Evidence of meeting #11 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cooper.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Well, that's one of the problems that we have: Right now, we have no idea when the screen is invoked or not. One witness came and said that, really, all we have is hope and trust. Do you think hope and trust are sufficient?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
No. I have faith in the commissioner.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Your answer is that you're satisfied that hope and trust are sufficient, because that's what we have with this ethics screen.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
No. Those are your words, Mr. Cooper. I think Parliament has given the job to the commissioner to make judgments about the appropriate screens and sanctions.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Well, I certainly don't have a whole lot of trust and confidence that it is being triggered appropriately.
Would you support amending the Conflict of Interest Act to provide for an enforceable general antiavoidance measure, so that anyone who circumvents the act by circumventing a technical loophole would be held accountable?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's a question for lawyers, and it would have to be linked to whatever the sanctions are for an infraction. That's used in other laws, and I don't see any problem in considering it for this law either.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Cooper, and thank you, Mr. Wernick.
Mr. Saini, you have five minutes, sir. Go ahead, please.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Wernick, for appearing before the committee.
Do you think it's correct that Mr. Poilievre, as the Leader of the Opposition, still does not have his security clearance? Is it ethical for a party leader to reject getting the security clearance?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't want to get drawn into partisan crossfire, but I have said publicly that I do think all leaders of parties recognized in the House of Commons should go through security clearances. It's largely to do with foreign interference, but in the context that we're talking about today, going through a security clearance will reveal potential points of leverage on someone. It will reveal credit, financial and personal conduct issues, business contacts, relationships, encounters with the criminal justice system and so on. In effect, one of the most practical ways to deal with perceived points of pressure on decision-makers is ensuring they've had a security clearance.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
In your testimony, you also mentioned that there can be situations in which, if a minister or a prime minister is in a conflict, they're a criminal. I understand that one senator was charged criminally because he wasn't acting in the right interest. Can you shed some light on that?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
There's a whole section of offences in the Criminal Code—if I recall, it's section 121—about influence-peddling, bribery, fraud and misconduct by public office holders and officials. There are sanctions put on people trying to bribe politicians and on politicians who accept bribes, just to use one example.
The criminal law is its own world, with very high standards for burden of proof. You're innocent until proven guilty. It has well-established rules of procedure and evidence, which are at a higher bar than the one Parliament has given to the various commissioners and officers of Parliament. Parliament has allowed commissioners to stray into things that are not criminal offences but may be important, so that's why you have the Lobbying Act, the ethics code and the Conflict of Interest Act. The standards for evidence and procedure are quite different from in a criminal court.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Some parts of the world call themselves democracies, but to vote you have to be a landlord or have certain assets. In Canada, every Canadian—their background doesn't matter—whether they're from a private background or they're doctors or lawyers, they're all entitled to vote. I don't think it should be the intent of ethics laws to prevent people who are successful in their lives as businessmen...for them to be excluded. I would like to hear your view on this.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
You might want to consider looking at preambular language to the law to make the intent clear, to the courts and others, that the intent of Parliament is to encourage the widest possible participation of Canadians in public life, and this applies both to partisan politics and to the public service. However, that has to be balanced with the issues that raises. Therefore, a conflict of interest act and a foreign interference act are important counterweights to that.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
You served in that position as the Privy Council clerk. How do you think Canadian ethics law compares with the rest of the world, especially the western world, which we compare ourselves with from time to time?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I would commend to the committee a couple of papers that were done by the OECD, or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris. They have 38 member countries and a public governance secretariat.
They have done comparative reports on conflict of interest legislation. I sent a link to the committee clerk earlier this morning. What they say is that we're not the very best, especially on some issues of enforcement, but we're respectfully in the top quartile or so of the 38 member countries. Different countries take different approaches to what's included, what's deemed and what the sanctions are. Britain is a good example. Australia is a good example. The provincial regimes in Canada are good examples. I would recommend that the committee try to find somebody from the OECD public governance secretariat to talk to.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Saini.
The link that Mr. Wernick referenced has been received by the committee and will be distributed at some point today.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for five minutes.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Wernick, the definition of “private interest” in section 2 of the Conflict of Interest Act does not include “an interest in a decision or matter that is of general application”.
Earlier, I asked you how many times you had to advise the Prime Minister to leave the room. Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch said that this exclusion means that the act does not apply to 99% of the decisions and actions of the most powerful people in the government. They only have to recuse themselves 1% of the time.
Given the fact that the world is changing and that we should at least cover a perceived conflict of interest, do you think we should expand this notion of private interest to a general interest provision?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't agree with that at all.
I think a lot of the cabinet discussions on new policies and new legislation have fairly broad implications.
Take, for example, the new free trade agreement with Mr. Trump that will affect all sectors, all industries and all regions of Canada. The budget will have a fairly broad impact.
On the contrary, I recommend targeting very personal cases, where it's possible to identify a personal relationship between the decision-maker and someone outside the government.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
In the context of your examples, I understand what you're saying.
However, we can't rule out the fact that a decision of general application can indirectly grow someone's assets. Even if a law is not based on a single scenario, there is always an extraordinary scenario. An individual became Prime Minister when he was the head of Brookfield. That firm controls the assets of 900 companies, with $1 trillion in total assets. The first thing he does when he comes to power is say that we need to rebuild the Canadian economy. He then launches major projects in the five areas in which this firm has an interest.
Doesn't this case constitute a perceived conflict of interest?
I'm not talking about a minister; I'm talking about the Prime Minister. He himself will sanction his ministers and exercise his responsibilities to contain a perceived conflict of interest. Here we're talking about the Prime Minister, the person who has the opportunity to direct all economic policies. He decides to go full steam ahead on projects that may see the light of day in eight years. You were also talking about Mr. Trump, but he'll be dead and buried by then.
To restore people's faith, don't you think it's important to recognize that these general interest decisions, which may be useful or good for certain sectors of the economy, will also favour the firm in question?
Furthermore, just because assets are in a blind trust does not mean a person doesn't know by how much they stand to grow. They know they're going to grow, and that's a perceived conflict of interest.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Now we're talking about a perceived conflict of interest, which is highly subjective.
Legislation should target real conflicts of interest related to private interests. I have no problem with your recommendation to add specific provisions concerning the Prime Minister's Office so that another office can make certain decisions.
You're right that the Prime Minister has a particular role and power. The challenge, as I mentioned, lies in the practicality element. We don't know who the Prime Minister will be after the budget announcement or next year.
That also raises another issue. We mustn't discourage people from entering a party leadership race or getting into politics. There's a downside to all of that.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Are you for or against expanding the scope of the Conflict of Interest Act to include the appearance of a conflict of interest, as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is proposing?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That could be a targeted solution in the Prime Minister's case. However, it shouldn't be done for everyone who's subject to the act, because that includes hundreds of people.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
You acknowledge that we're in an unusual situation, then. It's unheard of. This isn't about personalizing something, but trying to have an act and regulations that make it possible to restore people's trust and reintroduce ethics into politics.
It's about avoiding situations where people use the appearance of a conflict of interest to play politics. The idea is to have clear and distinctive rules, particularly for the highest office in the government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
Mr. Hardy, you have the floor for five minutes.
October 27th, 2025 / 11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Wernick.
I'm new to politics. I started this year. I'm very pleased to be at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, because I believe that the work being done here can help restore public confidence in institutions.
I'm also very pleased to hear you say that everyone should participate in politics.
Do you agree with me that we're going to lose players if we're too strict? That's what you seemed to be saying earlier.
Do you also agree that we may attract the wrong people to politics if we're too lax?