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
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm sorry, Mr. Stark. Give a very quick response, if you don't mind.
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
It will be quick.
I don't have any such suggestions. I'm not really au courant with provincial regimes. I don't think that, from my knowledge of American and British conflict of interest laws and regulations, there's anything from them that I would suggest importing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Saini and Mr. Stark.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for five minutes.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Stark, I wanted to give you the chance to respond to my previous remarks, if you remember what I said.
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Can you very quickly prompt me on that?
Bloc
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
No, I have never had to do that.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Once the Ethics Commissioner receives a declaration from an MP and decides that an ethics screen must be applied, that is because, firstly, there is a potential appearance of conflict of interest and, secondly, the person could objectively be in a conflict of interest in their role.
Do you agree with me?
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I absolutely agree.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you.
In the current situation, I see a problem. I am not naming anyone; this is an example. I see someone who worked for a company with a trillion dollars in assets, who runs 900 companies and who has a personal stake in about a hundred of them. The first thing he does when he takes office is decide that he needs to enact legislation to establish major projects to reshape the Canadian economy.
So it is the Prime Minister who determines the economic direction for the country, in the five sectors in which his former employer or the company that he chaired has stakes. Isn't that an apparent conflict of interest, particularly since that legislation is intended to respond to a tariff war that will be resolved in the very short term, in 2026? Perhaps there will be some remnants after that. Some of the projects in question will be completed eight or nine years later in the Maritimes. It is not really in the Maritimes; that is just a turn of phrase.
So I have a problem: I would like to know how this unusual case should be managed. Even if we are told that individual cases should not be managed, it is nonetheless a precedent.
Is there an apparent conflict of interest, objectively speaking? I am not subjective.
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
We're back at the question of the Prime Minister engaging in debates over legislation or regulation or policy that affects whole industries or the entire economy, and therefore also affects his own interests as a result. I'll go back to the observation that there are three remedies for conflict of interest: recusal, divestment and disclosure.
In some of the cases that you are talking about, he can't recuse himself, because he's the Prime Minister and he has to be involved in these issues. Maybe he can't divest himself, either; maybe the blind trust hasn't found a buyer for those interests. In those cases, disclosure is what we're talking about.
In fact, there is de facto disclosure. You just articulated it: The Prime Minister is involved in massive policy decisions that affect interests of his, as well as those of many other Canadians. As Canadians, you and I can judge whether we think the Prime Minister's judgment was biased, and we can weigh that in our vote at the ballot box and in our assessments of how he's doing.
In the absence of recusal and divestment, which may not work in this case, disclosure has to happen, but we sort of have it de facto.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
My concern though is that we cannot determine from the outset that a broad decision has no effect on the interests of the person in question. When a person places assets in a blind trust, does that mean that he has to recuse himself? He does not have to recuse himself 99% of the time because the scope of the Conflict of Interest Act is limited to decisions with a personal impact.
Should we not consider that broad decisions can also place someone in a potential conflict of interest?
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I agree. That is one of the two main issues I would suggest the committee wrestle with.
I also think we're going to come to a point where, if the Prime Minister is going to be able to exercise their office, until they're able to divest their holdings and put them in GICs or in stocks the identity of which the Prime Minister doesn't know, they can't recuse themselves from everything, so disclosure has to be the remedy. This is an issue that you should wrestle with.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Stark.
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
Next, Mr. Barrett will have five minutes.
Mr. Sari will then have the floor for five minutes.
Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please, for five minutes.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. McLaughlin, I'm curious about the fines and the recovery of fines in the context of the Manitoba example that you gave. First of all, with regard to the upper limits of the fine, is this an order of the commissioner, or is it a recommendation to be voted on by the assembly? Also, what is the effect of the order? Does it become a provincial court order or a federal court order? Is it enforceable? If it does become an order of the court, does it then survive things like prorogation, for example?
As an Individual
It is a recommendation from the commissioner to the legislative assembly. The legislative assembly has a debate on it and votes on it. In this case, there was a unanimous agreement by members to accept the report of the commissioner, which included these particular fines. The commissioner explained in the report how he triaged the fines: an upper fine for the former premier—she received the highest fine on that—and then somewhat less for the other individuals.
The sanction—beyond the public sanction and public embarrassment, if you will, of litigating this in public—for these individuals was that the government could withhold or garnishee any outstanding wages, pensions and other kinds of payments that they were entitled to. So, if they did not pay the fine, then the government could take steps to basically withhold a portion of their pension or whatever it owed the individual for other things until the fine is paid off.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Were these powers to be given to the federal commissioner, do you think it would enhance the separation or enhance the commissioner's independence should they have the power to impose the fine without simply recommending it to the House and thereby politicizing the matter further?
As an Individual
It's a good question. If you're going to have a truly independent commissioner with that kind of authority, I think a cleaner version would be, then, to give the commissioner the appropriate authority through legislation, etc. That takes it out of the political cockpit—however legitimate that debate is—in terms of a vote in the House of Commons with all the attendant drama, if you will, that goes with it. It makes it very clear that it is not, in fact, a political issue but a conflict of interest issue. It gives the particular fine and sanction, and then it has the appropriate force.
I don't know how you would write that in law, but I think that would be a cleaner way of doing it.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Please answer this quickly, if you could. Do you believe that fines of the magnitude of $50,000 for violation of the Conflict of Interest Act, for serious violations of the act, are an appropriate remedy for breaches?
As an Individual
Whether it's $50,000 or $100,000 or something else, a higher fine definitely carries more weight. It says to the public, “This is important.” If there's a mistake here, you know, people say, “Wait a minute. Fifty thousand bucks is a lot of money, so it must be important.” I certainly think a higher fine.... You could scale it in some way, depending on the extent of the offence—for example, if there is money involved.
Again, I'm not certain how you might do that, but I would certainly push it to an upper limit, as much as you're allowed to in law.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Thank you.
Professor Stark, just answer this quickly. Would you agree with that type of regime—having fines of $50,000 to $100,000, depending on the office that's held and the offence or violation or contravention of the act?
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I don't know what.... I agree with David that it's serious to be in a conflict of interest, but again, it's not necessarily corruption.
I think the best thing to do in a conflict of interest situation is for the official to have a chance to remedy it and to apologize and acknowledge it. However, in cases where that doesn't happen, yes, I think there should be fines, and they should be significant. As for what the amount should be, I don't know.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Stark and Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Sari, you have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the two witnesses for joining us, either in person or online. It is truly a privilege to meet them and be able to draw on their knowledge. I really appreciate it.
All of the questions that have been raised lead me to consider the purpose of this committee's work. One of the objectives is of course to strengthen public trust in general. That trust can be eroded at times for various reasons, including perceptions that are shared via social media. The issue of public confidence is widespread.
So I would really like to hear what you both have to say about something. In your opinion, if a perceived conflict of interest is not based on facts, can it truly undermine public confidence in general? Should legislators ensure that those perceptions are somewhat removed from the political process?