Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I can unreservedly say yes. I don't see why it would be in the interests of any of the people who work for me to do anything but their duty and try to interpret the law and apply it. There's absolutely nothing.... They are selected very carefully. They are trained. It's very clear that what we do is help people avoid conflict of interest. That's why it's there. We do that regardless of what political side or who was involved.

What we are trying to do is exactly as the act says: facilitate interchange between the public and private sector. That can only happen if there's no conflict of interest.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Commissioner.

I also want to say that what I like that came out of today's meeting was that we actually, as a committee, discussed some solutions. I want to thank MP Green for that in terms of doing a deeper dive with respect to a legislative response through, no doubt, vigorous debate and discussion.

For Canadians watching at home, I think that's what you want. You want the ability to decipher interesting political discussion, and in some cases political exchanges, but you want to look at solutions. I appreciate MP Green putting that forward and our passing that motion today.

Commissioner, I think it has been mentioned a couple of times, and I think you mentioned, that you will provide a written response with recommendations on how you can strengthen your office. I want to make it clear that this is something you're going to provide in some detail.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I only indicated my willingness to do so. I didn't realize that there's a formal request for me to provide such a thing.

For that, I think the point was raised by your colleague Madame Fortier, and I said yes—that if anybody wants our advice, we can do that. It has been done in the past, but I'm not aware that either this committee or any other government body has asked me for advice on how to improve the act or the code.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

That's fine, Commissioner. I appreciate that very much.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Mr. Kelloway, but you have just over a minute.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Really?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'm going to give you something you haven't had today, Mr. Commissioner: the gift of time.

I appreciate that we've looked at this from a variety of perspectives, but at the end of the day, I think we have an end result in relation to the Prime Minister's travel. What I think we've indicated as a committee is that we need ways to look at getting some latitude with respect to exercising the MOBs and having some oversight when it comes to international travel, not just for one political party but also for all political parties.

With that, I yield the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

You still have 29 seconds.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

You can have my 29 seconds, Mr. Chair, if you like.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Wonderful.

I am letting you know that, pursuant to the motion moved by Mr. Green, we will have another two-and-a-half minute round of questions for everyone.

Mr. Villemure will start. He will be followed by Mr. Green, Mr. Brock and Mr. Bains.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for two and half minutes.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. von Finckenstein, at the start, you outlined four principles, including confidence, confidentiality and transparency.

How do you manage the difficult balance between confidentiality and transparency?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

That’s the hardest part.

I understand your need, and that of the public, to know what’s going on as soon as possible, but on the other hand, I don’t want to ruin people’s private lives. That is why we have provisions such as disclosure dates for certain facts and redacted documents, for instance.

As I told my colleagues and my staff, it’s necessary to be as transparent as possible under the Act. However, the legislation is clear. The centre of everything we do is confidentiality. A person who comes to consult us to get our opinion must be certain that everything they disclose will remain confidential.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

In other words, confidentiality is the foundation, while remaining as transparent as possible.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Exactly.

Thank you for your eloquence.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much.

My colleagues talked earlier about statements reported in the papers, for example.

As Commissioner, are you concerned about the fact that your statements are somewhat distorted or, let’s say, reported untruthfully?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I worked in the public sector for 39 years. I’m used to it.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

That’s exactly what I thought.

I have the floor for about 50 seconds.

Earlier, I raised the point about the title of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, in the sense that we talk a lot about conflicts of interest. However, I get the impression we only talk about conflicts of interest and very little about ethics. I find it surprising, because the word is in fact in the title.

What’s that about?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

The word "ethics" is in the name of the act itself, but not mentioned in the act at all.

It is, however, the meaning of the word "ethics" we must use to carry out the act, to carry out its provisions. In my opinion, that is why the word is in the title. There is, however, no exact provision…

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

That’s right.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

There are no exact examples of what is ethical. It’s more or less implied.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

That’s interesting.

It’s like advertising a car for sale to sell pickles. The word is in the title, I know, it’s the act. However, it’s not part of the day-to-day management.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

It’s important to note that it’s a concept we understand, but have a hard time defining.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Green, please go ahead for two and a half minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

That was spoken like a true ethicist. I know my friend Mr. Villemure had a very accomplished career prior to this and is certainly a value added to the committee.

I'm still looking at the gaps in the legislation.

I've heard time and again that the advice.... I want to make it clear. There was a reference to client-solicitor privilege, yet you've admitted, I think—I've taken this from your testimony, at least—that you're simply providing advice and are not quasi-judicial in terms of the way you investigate these matters outside of formal complaints, as we've learned today. You said it depends on whether or not a friend provides the gift, yet I'm referencing subsection 2(3) of the Conflict of Interest Act, where the term “friend” is not actually defined.

In your opinion, would this be a glaring oversight in legislation that again leads to too much ambiguity about whether somebody ought to be considered a friend or an interest?