Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 15th, 2025

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Just in summary, then, what we have here is a tool that is maybe not frequently used but is commonly used, often with individuals with outside private experience coming into public office, and with a system of regular reporting attached to it. Is that correct?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Yes. That's correct.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Church.

Mr. Thériault, you have two and a half minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's continue the discussion.

I understand what you have to apply. What I'm looking for is the very essence of ethics, that is to say, ethics that analyze what is based on what should be. I expect your office to make suggestions based on what should be. Now, I'm all for people getting involved in politics, but not if, structurally, the foundation they have before getting there creates structural conflicts of interest.

Take, for example, a company that owns 916 companies for an investment of $1 trillion; the Prime Minister introduces a bill, Bill C‑5, in areas that belong to Brookfield: the railway is covered by Bill C‑5; the natural gas processing plant is covered by Bill C‑5; the pipeline is covered by Bill C‑5; Westinghouse, a company that builds and operates nuclear plants, is covered by Bill C‑5; involvement in the oil sands is covered by Bill C‑5; and port facilities are also covered by Bill C‑5.

It seems to me that there is an appearance of conflict of interest here, and even more so when a bill like this is passed under a gag order, without any discussion to assess its impact.

Don't you think that the Prime Minister right now, even though he doesn't know how much his assets in a blind trust will prosper, is nevertheless aware, in a way, that Brookfield and the people who benefit from it will increase their assets? I think this demonstrates a structural and ethically unacceptable position. We can't sit in a seat when we are making decisions knowing that, in any case, it will serve us well.

Does everyone have to get into politics? I think people have to make a choice. In such a situation, I expect the Ethics Commissioner to be able to give us additional tools to avoid conflicts of interest.

There you have it.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

You gave a selection of projects as examples. That's all. The decision was made to focus on these five projects of national interest.

First of all, the fact that only five have been selected doesn't mean they're going to happen.

Second, it doesn't say who's going to do them.

Third, we don't know what subsidy or support the government is providing.

Fourth, we don't know who will choose the companies or which ones will be chosen.

In all these cases, we have to look at the interests of companies like Brookfield and so on. However, when it comes to the actual selection of projects, we haven't arrived at a point where we're making a decision that would benefit no one.

Which of those five projects will be the first and second choices? Now, once the project has been decided, it will be necessary to determine who the main actor will be, what the company will be, and so on. At that point, the people responsible for the screens will make decisions as to whether one of these companies, particularly Brookfield, is involved. What will its involvement be? As a leader or stakeholder? As a member of a class? All of those decisions will be made at that time.

Now, the selection itself is not a conflict of interest issue, and the screens don't apply.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Thériault has finished the second round of questions.

We'll start the third round with Mr. Hardy and Mr. Sari for five minutes each.

Mr. Thériault, you may have time to ask other questions.

Afterwards, I would also like to ask the commissioner a question.

Mr. Hardy, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Commissioner.

I'm new to politics, but I believe that, indeed, most people need to get involved and enter into politics to bring about change.

That said, I think that people now have less trust in politics. I believe that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is there precisely to ensure that people have confidence in our institutions.

It's a bit unusual to have a multi-billionaire running the country. Do the current laws and structures make it possible to assure the public that this person is there for the right reasons, and not to help his company temporarily before going back to the private sector afterwards?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I believe the current Conflict of Interest Act works. However, as I mentioned in my annual report, improvements can be made. The issue is not the direct conflict of interest, but rather the appearance of the conflict of interest, the perception of the situation.

For that reason, in my annual report, I suggested adopting a definition that people in government should adhere to. It covers not only conflicts of interest, but also the appearance of conflicts of interest. It's kind of hard to define and enforce, but I think it's essential for fostering the political trust you're talking about.

As such, we must remember that there was the Oliphant commission concerning allegations of conflict of interest between the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney and Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber. In his report, Commissioner Oliphant recommended having a definition dealing with apparent conflicts of interest.

Ms. Robinson‑Dalpé will read the recommendation to you.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

Of course.

The definition of “conflict of interest” in the Conflict of Interest Act should be revised to include “apparent conflicts of interest,” understood to exist if there is a reasonable perception, which a reasonably well-informed person could properly have, that a public office holder's ability to exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function will be, or must have been, affected by his or her private interest or that of a relative or friend.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

When there is a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, the public wonders how these things can happen. In this case, a multi-billionaire prime minister who was at the helm of companies a few months ago is now making decisions very quickly on the advancement of the country. In addition, he seems to be indirectly helping the businesses he owned and the ideas he had at the time. There is the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Under the current act, it seems to me that someone should be responsible for analyzing the situation again. It should be someone other than a member of the Prime Minister's Office or a personal adviser.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

That's your opinion. Just because the Prime Minister is rich doesn't mean that he's in a conflict of interest.

As I mentioned, banning direct conflicts of interest isn't enough. We also have to look at whether there is the appearance of a conflict of interest and whether we need to adopt measures to avoid them.

First and foremost, we need to change the act to make it better. We also need to adopt a definition, as suggested by Commissioner Oliphant.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Let's take the case where projects are accelerated. I guess the more projects there are, the more potential conflicts of interest there are.

How many people are responsible for analyzing each of the projects and flagging problems?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

It's very difficult to answer your question.

First, we look at whether or not the project is in the national interest. Then we look at the players involved. In every decision made to carry out the project, it is important to be aware not only of direct conflicts of interest, but also of the appearance of a conflict of interest.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

How many people are we talking about? For example, if there are 12, 15 or 20 potential conflicts of interest, how many people take the time to analyze that? Is it done quickly enough for us to intervene, or do we have to wait five years to realize that the problem has already occurred?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Answer very quickly, please.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

It depends. If we adopt such a definition, we must also adopt upstream processes. Perhaps we need to increase oversight and approval of things.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Sari, you have five minutes. Go ahead, sir.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

First of all, I want to welcome everyone back to the House of Commons.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

Mr. von Finckenstein, I heard your comments, and I read the letter you sent to the committee. I think that, right now, in our country, we need to encourage experienced people to move into positions of power and decision-making, because the context is changing, both economically and technologically. So we obviously need experienced people in our offices and in our government.

That said, our committee will have to make recommendations to the House. I would like to ask you a question so that you can guide us in our study and help us see things better. How do you see this committee conducting its study? Should we focus on a few recommendations or should we review the process as a whole? I'm asking you this because you talked about a change in context; I'll come back to it later.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

The recommendations I made relate to issues that are currently of concern to me. I think it would be worthwhile to make legislative changes to address those concerns. However, if we were to conduct a review of the Conflict of Interest Act, I believe we should do so in a comprehensive manner, taking into account the new world we live in. For example, we should look at the role of social media and its implications for the act. While I think targeted amendments to the act are needed to improve it, this isn't the ideal solution. The act is outdated, and it's high time it was reviewed.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You mention the need to improve the act because of changing circumstances. These circumstances are changing much more quickly than in the past. Do you think the amendments to this act should make it much more flexible? I've heard some really pointed questions today about specific cases. However, the act is not actually designed for that. I would say that it is designed to address the appearance of a conflict of interest in a broad sense, across the entire legislative process.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Ultimately, it's up to you—Parliament—as well as the government, to decide how to amend the act. My task is limited to identifying the current shortcomings and providing you with my recommendations to address them. However, Parliament could obviously choose to make other amendments. For example, it could look at reorganizing the offices. Why is there an Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying and an Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner? Could they be combined to save money? I think all these issues need to be considered.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You talked about a comprehensive review of the act. Do you think such a review would be very broad or rather limited? Should this review be very broad and cover the entire act?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.