Evidence of meeting #22 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 brookfield.
A video is available from Parliament.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, I agree.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
In that case, the admission here is that there may very objectively be situations in which a decision is of general application, but in which, given the person's context and background, there's an apparent conflict of interest. At that point, much stricter requirements have to be imposed or put in place to oversee that person's work.
Do you follow me on that as well?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
You're now talking about a situation where the act is amended and where there's a provision on the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Is that what you're picturing?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I'll rephrase my question.
When it's known that a decision of general application can have an impact on the assets of a company or an individual, for that reason, and through the tool you're proposing to us—a provision on the appearance of a conflict of interest—it has to be recognized that there's an apparent conflict of interest, even when the decision is of general application.
In that case, additional tools are needed to address the situation and avoid the perception of a conflict of interest, because there's an apparent conflict of interest.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, I understand.
I don't think we need more tools. With the current act and the interpretation we have already had, I think it's clear what a company or person can do to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
You currently don't have the means to address the issue of apparent conflicts of interest, apart from a screen administered by employees of a person in office. What you're telling us is that you need this tool to do your job better and increase people's trust in democratic institutions.
However, simply considering a situation or decision to be of general application isn't enough to determine that there isn't a conflict of interest. It takes more than that. There may be an appearance of a conflict of interest. That's what you want to regulate in the act. That's what will enable you to acquire additional tools to do the work you have to do, which is to demand accountability.
Currently, if someone is in an apparent conflict of interest, but there isn't any evidence of a conflict of interest, your accountability will end there.
Conservative
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I don't think anybody is going to be subpoenaed if there's just an appearance of a conflict of interest. That's additional. It's important to see whether there's a conflict of interest first. It may be minimal, but it gives the appearance of a larger conflict of interest and leads to a lack of trust from the public.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We're going to have time for Mr. Barrett, followed by Mr. Sari. Then I think we're going to go back to Mr. Cooper for five minutes and then we'll finish it off over here for five minutes.
Mr. Barrett, go ahead for five minutes.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
I want to touch on the question of the list of 2,000 companies. There are 103 that are on the screen. That information was not, as I understand it, initially provided to your office.
The question that I hear from people is this: Why aren't those other companies on the list? Mr. Cooper said it's 95% of the companies on the list.
How do we have confidence that the screen is complete and that it's working if 95% of the companies are missing?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
You have here the names we were furnished, obviously, because of the interest of Brookfield global asset management in those companies. On that basis, those were given to us confidentially. It's such a long list, but most of them, as Brookfield pointed out, are of minimal interest.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
That's interesting. These are huge, highly successful companies. Brookfield doesn't really seem to be in the de minimis business. How are we defining de minimis? Wouldn't it just be easier for you to include the companies as part of the screen?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
You would include them if there's a likelihood of their being affected by a decision. I don't know how else to explain it. If we make the decision saying....seeing the interest in those companies and saying it.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Did you say previously that you don't have the full list, though, sir? My question is this: If you don't have the list, how can you make a determination if you don't know?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'm sorry, but what list are we talking about? Are you talking about annex A of the screen?
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
No. We're talking about the 2,000 companies that, in Mr. Beber's testimony, he referenced. Then, later, in his response to the committee, that you're aware of—I inferred, from your response, that you're aware of his response—that these companies were referred to as de minimis. Well, are you to take them at their word? Would it not be in the public interest to just include the totality of the entities that might create a conflict, from which Mr. Carney may stand to make money from decisions that he takes that benefit those companies?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'm sorry. You are losing me now. We are looking here at the conflict of interest screen of Mark Carney. It's by him. He testified. He, in effect, signed this. He lists these companies, and he suggests here that he had a management position or oversight role in the activity prior to January, and he lists 25 companies. Of those, after number 5, from 6 to the end, are basically subsidiaries or part of the global transition fund, and that's why they're listed here. Then, he also lists other companies that had lobbied, so I don't understand where the 2,000 came from.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
I have limited time. I want to circle back to the question that another member asked about depoliticizing and de-risking this for Canadians.
I have said before that I believe the sale of controlled assets, by someone who seeks to be Prime Minister, is complicated, absolutely. Is it possible, as confirmed, in this case, by Brookfield? Absolutely, and, as mentioned by a previous witness at this committee, there are steps to take. The cost of the administration of the screen is paid for by the taxpayer, so, too, could the government waive the tax liability on the sale of these assets so that we don't have this question: Is it 95% or 100%? Shouldn't they just sell these controlled assets, and we can continue to attract good people to public office?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's also a question of the valuation, not only of the tax liability defrayed. Lots of these are future earnings that will be determined on the performance of Brookfield. How do you value those?
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Even Brookfield said that they could arrive at that. I think that, when we're talking about the public's confidence in our democratic institutions, we should be able to figure out the tough questions so that we can avoid the murkiness that seems to persist here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Sari, you have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I was reminded of this quote: “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” I mention this quote because it sort of brings to mind our debate. I don't think this is the most useful debate for establishing governance strategies that serve to better regulate ethics. If we really want to regulate ethics properly, we need to have a governance framework and think about strategic directions rather than focusing on individuals.
Here, unfortunately, we've been hearing about only one person for quite some time. I'm proud to be on this committee, but I would have liked us to be a little more serious, to review the mechanisms and to propose solutions for the future instead of personalizing the debate.
That was my introduction for today. I really didn't want to repeat it, because I didn't want to politicize ethics. This is really very important, because there are people listening to us. That's why I want to make my questions as accessible as possible. Unfortunately, we're eroding trust in institutions, and it's very dangerous to see people with political careers wanting to continue eroding that trust in institutions in general. This isn't just a matter of trust in the House of Commons, but trust in general. It's really a shame.
Commissioner, I rely somewhat on observers and experts who say that Canada's ethical framework works because it's applied institutionally rather than personally.
Can you confirm for Canadians listening to us that the mechanisms in place for the Prime Minister's Office aren't intended to protect an individual, but intended to guarantee the stability, neutrality and transparency needed for this government to operate?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
You put it very elegantly. I agree.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you for the short answer, because it gives me time to talk to Canadians. I really didn't want to do that today, because that's not what's important.
Having said that, I'm proud to be a Canadian, proud to serve and proud to be a member of Parliament. I don't want to damage our image, so I'm going to repeat and reiterate today that I find it unfortunate to personalize the debate in this way, to bring it back to the person of the Prime Minister, who was chosen by Canadians. I would like to neutralize the political attacks on an issue that's very important to me, namely the issue of ethics and especially perception. It's important to be careful, because politics is a matter of perception. I think it's really dangerous to play politics with perceptions of things that aren't facts.
That brings me to another question. We're operating in a rapidly changing environment. A year ago, there were tariffs and so on. The environment is becoming more and more complex.
You do have some experience. Can you confirm that the mechanisms in place have to be updated? That's the purpose and role of this committee.
Can we really reassure the public that these mechanisms enable the Prime Minister and his team, the people who came to see us, to work effectively, efficiently and in accordance with ethical standards?