Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 27th, 2025

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

In fact, at one time, all members were lawyers or people who worked in the field of law, at both the provincial and federal levels. I agree with you that we need people from a variety of backgrounds to foster high-quality debate in the House.

Witnesses have shared their suggestions with us at previous committee meetings.

There was talk of a blind trust being set up. We were told that an individual has to sell all their assets when a trust of this kind is set up, to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. I'm sure that does nothing to encourage people to get into politics.

Setting up a blind trust also raises a concern about capital gains. When someone sells their assets, they have to pay a lot of tax on significant capital gains. That's what we've heard. I don't see that as an advantage.

I'd like to hear your comments on that.

[Michael Wernick]

Take the example of a lawyer who is a partner in a large law firm.

It's pretty easy for a lawyer to arrange their affairs, leave the partnership inactive and return to their job as a lawyer later.

I think someone who has worked most of their career in the private sector would have a portfolio of investments, stocks and so on. They might have one.

We could adopt a rule to diversify their assets, but I think that's a barrier for someone who's likely to have a very short career in politics.

If we do that, we'll gradually go back to having people with professional backgrounds in the public sector, such as lawyers or political advisers, who will have a rather short-lived career in partisan politics.

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

Thank you. Your comments are interesting.

From what I understand, you'd prefer to see people with experience in various fields in the House of Commons.

Earlier, you touched on the fact that the Conflict of Interest Act should provide for various types of sanctions based on the offence. I assume it would be based on the offence committed.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Michael Wernick]

I think we can look at a ladder of sanctions, because some offences are worse than others. Other laws leave discretion to judges or courts to impose appropriate and proportionate penalties.

I absolutely agree with changing the ladder of fines to have higher fines in certain cases. Some connections might be made. For example, an offence could result in the loss of security clearance, which is quite severe for someone in the public sector, because one can't work without that clearance.

The Canada Elections Act has a fairly strict regime. People can be barred from running as a candidate for a period of seven years. I can see a fairly serious violation of the Conflict of Interest Act leading directly to a sanction that would prevent someone from running as a candidate in an election. I think that's pretty serious.

We mustn't forget the Criminal Code. All the penalties in the Criminal Code can be considered. The commissioner can refer cases to the police and the Crown prosecutor.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Wernick.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wernick, thank you for being with us.

At the outset, you emphasized that people in the private sector shouldn't be discouraged from running for a position in politics. Political life is very demanding, and it involves sacrifices. One has to make a choice.

In our review of the Conflict of Interest Act, should we be focused on one central point, namely not discouraging people from running for office?

Instead, shouldn't we consider, for example, that the highest office requires the highest level of exemplary behaviour, which implies the highest level of transparency?

First and foremost, our role here is not to be a staffing agency, but to try to recruit people as much as possible.

The fact remains that running for office is always a personal decision that involves sacrifices. If people with assets don't wish to comply with a more restrictive law, they won't get into politics, period.

Do you see that as a real problem? Do you think that should be the committee's main concern?

[Michael Wernick]

Yes, I do. That's one way of looking at it.

One of the objectives of this act and the other acts I mentioned is to keep our democracy in good health.

Therefore, we can provide for a stricter regime in an act, but it will have an impact on our democratic life. There will be a cost associated with it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Okay.

Do you think democratic life boils down to only some individuals and the competence of certain individuals?

In any case, I, for one, doubt that.

[Michael Wernick]

No.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Wernick, earlier I talked about the highest degree of exemplary behaviour. It is said that one principle—because we have to have principles—is that ethics is more demanding than the law. It is also said that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral.

Do you think tax avoidance is moral?

[Michael Wernick]

I don't understand the question.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's a simple question. Do you think tax avoidance is moral?

[Michael Wernick]

We're not talking about tax avoidance right now.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, we are talking about tax avoidance because I'm asking you the question.

I'm trying to measure how exemplary you are, sir. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral. We have to review the Conflict of Interest Act, and we're going to review it based on a principle.

Do you think tax avoidance is moral?

[Michael Wernick]

The barriers set out in the Conflict of Interest Act are quite high. There's the whole issue of a perceived conflict of interest. Those are pretty strict barriers.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

What barrier would be strict enough?

[Michael Wernick]

The Conflict of Interest Act.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Therefore, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral.

In that regard, a witness who appeared before the committee last week told us that, to restore people's faith, the issue of tax avoidance must first and foremost be resolved. Canada loses $15 billion to $30 billion a year as a result of this scheme. The article referred to at that meeting said that the current Prime Minister was a champion for tax avoidance. This article was published in September.

Without ruling out that change to the act, doesn't this call for a new way to restore people's faith by ensuring that the legislation makes it possible to better manage a situation where someone who champions tax avoidance decides to initiate projects that, at least on the surface, indirectly favour a company called Brookfield?

Do you think that's more important for democracy than ensuring that a person running for office is transparent?

[Michael Wernick]

Frankly, I don't see the connection with the Conflict of Interest Act. There is a way to deal with conflicts of interest when it comes to people who have decision-making authority.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

There is something called the conflict of interest screen. I don't know if you ever used that measure.

We can come back to this later, because the chair is signalling that I'm out of time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have 50 seconds left, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wernick, you were the Clerk of the Privy Council from 2016 to 2019.

How many times did you have to advise the Prime Minister that he should recuse himself from a decision?

[Michael Wernick]

I don't know. It happened from time to time before the mid-term discussion at a cabinet committee meeting. I don't recall.