the code of conduct. I understand that in the U.K. it's 300 pounds. Our commissioner in this case is suggesting that we reduce the amount from $200 Canadian to $30. For the life of me, I just can't see how the difference between $200 and $30 will be the difference in terms of essentially influencing an MP's decision-making or behaviour.

Would you comment on that, Ms. Stone, through the chair?

[Dr. Kathryn Stone]

Through you, Madam Chair, I'd be very happy to respond.

The 300-pound limit was set so as to deliberately exclude gifts that are given by grateful constituents—bunches of flowers, boxes of chocolates, homemade cakes and so on. On many, many occasions, constituents will insist on a member of Parliament having a small token gift. It seems to us that it would be inappropriate to register those, because people would be constantly falling foul of the requirement to register a very small token gift. That's why the limit was set as it is.

Now, the interesting thing, of course, is that in the U.K. our ministers have a different requirement to register things. There are different levels of registration. One thing the committee on standards would like to do is streamline this so that there aren't two registers and different requirements for ministers and for members of Parliament.

Forgive me for being so candid, but I think it would be very challenging for members of your Parliament to be continually registering small token gifts of $30. That seems to be a lot of work for very little return. The opportunities to influence the words or actions of a member of Parliament with a bottle of wine or a bunch of flowers seem quite small.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you. I agree with your sentiment.

Ms. Dawson, maybe I could go to you on this. I know you said in your remarks, which I read through, that the general practice within your office, when you were the commissioner, was to consider $30 gifts as being ones that would not have any influence over a member. I still have trouble understanding why $30, why $50—why no gifts at all? To me, on most of these things, the true test, is it not, is to...?

I mean, what is the actual likelihood of that influencing a member of Parliament's fulfillment of their duties? I don't see how $30 versus $50 versus $200 would make that much of a difference, to be honest.

Could you comment on that, through the chair?

[Mary Dawson]

Yes. I mean, I think you've missed the point a bit here, although I'm not sure I agree with the necessity of actually expressing the $30 as a minimum. What I said in my opening remarks, which weren't supposed to be divulged until later, but in any event.... The reporting requirement is $200. Those issues get looked at once they're reported. The $30 is something the office has followed for many years in the sense that it was kind of a rule of thumb that if something was under $30, it was probably not going to create a conflict of interest.

I think the desire on the part of Mr. Dion to put in the $30 was partly to distinguish it from the rule of the $200, which is a disclosure rule, so you can't confuse those rules. However, the fact of the matter is that in the decisions we made over the years, we said, for example, that if you went for an all-day meeting with somebody and they gave you a gift of a lunch—in other words, they served you lunch in the middle of it—that wasn't going to be a problem because it was normal etiquette and stuff.

The reason we were looking at $30 in my time—and undoubtedly that practice has continued, but I don't know—was just as a guideline to people that of course if there's a legitimate reason for offering something to somebody, $30 is a reasonable amount to consider reasonable—if that helps at all.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Well, I will just say thank you for your response, through you, Madam Chair. I still don't see how the rationale...where to draw the line exactly, but I understand that you consider that reasonable. I'm still not sure how the rest of us would determine that, and it may be slightly subjective, to be honest.

[Mary Dawson]

Yes.

Can I just add to that? The point is, I'm not sure that I support putting a rule into the code. I'd just say that it reflects a practice that we followed anyway of, at first blush, assuming that it was probably okay under $30 when people worried about whether they could give somebody a lunch or something.

Anyway, I'm not sure, myself, that it needs to go into the code.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Madam Dawson.

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Therrien, the floor is now yours for six minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to begin by greeting the witnesses who have come to share their thoughts with us.

My first question will be for Mr. Conacher.

Mr. Conacher did not speak for a long time, but he had the time to say that he has apparently noted many loopholes. He also talked about the important role of members and assistants.

I have two short questions for him.

First, what is the main loophole he sees in our ethics code?

Second, can he tell us more about the role of members and assistants?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Conacher.

[Duff Conacher]

Because of the number of technical terms and also because I need to practice my French, I will answer in English. I hope that's okay with you.

The definition of “private interests” is the huge loophole in subsections 3(2) and 3(3) of the code. Subsection 3(2) says that it's only financial interests that are covered. Subsection 3(3) says you cannot be in a conflict of interest if you're dealing with a matter “of general application” or dealing with something that applies to you as an MP in the same way it applies to other members of the public.

This allows MPs to participate in almost all decisions and actions, even when you have a secret financial conflict of interest and will profit secretly from the decision or action, or your family members or friends will profit from it. Friends should be covered in the code in terms of their private interests and you having to avoid conflicts of interest. The reason for this is that 95% of the decisions and actions that MPs are involved in are matters of general application. It's a huge loophole.

Secondly, the code doesn't even apply to MPs' staff, to answer your second question, so they can do the very few things on behalf of their MP that the code actually prohibits MPs from doing—and it's only very few. It's only 5% of your decisions and actions that are even covered by the code. Staff can then do those things for you that you're prohibited from doing, because they're not covered by the code. Staff should be covered by most of the key rules of the code.

There are many other loopholes in the code that I wish I had time to talk about that make it the “almost impossible to be in a conflict of interest code”.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I thank the witness for his answers.

I would like to put a question to Ms. Dawson about the $30 amount. The amount was $30 in 2015, and it is still $30 in 2022. Yet you know as I do that there is inflation, which has recently increased. As an economist, I am wondering why that amount is still $30 and whether it should be increased. That is my first question.

I would also like to ask her a second question.

We are talking about the same source. Shouldn't the source of the gift in question be better defined? The definition seems very broad, and that is problematic for us.

[Mary Dawson]

For some reason, I'm not on translation for the English, which I had asked for, but I think I understood the question. If that could be fixed, it would be good.

With respect to the $30, I also tend to be nervous about putting that into the code, because it's going to change over time. What $30 is today isn't what it will be in five years. I noted that at the time I was there, we used to think around $30 was probably okay, but it wasn't a definite rule. It was just an approach in trying to decide whether something was really going to create a conflict of interest or be an improper gift.

That's my comment. I lost track of what your second question was.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I was talking about the source of the gifts. A number of gifts could be given. How is the source of those gifts defined?

[Mary Dawson]

One just has to use one's common sense to figure it out. I'm sorry. That's not defined, but normally you can figure out where the gift has come from. That would be a matter you'd have to establish if it were looked into more carefully.

I think this is something that has to be dealt with.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Ms. Stone, I would like to put a brief question to you.

In your Parliament, the number of members with more than one job is impressive, and it is very surprising. According to what you said, one of the fundamental issues is that members can have a dilemma as to the priority they should give their work.

Beyond that, can this situation cause another issue and, if so, which? You are struggling with that situation. What other problems may have been created in your Parliament by the carrying out of a second paid job?

[Dr. Kathryn Stone]

Madam Chair, there are a number of issues that arise from that.

One of them is the perception of constituents that the member of Parliament is not representing them fully, because their priority is with the role that is paying them more than their member of Parliament salary, and they're devoting more hours there than they are to their member of Parliament duties.

However, there is no job description for a member of Parliament. There is no set number of hours that a person must contribute to that. My colleagues who are members of Parliament would tell me that it is a 24-7, 365-day-a-year role; therefore, having additional roles on top of that must be quite complex and challenging.

Again, I would like to go back—if I may—to the purpose of the register. It's about whether the interests—second jobs, third jobs, gifts or hospitality—might reasonably be thought by others to influence the actions of a member of Parliament. It's that conflict of interest point that is so key to understanding the extent to which members of Parliament should and do get themselves involved in other roles. Some of them are very important public service roles. Some of them are roles that they have to undertake to maintain their continuing professional development. Others bring in large sums of money, acting on behalf of companies that benefit from their parliamentary knowledge, skill and experience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Stone and Mr. Therrien.

Ms. Blaney, go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Of course, as always through you, I would like to ask the witnesses questions and thank them all for their time. I really appreciate it.

Mr. Conacher, you talked a lot about huge loopholes, and you gave us one brief example. You also indicated that you're going to be getting us some information soon.

My first question to you—and I'll give you a couple of questions—is this: When is that information coming? I look forward to seeing it.

Second, you indicated you had some concerns with Mr. Dion's recommendations. I'm wondering if you could outline which ones are the most concerning to you.

[Duff Conacher]

Through you, Madam Chair, Democracy Watch's position is that we agree with Mr. Dion's six general recommendations and nine technical recommendations generally.

However, with regard to the recommendations on gifts, he has proposed that each lobbyist be allowed to give a $30 gift annually to each MP. The way this is phrased—and it may be a mistake by the Ethics Commissioner—this means that a big business could have each of its lobbyists, as well as each of its board members and employees, buy a $30 gift for each MP, which would add up to hundreds of dollars of gifts annually, likely mainly in the form of wining and dining.

Given that testing of tens of thousands of people around the world by psychologists in every country has shown that even small gifts and favours influence decisions, the current section 14 on gift rules should be changed instead to prohibit MPs and their staff from accepting any gifts or hospitality from anyone or any entity that has an interest in any federal government decision or action, or that communicates or will communicate with an MP or staff in respect of any of their decisions.

The second—

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

On a point of order, I need to hear what the witness is saying, and people in this room are speaking.

I'll leave that to you, Madam Chair. I know you're not here to monitor that, but that is happening. Hopefully the witness can continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

This is your time, Ms. Blaney, so if that's what you would like, you're permitted that.

Please keep it quiet in the room.

[Duff Conacher]

Thank you.

With regard to recommendation 4 by the Ethics Commissioner on restricting sponsored travel, the Ethics Commissioner, at the end of his section, says that this would still allow an MP to be sponsored to travel to speak at a conference. That's a huge loophole. All of the lobby groups that are now giving MPs junket trips overseas—and their families and associates sometimes—which is all legal under the huge section 15 loophole, which never should have been in the code and is essentially a form of legalized bribery.... All it would mean is that those trips would turn into speaking events for MPs.

Section 15 should have been removed years ago. It should be removed now. It's a form of legalized bribery. The sponsored travel loophole, among many other loopholes, needs to be closed.

I will be making the written submission in the next couple of days that will give you all the details of the dozen or so key changes that Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition are recommending to turn the code into an actual conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons, instead of what it is now, which is that it is almost impossible to be in a conflict of interest; it allows MPs and their staff to accept all sorts of unethical gifts and favours and essentially practice favour trading.

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

Thank you so much for that testimony.

I'll go to Dr. Stone now.

One thing we are getting some recommendations from our current commissioner on is identifying clearly what “friends and family” means, and of course the work that parliamentarians may take outside of the role.

There are two things on that. The first one, around “friends” specifically, is whether there are criteria on what that is. That seems like an odd thing to measure and may be unclear.

The second part is about work outside of parliamentary duties. I'm wondering whether there is any difference between having a position or a role prior to being elected and then if you added a role after you are elected.

Hopefully that is clear.