Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 5th, 2025

[David McLaughlin]

I believe very strongly in the political process. I'm not naive about how contentious it can be, but I think the public has a role here. The public needs to hear these things so that it can judge appropriately. In an appearance of conflict, if it's properly litigated politically, the public will sort through it. I trust the public, in that sense. I think there's a boomerang effect on members of Parliament and institutions if it's pushed too hard, if it's clearly manufactured in some fashion.

We rely on members of Parliament and on the institutions and processes to behave properly, if you will, and to take this seriously. If there's going to be a charge or an assertion of an appearance of conflict...which is probably what this would amount to. If it were an actual conflict, it would have been dealt with. There would have been the appropriate sanctions or remedies, etc., with the commissioner.

Ultimately, I will defer to the political cockpit, the political process, for this, but it's incumbent on everybody to play their role appropriately within the framework so that the public can judge.

[Andrew Stark]

That's a very good question. There's been some debate about the appearance standard in the age of social media. It's very easy now, for political opponents and people who are just generally looking to stir it up, to make allegations. They create an appearance of a conflict of interest, almost. I think that's something that has to be considered if you're thinking about including in the legislation a provision regarding the appearance of a conflict of interest.

One thing it suggests to me is that if an appearance of a conflict of interest charge is raised in the context of a social media campaign against an official, the commissioner has the latitude to say that there was no appearance of conflict of interest here but for the irresponsible allegations being made by certain social media outlets. That is a perfectly legitimate way for the Ethics Commissioner to resolve an issue. I don't know how you write that into legislation, but it's certainly a principle that I think should apply.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You're right, but on the other hand, it could also undermine a decision-maker's role in the political process.

I have more questions about your research and your perceptions. In the Canadian model, the beneficiaries are known, but the decisions made regarding assets are hidden. This model is similar to that of many democratic companies, in Europe and elsewhere.

Would you say it is a “solid” model?

[Andrew Stark]

Are you asking me that question?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes, I will start with you.

[Andrew Stark]

Yes, I think our regime is solid, for sure. It's gone through many evolutions. Some of them were less solid than they are right now. I think your discussions and deliberations have identified some areas where there may need to be some improvements, but basically, yes, it's solid.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Stark.

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

That concludes our first hour for today.

Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Stark, I want to thank you for taking the time to be here today. I apologize for the little security delay in starting the meeting. I really appreciate the information that you've provided to the committee. On behalf of the committee and Canadians, I want to thank you for your appearance today.

We are going to suspend for a minute, and then we are going in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]