Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2025

[Cathryn Motherwell]

Yes. They would generally have done this in consultation with the deputy minister. Again, they're able to tap into the resources of the cabinet office for the drafting of that screen.

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

I mean, would they be involved in administering it for their ministers, for example?

[Cathryn Motherwell]

To the best of my knowledge, no.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Sari from the Liberal Party, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Madam Motherwell.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Mignolet. I'll start with you.

I'm going to begin with an introduction. Two things are of great concern to me: the issue of social networks, and the issue of digital media in general or digital communications. They come up very often in your research and comments, which I find really fascinating. In that sense, I'm talking about one of the most important objectives, in my opinion: preserving, and sometimes even strengthening public trust in institutions in general, and much more specifically in governments and the House of Commons.

You're well aware that digital media and social networks rely heavily on algorithms that, to a large extent, fuel polarization, unfortunately. We see comments on social media from a few public figures, particularly elected officials. What they say can undermine public trust and, unfortunately, fuel that polarization. To that end, your work makes the case for a better set of rules. Could you quickly explain what those rules would consist of and what meaningful action we should take? What exactly could we do to better regulate comments like that?

[Ariane Mignolet]

I will say right away that this is definitely something that concerns us, so we've looked at it.

First of all, it's important to know that Quebec's Code of Ethics and Conduct of the Members of the National Assembly applies to the conduct of elected officials, regardless of the context, whether it be with constituents, in connection with a minister's executive power, in the National Assembly or on social media. Social media isn't specifically included in the rules, but it's not excluded either. That's the first piece of information I wanted to pass on.

Second, it's definitely very much a matter of self-regulation. I especially wanted to raise awareness among our clientele, elected officials and their political staff, about the use of social media, particularly to set some guidelines when they use them for partisan purposes or for government goods and services. In short, there are challenges in this area.

Finally, I tried to convey a message about respect, values and principles: the rigour, the serious danger of disinformation, which I put a lot of emphasis on, and the need to be careful and confirm posted, reposted and liked content.

I wanted it to be a wake-up call. That said, I don't know exactly to what extent comments posted online could be regulated. I can easily take action on some challenges, while it's more difficult for me to do so on others. In short, I tried to emphasize that elected officials and their staff have a duty to set an example.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Commissioner Mignolet.

My next question will be for both commissioners, since they come from two different but equally important provinces.

Since I was elected, I've been trying to meet with the commissioners who oversee ethics to find out what I'm getting into. What would you suggest in terms of training, exercises, reports and meetings with elected officials? Which exercises would you recommend to us the most? Which ones are most effective, meaning that they produce the results that elected officials, particularly newly elected officials, are expecting?

I'll give you a concrete example. A huge number of new members were elected in the last federal election. They entered politics without necessarily having the information they needed to better fulfill their role as elected officials. What elements would be most effective?

[Ariane Mignolet]

I'll start, if I may, Commissioner Motherwell.

To start with, yes, I think it's crucial that elected officials meet and have contact with the commissioners' offices, especially given that there's no mandatory training in Quebec. Contact is always initiated with new elected officials, there's no doubt about it. My office is receptive at the declaration of personal interest stage. We'll ask more questions. For us, that declaration is the foundation, a starting point to properly support elected officials.

That said, I would put a huge amount of emphasis on something I recommended, and I think it's essential: advising candidates. I've seen a lot of people come into the office and be amazed at the obligations they have to contend with, which sometimes have an impact on their family members. That's why Quebec worked with the Chief Electoral Officer to get information out to candidates.

That said, I contact the political parties upstream and tell them that if they have potential candidates, they shouldn't hesitate to contact us. We're there, we talk to them informally to see to what extent they are aware, and I think that's crucial.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner Mignolet. I think I'll give Commissioner Motherwell a chance to answer that question as well, because we have a bit of time.

Commissioner Motherwell, perhaps you'd like to respond to that question. Mr. Sari is over time, but I'd like to hear your response to that question, please, if you don't mind.

[Cathryn Motherwell]

Thank you.

We do quite a lot in this regard.

It starts, as Commissioner Mignolet said, with a section on our website that will address things you need to know if you're going to be a candidate and what is involved within the Ontario ethics regime.

After an election, I am invited by the assembly to give a presentation to all new members. This is a great opportunity. I have about 45 minutes. I can talk to them about all the different ways in which they will be able to interact with the office, what the rules are and how this will apply.

Afterwards, we go to what is effectively a service fair. I'm given a private room where individuals can come to collect information, because, at this point, the election also triggers the financial disclosure process. They have a lot of questions related to their assets. They have a lot of questions related to how the disclosure process goes. There is a two-step element to this. It's important. Of course, as she referenced, there are many people who are shocked. When someone is running for office, they don't realize what it's going to look like at the other end. Once they come through that, it's surprising to them to learn that they're going to have to provide, essentially, all of their information to the commissioner.

Afterwards, I will meet with them individually. It takes about one hour for each individual and we go through it all over again.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Commissioner.

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Mignolet, let's continue our conversation. Earlier, in response to a question about blind trusts, you said that there was an option other than the trust and you talked about the management agreement. Could you explain the difference between the two, and why those two options exist? What are they for?

[Ariane Mignolet]

To be honest, I couldn't tell you why those two options exist. I continue to wonder why the legislator chose to do that. This is the only time in Quebec's legislation “blind management agreement” comes up. Whatever the case may be, we offer two options.

With the trust, the assets are removed from the person's property, whereas they remain with the blind management agreement. I imagine that the legislator must have thought that the most important thing was keeping the person from seeing the assets. In both cases, we ensure that the person selected to administer the trust or agreement doesn't give any information to the person creating the trust or agreement. There are rules in both cases.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You indicated that there were a number of ministers with a blind trust or management agreement. That's my understanding.

How many ministers in Quebec have conflict of interest screens to accompany this blind trust or management agreement? When you suggest—I assume it's a suggestion—a conflict of interest screen, why do you do it? What situation leads you to suggest it? What makes you feel the need to set up a conflict of interest screen?

[Ariane Mignolet]

As I mentioned earlier, I don't have conflict of interest screens as described in the Conflict of Interest Act. I have the opportunity to put other measures in place. I can tell someone that they should put in place certain measures or recuse themselves from certain decisions, but currently I don't have any conflict of interest screens in place.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You ruled on the fact that a screen of this kind should be administered by the person targeted by this measure.

I have a concern about that, and it's something we are discussing. When a commissioner requires or suggests that a conflict of interest screen be set up, I don't think it's right for that screen to be enforced by a subordinate, whether it be a deputy minister, a Clerk of the Privy Council or a chief of staff. If we have to go through those people for operational reasons, for the sake of transparency, we should check whether the screen is truly or effectively being enforced, and designate a person to whom the person should be accountable for its enforcement.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner told me that he didn't want to be that person because that would make him the judge and jury. To avoid that, we could designate a person who would be responsible for accountability.

I'll start with you, Commissioner Mignolet. Then you can answer, Commissioner Motherwell.

[Ariane Mignolet]

The way in which the conflict of interest filter is administered is up to the person concerned or those around them. I am not sure that it is the role of a commissioner or a member of their office to be present during all major decisions for the state or during meetings of the council of ministers. However, as Ms. Motherwell mentioned, even without a conflict of interest filter, some ministers will comply with rules of engagement by declaring that they will not discuss certain matters while notifying the Secretary General and clerk of the executive council, who ensures that these rules are followed.

It is clear that we will tell them to put clear processes in place if any post-hoc checks are carried out, if there is a request for an investigation, or if there are reasonable grounds to suspect a breach. I must be able to assess whether or not the conflict of interest filter has been applied, but there is no daily or continuous monitoring to be done. Using ex post facto verification measures or processes when necessary is in the interest of those who apply such a filter. If there were reasonable grounds to suspect a problem, I would conduct an investigation, but I would not exercise daily monitoring.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Commissioner Motherwell, you were asked the same question. If you could answer it in a minute or less, I would appreciate that.

Thank you.

[Cathryn Motherwell]

I will do my best.

I think the question is whether there's a belief that staff can do this work in the sense of administering and overseeing a screen. I believe that they can. I believe that they have taken the oath. They understand the need for the trust. They understand the screen. Let's face it; it's their job. It's their job to make sure that they're doing everything in alliance with the direction of the screen itself.

I do understand that there can be many screens. They can be applied to many different circumstances. I also believe that this can be done fairly straightforwardly by establishing a list, by implementing the [Technical difficulty —Editor] the rigour of day-to-day work. Once you establish those processes and implement them as part of your regular pattern, I think it can be achieved.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Hardy, from the Conservative Party, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, commissioners.

The first thing we regularly say here is that public confidence in our institutions is based on ethics. All witnesses talk to us about transparency as the foundation on which we can truly rebuild that confidence.

Do you think the public is experiencing a crisis of confidence in our institutions, both in Ontario and Quebec?

[Ariane Mignolet]

There is a lot of talk about crises of confidence. Codes of conduct, almost everywhere, are generally the result of crises of confidence. Often, rules are established or certain issues are addressed after scandals, for example. We must always work on trust. I don't know exactly what defines an ongoing crisis of confidence, but the primary objective of all codes of conduct for elected officials or senior civil servants is to ensure their integrity, which is essential to maintaining and strengthening public confidence. As for whether or not we are succeeding in this, I leave that to your judgment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Commissioner Motherwell, I think the question was addressed to you as well.

[Cathryn Motherwell]

Thank you.

Obviously, trust in government is essential to our democracy. I have had this discussion with members. As I mentioned earlier, like you, we had an election earlier this year. This triggered the disclosure process, which meant I had to meet with all members between the date of the election and all the way into June.

We spent a lot of time talking about transparency. We spent a lot of time talking about integrity. We also spent a lot of time talking about what's going on in the world around us. Members really care about these structures. Members value them. It was really quite heartening and encouraging to hear the extent to which they were not only wanting to accept the system, which could be quite intrusive especially in the beginning of financial disclosure, but also understanding the value of it and understanding what makes us distinct as jurisdictions.

As I said, there are common elements across the country among the provinces, the territories and, of course, federally, but on the underlying principles of integrity in government and what steps need to be taken in order to present that picture, to tell that story to the public, I was quite heartened and encouraged by this because I could see that it was being embraced and accepted, and then, of course, promoted.

Also, whose job is it? It's the job of all of us. It's the education that I provide. It's the members managing their affairs in such a way that it fulfills the public expectation. As well, there's the transparency of answering questions frankly whenever possible about how a system works or what measures are in place in order to assist people to comply with the legislation in their particular jurisdiction.