Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I think we all know that democracies around the world are under pressure from lots of different sources—social media disinformation, globalization and a string of health and financial crises. All of them contribute to that pressure.
That said, according to organizations from the OECD to not-for-profit organizations like Freedom House, Canada is doing very well in terms of the quality of our democracy relative to the rest of the world.
Why is that? I guess there are many reasons, but at least in part, it is the result of a deep-rooted culture of integrity that we are lucky to have here in Canada—the integrity of public office holders and, of course, of the public service. That culture of integrity is the basis on which strong democracies are built. In my view, that's Canada.
While culture is hard to measure, as we all know, we do see proof of the quality of Canadian democracy everywhere. It's in our rules, in our laws and in our processes. For instance, all Canadian public servants are subject to a rigorous values and ethics code.
Most relevant for today's conversation, obviously, is the question of the Conflict of Interest Act, an act that plays an important role in reinforcing that culture of integrity. The work of your committee also plays an important part in that, because fundamentally, this is about Parliament ensuring that the Conflict of Interest Act is effective in upholding the transparency and accountability that contribute to Canadian democracy.
With respect to the Prime Minister's blind trust and the screen, like every other public office holder since 2007, the Prime Minister is subject to requirements under the Conflict of Interest Act. In addition, the Prime Minister and the Ethics Commissioner have agreed to and published a public declaration on agreed compliance measures, which include the screen and the blind trust. As you've heard already from the Ethics Commissioner, the blind trust and the screen are in place to promote transparency and public confidence in decision-making. In Canada, I think we're all pretty familiar with those screens. They've been in place for many years in public and private institutions and under governments of varying political stripes.
It's also worth remembering that the Conflict of Interest Act and tools like the screen are in place to enable government to attract people with diverse backgrounds, including from the private sector, while ensuring the integrity of decision-making.
How does it work? We've put in place a rigorous process to implement the screen, and that has been fully validated by the Ethics Commissioner.
As a first step, policy decisions that might trigger the screen are identified and reported to the senior management of departments and agencies as they arise. Then departments and the Privy Council Office conduct a very robust case-by-case due diligence examination. At that point, if there appears to be even a remote possibility that the screen may be needed, it is immediately put in place. Why is that? It's so that we always err on the side of caution.
To ensure that those principles underlying the screen are consistently applied, we've developed a comprehensive assessment tool that provides a framework to assist in the analysis. I'm happy to table that tool today for members of the committee.
Government officials receive rigorous training across the public service, especially in the most relevant departments. Both the assessment tool and the training materials have been thoroughly reviewed and validated by the Ethics Commissioner.
Following the work in departments and following work in the Privy Council Office, the deputy secretary for governance at the PCO then makes a recommendation on the screen's application. As an administrator of the screen, I review that recommendation and take a decision.
All the advice, as you know, from the public service on the full range of issues for the Prime Minister comes through the Clerk of the Privy Council. That perspective gives me a broad perspective, and that broad perspective is critical in my role as an administrator. I would like to say that I regard that role as an administrator as a very important duty.
Finally, decisions are shared with the Prime Minister's chief of staff—the second administrator—for concurrence and immediate implementation.
Although it is not mandatory under the Conflict of Interest Act to disclose the manner in which the screen is applied, I want to share as much information as possible with committee members and Canadians.
We decided to ask whether the screen should be applied to 13 situations. Every single one, without exception, was validated by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
According to the principles underlying the assessment tool validated by the Ethics Commissioner, the screen did not apply to seven of the situations. Five of those seven cases did not involve any direct interaction with the companies subject to the screen. The other two situations pertained to tax measures on matters of general application.
The screen did apply to the six remaining situations. The Ethics Commissioner was clear: the Prime Minister cannot be informed of the matters before a final decision is made public. Otherwise, it would go against the very purpose of the screen. The Prime Minister is not aware of four of the six matters to which the screen applies. The other two cases are now public information, with a final decision having been made. I'm sure you'll have questions about those cases, so I would be pleased to discuss them.
In short, we believe we have established a very rigorous system that is applied with great care and attention. The public service is well aware of its responsibility to always ensure the integrity of the office of Prime Minister.
I would now be happy to take your questions and look forward to reading your recommendations.
