Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2025

[Ariane Mignolet]

I think there are measures in the code I enforce that foster that balance right out of the gate. I talked about the fact that the code explicitly refers to ethical values and principles. That's really the first thing in the code. I think a certain balance is struck, particularly in the information requested from our clientele. I expect the utmost transparency, and I can access that transparency. The provisions of the code allow me to obtain all the information I need to play my role as an adviser, first of all. As for my investigator role, that's another matter, given the powers of commissions of inquiry.

In my role as an adviser, I can go and get all the information. There are provisions for self-identification, for example. I think transparency has to be very important and comprehensive so I'm able to do my job properly. However, a balance must be struck. For example, if I find that the information in the declaration of personal interest is not complete enough, I have no problem going and asking for more information. It's not made public. Only a summary of the declaration of personal interest is made public. I think that strikes a balance.

Ultimately, I think it's a matter of trust. Any code or rule of this kind is intended to maintain and strengthen public trust. To that end, our role as commissioner is to facilitate that trust. People need to have confidence in us. We have all the necessary tools at our disposal to do our work as adviser, investigator and guide.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you. That's a complete answer.

You spoke earlier about this moral obligation, that is to say, being able to go beyond perceived integrity. You said that perceived integrity is crucial. The Ethics Commissioner here is asking us to extend what's covered by the act not only to conflicts of interest, but also to perceived conflicts of interest. It therefore proposes a definition that tells elected officials not only that they mustn't put themselves in a conflict of interest, but also that they mustn't put themselves in a situation where there could be a perceived conflict of interest.

How do you see that concept? Do you think it's important for us to be able to codify it, to regulate it?

[Ariane Mignolet]

I think the notion of perceived conflict is important. We have always learned in law that perceived justice is just as important as justice itself. The Quebec code does not define the concept of a conflict of interest. I'm telling you this because we don't have a definition of actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. I think the concept of conflict of interest has to be understood as an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. If it's worthy of mention in the legislation, I think it's important to mention it. Quebec approaches it differently, because it doesn't name it, but it's included in some of our provisions. We can therefore enforce it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

When you conduct an investigation, it's because, at the outset, there is a perceived conflict of interest. Before you can say that there is in fact a conflict of interest, you have to confirm it, and that's often the purpose of the investigation you conduct. Sometimes, it's quite obvious, and people may want to know the circumstances, and so on. Therefore, you have the power to investigate regardless of the fact that no complaint has been filed. Is that correct?

[Ariane Mignolet]

Yes, absolutely. I have the power to investigate on my own initiative, which is obviously based on reasonable grounds to believe that a breach may have occurred.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

In your opinion, the concept of perceived conflict of interest is included in attitudes, in the training you will give and in the measures that must be taken by the elected official to meet your expectations. That's how you exercise the provisions of your act. The perceived conflict of interest and the conflict of interest are implied. Why aren't they named in the act?

[Ariane Mignolet]

It was a legislative choice made at the beginning, 15 years ago. The code was based on everything that existed in Canada and elsewhere, to some extent. That was the approach taken, not to explicitly identify what a conflict of interest is but to determine what actions are prohibited.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Doesn't that allow for what I was saying at the outset, that ethics are more demanding than the law, and just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral? In that sense, the Code of Ethics and Conduct of the Members of the National Assembly does exactly that.

[Ariane Mignolet]

It provides a great deal of flexibility, particularly when it comes to prevention. That's very important to us. The rules prescribe something, and then we tell people that even if there's nothing explicitly prohibiting that conduct, suggesting they engage in it is another matter. We might tell them to think about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you, Mr. Thériault.

We will now begin the second round of questions with Mr. Cooper from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Commissioner Motherwell, I want to ask you about your use of ethics screens in the province of Ontario.

First of all, is there a specific statutory mechanism or legislative scheme with respect to setting up such screens, or are they part of your general powers as commissioner?

[Cathryn Motherwell]

They're part of the general powers.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Okay.

Who administers ethics screens in Ontario?

[Cathryn Motherwell]

It depends on the type of screen. For example, as I said, we tend to use screens across the spectrum. We would advise a screen for an MPP. We would advise a screen for a minister. We would advise a screen for minister's staff—that is for exempt staff, political staff. We could advise screens even for deputy ministers. Therefore, within the realm of each of those groups, the administration will differ.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Can you give some examples of who would administer screens?

[Cathryn Motherwell]

Certainly.

Let's deal with a screen that has been recommended for a member of cabinet. In that case, generally these situations arise because they come out of a request for advice from me to the minister with regard to a certain situation.

As I said, most of the time when we deploy screens, they're related to a family member who may, for example, have a business that's a stakeholder of government. It may be about a relative, or it's about a friend. They tend to be deployed for relationships; therefore, I would make the recommendation that an ethics screen be implemented at cabinet. That recommendation then goes to the minister, who shares it with cabinet office, and cabinet office assists in the preparation of the screen and also oversees the implementation.

There is one thing I have asked routinely of ministers. I mentioned at the outset that I meet with every member. When ministers come in for their annual meeting, I will ask them about the screens and what happens when they're at cabinet. They're tapped on the shoulder essentially and advised to leave the room.

Some ministers have many screens and some have none, but in those who have several, they tell me that they turn the page of their virtual binder, and it is blank. Someone does tap them on the shoulder and advises them, “You are to leave the room.” They have no idea why. They leave the room while the matter is handled, and then they are advised when they can return.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

When the screen is triggered, are there any mechanisms in place to provide a level of transparency to provide the assurance that the screen is, in fact, being used as it was intended to be? As part of that question, to what extent is your office involved in seeing that the screen is working?

[Cathryn Motherwell]

We're not involved in that aspect at all, although it is, as I say, something that I will ask of ministers. When I have the opportunity to speak with cabinet office officials, they can advise me that a screen has been put in place and has been implemented.

If the question is about whether I know when it has been triggered, when a matter is before cabinet where a minister may have been asked to leave the room, I am not informed.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

There are no other transparency measures in place. It is left to those who have been tasked with administering the screen and the public office holder to see that it is working.

Is that the case?

[Cathryn Motherwell]

Yes, it is. As I said, it is tasked with career public servants who are working within cabinet office to oversee that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

What about political appointees? Are they involved in administering the screens?

[Cathryn Motherwell]

When you say political appointees, do you mean for example individuals who would be appointed as chairs of public bodies, that kind of thing?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

I would be referencing, for example, political staff.

[Cathryn Motherwell]

With political staff, it would be deployed at a different level obviously, because they're not at the cabinet table. Therefore, it would be deployed within the ministry.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Sorry, just to clarify, I mean political staff within a minister's office.