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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It has to be a short answer, because we have a lot of questions and not a lot of time.
Mr. Hardy, you have the floor for five minutes.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Mr. von Finckenstein, thank you for being here today.
Two weeks ago, major announcements were made in Alberta, including on five major topics that I'm going to talk to you about today.
Were you consulted about the carbon capture plans?
Was the screen activated for that?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
All the consultations that are done are confidential. I can't tell you whether I was consulted or what the content of the consultation was.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Regardless of what happens, then, we're never in a position to know whether you were consulted on the issue. That means we have to rely on Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard to know whether the screen was activated.
Is that correct?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard are responsible people. They can come and consult us, and it will be up to them to decide whether or not to disclose the advice we give them, if any. It isn't up to me to do that.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
We analyzed that at the committee. The employees who report directly to the Prime Minister are the only ones who can tell the public whether or not the screen has been activated and whether Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard consulted you.
Given that you're someone outside the cabinet, you don't have the right to disclose the content of the consultations.
Is that correct?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's correct.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
How can the public trust a screen managed by employees who report directly to the Prime Minister?
Currently, when it comes to carbon capture in Alberta, Brookfield is involved. When it comes to transmission lines, Brookfield is involved. When it comes to artificial intelligence with data centres, Brookfield is involved. The same is true when it comes to nuclear energy and pipelines.
Canadians are questioning announcements made in the public interest.
In all those announcements, a company directly owned by the Prime Minister is involved, and it's impossible to know whether the screen has been activated.
Is that correct?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
You're focusing on the screen. However, the screen is a prevention mechanism. It's up to the Prime Minister to recuse himself if there's a conflict of interest.
To help him, we applied this screen, which is managed by Mr. Blanchard and Mr. Sabia. They have to let him know if he's in a conflict of interest. To do that, they have the right to consult me, and I give them advice.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
You understand that, right now, the committee has to ensure that mechanisms are there to protect Canadians. We're told that Mr. Carney is capable of managing himself and that his ethics are beyond reproach. Other witnesses have told us the same thing here.
However, Canadians want checks and balances. They want to ensure transparency. The current perception is a weight, to a certain extent. There's a perceived conflict of interest, and the only people who can detect potential conflicts of interest are the people directly connected to the person causing the conflict. Basically, what's the counterbalance?
I'm just trying to understand how we, here, can judge the current structure if we can't know when the Prime Minister has been asked to recuse himself.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard aren't involved in the decision. Their job is to prevent and avoid a conflict of interest. Their own responsibilities, their jobs, are to protect the Prime Minister and prevent any conflicts of interest.
Conservative
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
You don't trust them. I don't understand why.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
It's because they're employees who report directly to the person who's potentially in a conflict of interest. You're saying their job is to protect the Prime Minister. In your sentence, you have just given an exact answer to the question.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
You're saying that their job is to help the Prime Minister avoid being in a conflict of interest.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
It's to “protect the Prime Minister”. Those are your words.
I'll move on to another question.
It's often said that decisions are made in the general interest of the public. However, the line is thin right now. The head of Brookfield came to tell us that when Brookfield gets richer, the Prime Minister gets richer.
At what point has a line been crossed?
How do we know that the decision was made in the public interest? How do we know if the decision was heavily influenced by a potential private interest of general application?
At what point has the line been crossed and led people to say, “Oops, we crossed the line; this isn't working”?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The philosophy behind the system is that if the Prime Minister makes a decision for Canada's overall well-being, that's fine. If he makes a decision that benefits only his own interests, that's no good.
Obviously, we have to determine whether the person made a decision in the public interest or in their own interest. That could mean taking—
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
There is currently no way of knowing, then. We don't really know.
Is that correct?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I could ask Mr. Aquilino—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We'll come back to that, Mr. von Finckenstein.
Mr. Sari, you have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Good morning to all the witnesses.
Thank you for being here.
Before I begin, I'd like to tell you that you speak excellent French, Mr. von Finckenstein. I completely understand what you're saying.
You have really come here this morning to explain a number of elements that I consider important. You're speaking to us and answering us in French, and I'm very grateful to you for that.
Since I only have five minutes, we're going to have a kind of quick discussion to explain the subject of the study before us in layman's terms.
My main goal is to respond to the Canadians listening to us this morning. We're able to understand the jargon that we sometimes use here in committee. However, the goal is to have the trust of Canadians.
We sometimes hear comments that could undermine the public's trust.
How can we reassure the people listening to us and make them understand that we're working very proactively to prevent conflicts of interest?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'll use the Prime Minister as an example.
First, he placed all his assets in a blind trust. He can't give any instructions.
Second, we also want to prevent him from making decisions that will benefit the assets he has placed in the hands of trustees. That's why we set up this screen.
We tell Mr. Carney that he can't make decisions that would affect the companies in which he has interests. We have to warn him when he's in a conflict of interest situation in which he has to recuse himself. He then has to make a public statement to say that he's in a conflict of interest, that he's recusing himself and that he isn't taking part in a decision.
We save him from having to deal with those issues. Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard will then notify the Prime Minister if he's in a situation where a decision concerns his assets. That's all.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
We've heard from a number of experts in the field. They were pretty unanimous. They said that our system is among the best in the world. I can agree with members of the other parties that it isn't perfect, because the context is changing. What we have now could be improved. I agree with that.
However, can we say that the system doesn't allow Brookfield to have a loophole right now?