Evidence of meeting #14 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 stark.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm going to get back to the meeting.
I apologize, Mr. Stark. There was a technical difficulty.
Mr. Thériault, you may continue. This interruption will not be deducted from your speaking time.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
My first question is for Mr. Stark.
I was saying that I agree with you about your distinction between conflict of interest and corruption. I said it can certainly happen that a person is in a conflict of interest without recognizing it.
As to the work of the Ethics Commissioner, I would say that a lot of work has to be done proactively rather than reactively. Consider for example if someone is found to be in the wrong or in a conflict of interest and is sanctioned in some way. Now, a person may be in a conflict of interest voluntarily. In that case, the commissioner might conclude that it is an instance of corruption. That said, I agree with that approach.
What interests me though is that ethics, which is a higher standard than the law, must be proactive. In my opinion, restoring public trust in an institution requires consideration of apparent conflicts of interest. I agree with you on that.
In this case, when the Ethics Commissioner meets with the elected official, he must tell him not only that he must not be in a conflict of interest, but also that he must not be in an apparent conflict of interest. So if the elected official is careful not to be in an apparent conflict of interest, it is unlikely that he will be in a conflict of interest involuntarily.
I expect you would agree with me on that. You may answer that question with a yes or a no.
My other question is more in-depth.
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Thank you, Monsieur Thériault.
If you're saying that officials who take care to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest will necessarily also avoid being in an actual conflict of interest, I would agree with that.
If I've understood you correctly, I also think it's important for public officials—and I'm sure the Ethics Commissioner would say this for MPs and ministers—whenever they think there might be an appearance of a conflict of interest in a situation but they're not sure, to proactively ask the commissioner for their thoughts beforehand, and not simply do something and then find a retroactive adverse judgment. Certainly, a proactive discussion, which includes concerns about appearances as opposed to real conflicts of interest, is important.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Indeed. Our regulatory regime governing the conduct of elected officials includes a code for MPs and rules for public office holders.
Don't you think that separate rules should be created specifically for the prime minister? My second question will of course be about using an ethics screen.
Let me explain. The prime minister is the supreme authority of a council of ministers. When he deems that one of his ministers is in an apparent conflict of interest and that this will be problematic, he does not typically have to recuse that minister. It will be resolved. If the minister is recused, it is clearly the prime minister who decides who will be at the table.
A certain moral authority is incumbent on the prime minister, and yet the prime minister is not responsible to any moral authority. It is therefore up to his subordinates such as the Clerk of the Privy Council or chief of staff to tell the prime minister to recuse himself or to apply an ethics screen. To my mind, therefore, an ethics screen is a concept or term and does not appear to be operational right now. I have trouble understanding how it is managed.
Have you, Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Stark, ever applied an ethics screen? Do you agree that separate rules should be created? The person who holds the highest office in the land must have exemplary conduct and be fully transparent.
As an Individual
With respect to an ethics screen, no, I have not had to apply that in a political context. As a cabinet secretary in Manitoba, I had to manage recusals of ministers on policy matters for legal reasons. That worked very well, and I reflected those in the minutes.
An ethics screen may be imperfect, but it's not illegitimate. It's a known technique, a known tool to use. I think you want to give your commissioner, as an independent officer.... I think you should be looking at how to strengthen the role and the sanctions that the independent officer has. You need to give that person the tools to manage the diversity of conflicts that can come from 300-plus members of Parliament and a 40-member cabinet, etc.
It doesn't mean that the individual is in an automatic conflict of interest. They've actually taken some steps to try to remedy that, which is the first thing. Step one is to actually remedy any potential conflicts by having the commissioner sign off on them.
I'm not convinced that the Prime Minister or the premier, as an example, really has to have an extra sanction or an extra layer, as long as they are sufficient and adequate for everybody.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I am not talking about sanctions. We will get back to that later on.
Mr. Stark, I will come back to you later on for the answers to my questions. My time is up, unfortunately.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
The time is up. Thank you, Mr. Stark.
We'll come back to it in a minute if Mr. Thériault wishes to.
We're going to go to Mr. Cooper for five minutes, please.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Professor Stark, you were quoted in a May 5, 2025, article in the Financial Post stating that the primary remedies for conflict of interest are recusal, disclosure and divestment. To clarify, would you consider these three things to be the primary remedies for avoiding conflicts of interest?
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes, I would.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Okay.
The Prime Minister has more than 500 reported conflicts of interest and 103 conflicts that are subject to the so-called ethics screen, conflicts related primarily to Brookfield. Now, it's the Prime Minister's position that decisions affecting Brookfield's interest wouldn't come to his desk, wouldn't come to his attention, by virtue of the screen. That isn't exactly true, given that the ethics screen kicks in only when a decision has a disproportionate impact on Brookfield's interest relative to that of other companies as part of a broad class.
Consequently, that would give the Prime Minister a fairly wide ambit to make decisions affecting Brookfield's interest, would it not?
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes. That is a terrific question, and it's one of two that I was going to suggest the committee should really think about, the other being the involvement of the Ethics Commissioner beyond simply setting up a recusal regime and continuing on.
On the question of whether or not an official should be able to affect their interests if those interests are not disproportionate or are a part of a broad class, that idea comes from American legislative ethics. The idea is that if you're a legislator and you're voting on legislation that's going to affect many people and not just you, and there are 400 other members of the legislature who are involved in the decision and it's not yours alone, then it's okay for you to participate, because you're being countered by others.
It's been imported in Canada, into our ethics regime for the executive branch, and I'm not sure it's legitimate to do that, but there is a push-back, which is that if the Prime Minister can't even deal with broad issues that affect his interests coequally with others, then we're getting into a situation where the Prime Minister is not able to really act in office.
I've heard it said that the Prime Minister should simply liquidate his assets totally and put them in GICs or cash, but even then, of course, he can affect his own interests, because he can affect in various ways the interest rate, etc.
Some thought has to be given to where—from really disproportionately affecting your own interest to even affecting your own GICs—we should draw the line as to what constitutes a conflict of interest. That's an important question. It's a philosophical question that I think the committee should wrestle with.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Yes. Do you think it's appropriate that the ethics screen is administered by, among others, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who is answerable to the Prime Minister? Doesn't that create at least the perception of a potential conflict of interest?
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think what has to happen is that the Ethics Commissioner should be checking in regularly and reporting to Canadians—not on the actual identity of assets, but to say that they've checked in and there were some issues there and they've been remedied, etc. If something serious did happen, then it's something the Ethics Commissioner should investigate.
I think the legislation, if you want my opinion, should require involvement of the Ethics Commissioner beyond simply setting up the blind trust and then saying, “That's it. You guys go and manage it.”
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
As it stands, of course, the Ethics Commissioner isn't involved. He says, “Okay, Chief of Staff, you administer the ethics screen.” We're supposed to trust that the chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, both of whom are answerable to the Prime Minister, are doing this, but there is no reporting mechanism. There is really no information provided to demonstrate that the ethics screen is actually working.
Would you agree that the Prime Minister, in the interests of transparency, should inform Canadians about how the ethics screen is in fact working on a day-to-day basis?
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I would say that the Prime Minister could—and I think it would be a good move—voluntarily say that the Ethics Commissioner is being invited on a regular basis to review how the screen is operating and to make recommendations, to repair holes or to deal with issues that come up. If he finds that a serious breach has occurred, that should be publicly known and it should be investigated.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Stark and Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Saini, you have five minutes. Go ahead, sir.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you.
Mr. McLaughlin, as the chief of staff to the Honourable Brian Mulroney, to your knowledge, did the former prime minister have a blind trust or a screen at that time?
As an Individual
I don't recall. It wasn't part of my remit or role at that time to manage any of his personal, ethical or financial issues, so I honestly couldn't tell you.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Okay.
Mr. Stark, when officials, whether they are civil servants or serving the public, take an oath of trust, is that not enough for us to accept that this is what they are doing? If we don't trust civil servants or the politicians, how do we run the country? How do we manage? Do we say that anybody who is successful in business should be excluded? That's not how democracy should work in our country.
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'll refer to what David McLaughlin mentioned: “trust, but verify.” We should trust our officials, but it's important to have a conflict of interest regime and outside monitors to assist them. The Ethics Commissioner should be seen not as an opponent, but as someone who is helping and working with officials to establish trust.
I don't think a well-run conflict of interest regime should exclude people of wealth or people who have done well in business from entering politics. There's no evidence that it has happened in, for example, the United States—excluding the current regime, which doesn't observe any of the conflict of interest laws. Very wealthy people have found the privilege of serving in government worthy of putting their holdings in a blind trust for a while, and they haven't suffered financially as a result of that, or they have recused themselves and have held on to their wealth—they don't even have to get rid of it. If disclosure is the regime, they can hold on to their wealth, but it's just disclosed.
There's no real inherent opposition between conflict of interest law and people from the business community entering politics.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you.
In your experience, is Canada's current ethics framework fundamentally sound, with the reform best guided by evidence rather than by political pressure or by individual controversies?
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think it's fundamentally sound. There are improvements that could be made. I've suggested a couple of them. I think the law is fundamentally sound. What the Prime Minister has done is fundamentally sound, but it could be better.
The Ethics Commissioner could be more involved in monitoring the ethics screen. There could be a better understanding of how we deal with matters where very powerful officials are affecting their own interests, not disproportionately but as part of a broad class. They're still affecting their interests. That is a question that the current moment with the current Prime Minister brings to our attention.
It's not often that a very powerful official is also a wealthy person in this country. Usually, wealthy people are not necessarily in the most powerful positions in the government, or the most powerful person is not a person of great wealth. This is an unusual moment, but because of that, it allows us to address some of these questions that we wouldn't otherwise.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
We have heard evidence from others that Canadian ethics are very sound and that they are on top of the world's other democracies. Is there any suggestion you can make about what we can bring from other countries, or even from provinces, that will make it better?