Evidence of meeting #2 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 commissioner.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I just want to be given discretionary power in this regard. The act leaves many things to my discretion, but in this area, I have no choice.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Do you think this committee should undertake a focused review of the recommendations or a review of the Conflict of Interest Act?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I would like to see a complete review of the act, because I believe the last review was several years ago. Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, do you know when it took place?
Lyne Robinson-Dalpé Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
A study was initiated in 2013 as part of the five-year review of the act, which was supposed to take place only once after it was adopted. After that, no obligation was created to review the act on a five-year or other permanent basis. So it happened once, but that five-year review didn't result in any changes, since there was a general election and a change in government.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Okay, thank you.
If I understand correctly, you would like us to review the act.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, it needs to be updated.
For example, the act allows you to invest in mutual funds. That's not a problem. However, it prohibits you from investing in ETFs, or exchange-traded funds, because those investments are considered shares. However, it's essentially the same thing.
If you have $100 or $1,000 of investments in ETFs, your opinion won't change anything and you won't be able to influence the companies in question in any way, shape or form. However, I still have to tell you to put it in a blind trust or sell it, because it's prohibited. It's because ETFs weren't taken into account when the act was first drafted. So now it's not working. The financial market is evolving and creating new tools. People who have no political influence should be allowed to own those assets, but for the moment, I have no discretionary power in that regard. There are no rules or laws that specify exactly what is allowed or not; it simply prohibits anything related to public procurement and public companies.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Lapointe and Mr. Commissioner.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for seven minutes. I'll give you an extra minute, since I've given more time to the members of the other two parties.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. No problem.
Good morning, Mr. Commissioner.
Good afternoon, ladies.
As far as the Prime Minister of Canada is concerned, it seems to me that we're currently in a situation we've never seen before, and I'm wondering about that. Brookfield Asset Management, a management company, manages $1 billion in assets. The Prime Minister was one of the senior leaders up until January of this year. According to the Statistics Canada database entitled “Inter-Corporate Ownership”, Brookfield controlled 916 businesses as of December 31, 2024. On your public registry, it says that Mark Carney divested himself of publicly traded securities as well as underwriting rights and other similar effects through the establishment of a blind trust. Your registry also indicates that you have agreed to put in place a conflict of interest screen and that this is an appropriate compliance measure.
Could you explain to me how this conflict of interest screen works in the context of this situation, which I think is quite unique. This is a far cry from Paul Martin and his shipping company.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
First, this screen is allowed under the Conflict of Interest Act. Section 29 of the act reads as follows:
Before they are finalized, the Commissioner shall determine the appropriate measures by which a public office holder shall comply with this Act and, in doing so, shall try to achieve agreement with the public office holder.
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the conflict of interest screen was an appropriate measure that we could use.
In the case of Mr. Carney, he divested himself of all his interests, which is a lengthy list. You have it in front of you. He put it all in a blind trust. However, he knows what this trust entails, naturally. We want to avoid a situation where he would make a decision knowing that it would increase the value of one of the companies he divested. For that reason, we set up this screen. The chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council have to review every decision that the Prime Minister has to make and determine whether it will have an impact on a particular company. If it is determined that a decision is not a general decision, but one that has an impact on a particular company he has divested from, he will be told that he must recuse himself. However, if the decision is a general one that doesn't affect a specific company, he isn't required to recuse himself.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
However, if a prime minister has to recuse themselves a hundred times because there may be a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, are they sitting in the right chair? I'm wondering about this, but I'm not asking you to answer the question.
Let's look at the issue of the global minimum tax. As you know, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, and the G20 agreed to combat corporate tax avoidance by implementing a 15% global minimum tax on multinational businesses. Simply put, if a multinational accounts its income in tax havens to avoid paying tax, the country where it resides will levy a tax of at least 15%. Bill C‑69, the budget omnibus bill passed in June 2024, included a global minimum tax act that came into force in 2025. The fiscal year started on January 1 of this year. However, in November 2024, two months before the Global Minimum Tax Act came into effect, Brookfield Asset Management moved its headquarters to the United States, thereby exempting it from this 15% tax.
Not only did that happen, but the Prime Minister also decided at the G7 to exempt the United States from this global minimum tax without going through the House of Commons. He made that decision after the head office in Brookfield was moved to New York.
Don't you think that poses ethical problems and the appearance of a conflict of interest? Is your screen able to shed light on things like that?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The measure you're talking about is a tax measure that applies universally. It covers all companies, including Brookfield. Taking such measures is part of the Prime Minister's job and, naturally, it will have an impact on companies like Brookfield.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
However, at the G7 meeting, the United States was excluded from the global minimum tax. The head office of Brookfield is therefore not required to pay that 15% global tax.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
When was that decision made?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
It was at the G7 meeting. It was the Prime Minister himself who announced it. At the very least, it should have been agreed that we could raise the issue in the House first so that we could discuss it.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The Prime Minister's decision applies to a lot of companies. You know as well as I do that this decision was made because of friction with the United States and President Trump. It wasn't a question of favouring a single company. Brookfield probably benefited from that, as did many other companies. As I said, if it's a measure of general application, using the conflict of interest screen provisions isn't necessary.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you.
That's the end of the first round. I've given seven minutes to the representative of each of the parties. We'll now begin the second round.
Mr. Cooper, you have the floor for five minutes.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner, I want to ask you some questions about the Prime Minister's so-called ethics screen. First of all, the ethics screen is being administered by the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, correct?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
So we have the chief of staff, who is appointed by and works directly for the Prime Minister, and the Clerk of the Privy Council, who serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. These two individuals are hardly independent of the Prime Minister.
In the face of that, what assurance do Canadians have that the screen is being implemented and enforced properly?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Let's be practical. Anything that goes to the Prime Minister for a decision goes through either one of these men or both. They are in effect the keyholders of what gets on his desk and what he deals with. They are the logical ones to make sure he does not get involved in these things.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'm talking purely administratively. If you want to install figures, the key people who determine and who are the last persons to see what goes to the Prime Minister are these two people. They, of course, have a whole—
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Well, sir, I understand that it's administered by the chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, both of whom serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. I'm asking you, in the face of that, what assurance Canadians have that the screen is actually being enforced properly. Are there any—