Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 27th, 2025

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Do you have a view as to at what point a relationship with a private entity would become subject to conflict of interest concerns? For example, if a public office holder no longer worked for a private entity, would that generate a conflict of interest concern in your mind?

[Samuel Cooper]

I've heard prior studies and testimony where a number of years from the exit, from a relationship, to being able to re-engage so that it wouldn't trigger a perceived conflict is useful, but I'd like to say that I could be out of my depth in terms of the minutia of the regulations you're trying to get to the bottom of right now.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Are you saying that any relationship that a person would have brought to public office, which may include having worked for an employer in the past, could engage the Conflict of Interest Act in your mind?

[Samuel Cooper]

It certainly could, and the closer that prior relationship is to one being in office—in terms of the window of time—I would think, it naturally increases the potential perception of conflict.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

What if somebody had no role in either working with or managing an entity, with no financial interest, would that engage the Conflict of Interest Act?

[Samuel Cooper]

I'm not sure. I don't think I can meaningfully answer that example.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

In reality, you're not really sure as to what the boundaries of the Conflict of Interest Act are today, or what they should be. You have no views on those matters.

[Samuel Cooper]

I don't have views on the minutia. My strong views are on the need for an independent layer at the end of the day.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

The Ethics Commissioner's office is not independent enough for you.

[Samuel Cooper]

In my understanding, I lean towards Duff Conacher's testimony that it's not independent enough, no.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Why is that?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Church.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Cooper, you mentioned Brookfield's relationship with the Chinese political regime and Mr. Carney 's relationship with China.

Earlier, I couldn't help but think about everything we did in the last Parliament to try to counter foreign interference, particularly from China, in Canadian democratic and political life. I was thinking, among other things, of the bill we just introduced to block bloodstained goods produced by child slave labour. I was wondering if those relationships were an example of a potential conflict of interest of general application.

Based on your studies, analyses and research, do you think the government, through the Prime Minister, would be tempted to support such a bill, or would it be tempted to vote against it, given that it might want to protect the interests of Brookfield and preserve its relationship with China?

That is a conflict of interest. It may not have a direct impact on a fortune in a blind trust, but it is a real conflict of interest of general application.

People claim that it doesn't exist and that conflicts of interest of general application don't really matter. However, what we're talking about here is a person's power to make decisions that can result in a return on their investments.

I'd like to hear your comments on that.

[Samuel Cooper]

I think that is a question that gets to the heart of the decisions before you with the conflict act, the current ethics regime and even the global trade issues that Ottawa is confronted with.

I think it's helpful to raise the example of what is happening in the government of Kier Starmer right now. There's a controversy reported on every day by British media with regard to an alleged case of Chinese interference, of insiders getting information on critics of China and allegedly providing it through the Ministry of State Security to high levels of the Chinese Communist Party.

I noted that powerful American lawmakers were so disconcerted with reports coming out of Britain that they sent a letter to the British ambassador, warning that it appeared that Britain's government had stepped away from or potentially politically intervened in a prosecution around the timing of China's seeking to construct what's called a “mega-embassy” in Britain, which raises certain concerns.

To your question, honourable member, yes, if you're looking at global trade and the potential of slave-produced goods from Xinjiang coming into Canada, this is a very pertinent issue. I reported a letter sent from then senator Marco Rubio and others to the then minister of trade, Mary Ng, in which the U.S. lawmakers expressed concern that it seemed that goods were being transshipped through Canada into the United States using subterfuge. The question, again, is whether Canada was holding up its end of its deal with the United States and Mexico to bar trade in slave-produced goods.

Indeed, I think the question you raise is whether there is a conflict with regard to how a whole government might take action on a bill, whether we're talking about a bill such as the one put forward by MP Michael Chong or whether some people in the British Parliament, in wanting to keep trade between Britain and Beijing running at full steam, might have intervened in a prosecution about espionage inside Westminster. That's a very important question.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Hardy, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you for being with us, Mr. Cooper.

We're talking about the concept of perception as opposed to the concept of public opinion. I want to make sure I understand.

I feel that an important point for a journalist is to ensure that the public is aware that journalism is not a matter of perception, but rather of bringing facts to light.

As a journalist, when you do your research, what process do you use to ensure that you express facts, not opinions?

[Samuel Cooper]

It depends on the journalist, and it depends on the training. I can speak to my own experience.

I was trained at the University of Toronto with an undergraduate degree in history, philosophy and English. I took that level of learning, and I applied it to a journalism program at a school in British Columbia where you learn the same skills that an honourable member, a lawyer or a regulator might apply to hearing different perspectives and potential facts from different sources, bringing them into one's capacity to sift those facts. In gathering the facts and then reporting them.... Look, there is opinion in reporting. There is assessment. At the best level of journalism, there is getting all sides and then using an expert level of understanding of the issue as best the journalist can to put forward a story in good faith to try to help the widest range of citizens to understand the issue.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.

That's exactly what you do. You bring facts to light and conduct in-depth investigations that are completely independent of any political influence. Obviously, there's always an opinion in news reports. However, it is important to report the facts so that we here can judge them.

You said you've been following a lot of the work of this committee. We heard from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner of Canada and the Commissioner of Lobbying. They all told us that their offices were underfunded and that they did not have enough resources to enforce the regulations. In the case of access to information requests, it was often complicated to get the information, and requests were ignored.

We have provided institutions with safeguards, but they ignore them or they don't have enough power to really regulate situations and restore public trust in our institutions.

Do you see that as a problem in Canada's federal policy?

[Samuel Cooper]

I do believe—if I can speak a bit broadly—that Canada, at a provincial level.... As I've said, from what I've observed in British Columbia and in Ottawa, I believe the same issues present themselves: that Canada is underfunded when it comes to regulatory oversight, especially when it becomes politically sensitive.

Again, let me compare British Columbia.... Commissioner Austin Cullen of the Cullen anti-money laundering commission recommended that British Columbia institute an independent officer of the legislature to crack down on money laundering. I would note that this recommendation hasn't been followed in British Columbia, so not only is there no funding behind that most important recommendation on a very important issue for Canada in B.C., but also there's no position in place. I think the same can be said from what I observe in Ottawa. Funding for a commissioner is needed. There is more funding needed, and it needs to be independent.

I'd go further. I believe an independent anti-corruption agency is needed, one that could apply investigations where the RCMP may not have the capacity to look at politically sensitive cases.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you. You're absolutely right.

It's well known that, in times of crisis, the first reaction we need to have is to make significant corrections. This is a case of overcorrection.

Given that our democracy is currently in crisis, do you think the public would need to see significant changes to the way our institutions operate?

I'm not talking about changing a comma or a period in an act. I'm talking about making significant changes to ensure that we restore trust in our institutions and that we put our democracy and trust back at the centre of the equation.

[Samuel Cooper]

This is my opinion. I've been looking into Ottawa very deeply for about seven years of reporting regarding money laundering and corruption concerns, as well as political interference concerns. It is my opinion that Canada, like the British government at this moment, is at a point of crisis where there are good questions for members of the public who might doubt that their government is adequately responding to foreign interference, as well as to potential integrity and corruption issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor for five minutes.

I understand you're going to share your time with Mr. Saini. I will let you know when you have two and a half minutes left.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Cooper. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.

As some of my colleagues said earlier, as part of this study of the Conflict of Interest Act, we met with the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, a number of lawyers and other representatives of civil society.

In the first part of today's meeting, we also had the opportunity to welcome Mr. Wernick, former clerk of the Privy Council. He came to discuss our study with us.

We will certainly have other things to look at in future studies, but we are currently looking at the tools the act makes available to us and ways we could improve the act.

You often referred to China and Great Britain, but you also talked about British Columbia. A number of witnesses have told us that we have much to learn from B.C., which is a model in this area.

You also often raised the issue of independence. I was a bit surprised to hear you say that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was not that independent, but we'll look into the matter.

What makes you say that the process should be made more independent?

As a journalist, what experience are you relying on to comment on Canada's Conflict of Interest Act, which we are currently studying?

[Samuel Cooper]

My insight into the ethics question comes mainly in relation to one of your prior witnesses, Duff Conacher, of Democracy Watch. I've interviewed Mr. Conacher a number of times and reported on some of his recommendations and opinions, so very clearly, and I'll be up front, most of my technical knowledge comes from another witness, Mr. Conacher.

However, where I add my own assessment and opinion to your question as to why I believe that the current system isn't independent enough, I do agree with the members, and Mr. Wernick, who have said that there is a professional civil service, and there are legal consultations and a framework in place. My reporting, though, has shown that in practice bureaucrats are human, Ottawa is not the biggest place in the world, and it can be that humans might not take the decision to take a regulatory action against an elected member who may have appointed them or whose predecessor may have appointed them. I think that that's a question in front of the members.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have two minutes left.