Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak for the first time on this motion that was brought forward last week.
I think, like so many Canadians right now, we would share a commitment to accountability. We would share a commitment to ensuring that conflicts of interest, when they arise, are managed prudently and seriously. Over the course of this committee's work in past months in exploring how we might recommend improvements and changes to the Conflict of Interest Act and the Ethics Commissioner's ambit, that's one of the reasons we've approached this issue with the seriousness and good faith that this topic requires.
However, when we're faced with a motion like this—a motion that has brought before this committee an issue that has been a subject of concern for my colleagues across the table for many months now and has been infused into many of our discussions along the way since our committee was first formed—I think it's fair for us to ask about the intentions of the members opposite in bringing forward such a motion. Their intention is, perhaps, to tie up the government by conducting yet another fishing expedition into an area of governance that has been settled.
Mr. Chair, it was months ago that we had the Ethics Commissioner himself, as well as both the Clerk of the Privy Council and the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, before this committee for hours to answer questions about the conflict of interest regime and how it's applied. As a result of the meetings that we dedicated to this pursuit, I think all committee members were afforded a great deal of clarity about how this regime operates in terms of the resources dedicated to the Privy Council and to the Prime Minister and his staff as well. Not only that, I think this committee received at the time a very good-faith commitment—a commitment that has subsequently been delivered on—to continue to apprise this committee on the operation of the conflict of interest screen in particular.
However, what we've seen here is a far more searching effort to go hunting through not only the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office, but any department across government for any correspondence and all emails, text messages, instant messages and other records of conversation to provide a level of reporting to this committee that is truly unprecedented and raises the question of why my colleagues opposite choose to bring this motion forward now. I say that with great respect for my colleagues and for this regime, but also with a desire to point them back to some of the testimony this committee heard about the operation of the screen from the witnesses this committee opted to call.
We heard from the commissioner himself about the operation of the conflict of interest screen and how this is a method that's been approved by the Federal Court of Appeal and is a helpful measure in administering the Conflict of Interest Act. We heard from him that this is a useful tool in ensuring that the people responsible for the day-to-day work around the Prime Minister—the people responsible for the documents that would land on his desk—review them to see if they contain anything that would require the Prime Minister to recuse himself.
“It's a preventive measure” is what the commissioner said. Not only has this preventive measure been applied in numerous examples across the government, dating back decades, but it's also one that works.
The designated operators of the conflict of interest screen—in this case, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council—are precisely the people who are responsible for the documents that come before the Prime Minister on both the public service side and the political side of that office. The commissioner said, “The two of them work with a large team to review every single thing that has to come before the Prime Minister to see if there's a potential conflict of interest.” At the time when the commissioner appeared, he said, “Representatives from the Prime Minister's Office have explained to the committee what they do to manage the screen. Based on their testimony, I believe that it's a measure that works well.”
Mr. Chair, this is important, because this isn't coming from Liberal benches or Conservative benches. This is coming from an independent agent of Parliament, an agent of Parliament who is hired specifically to be non-partisan, to be able to preside over sensitive personal information of every parliamentarian under the code or the act, and to adjudicate fairly, without the added burden of partisanship that has a tendency—fairly or unfairly—to colour these inquiries when they're raised in a committee such as this or by my colleagues across the way.
We have an independent agent of Parliament who is saying, “Based on their testimony, I believe that it's a measure that works well.” He is a commissioner who has the authority to put in place conflict of interest screens wherever they're required, for every parliamentarian. He is entrusted with that responsibility by parliamentarians, by Parliament itself, and is attesting to the fact that this is a set-up that works.
Mr. Chair, I think that this testimony from the commissioner should be given a great deal of weight, because the moment we depart from looking at his advice, his testimony, his commentary on a matter like this, we are chipping away at the integrity and independence of the very office that Parliament struck to deal with these issues.
We heard from experts throughout our study of the Conflict of Interest Act that it is entirely appropriate that we have an independent agent looking at these matters precisely to avoid the potential for abuse, the potential to weaponize concerns about conflicts of interest, at a time when we know, through our own experience as parliamentarians, that in fact this can occur and does occur. We heard that from experts in our study as well.
When the commissioner comes forward and says that what has been set up works and that there is an appropriate system in place for engaging a screen, reporting on a screen and establishing a screen and for all the different phases of the mechanism of setting up a conflict of interest screen and applying it, that should be taken very seriously by all of us. It was Parliament's decision to entrust him with the authority to manage this regime on behalf of all of us because, as we have also heard, you cannot build a regime based on a single person. You have to build a regime that applies fairly, transparently and equally across all parliamentarians.
When I consider how the Ethics Commissioner looked at this and then I look at the motion before us today, it makes me wonder why my friends opposite would rather have a committee dive into this across government, as opposed to taking the Ethics Commissioner at his word as the one who is most entrusted to deal with this matter.
Mr. Chair, I think one of the reasons the Ethics Commissioner would have come to this conclusion in the first place is the quality of the arrangement that is in place, which this committee heard about both from the clerk and from the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. When the clerk was before this committee answering our questions, he reminded us that, “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.”
That is why the Prime Minister, working with the Ethics Commissioner, agreed to and published a public declaration on agreed compliance measures, including a conflict of interest screen and the blind trust. These promote transparency and public confidence in decision-making. When the clerk was here, he said, “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.”
While my colleagues opposite have continued to come back to this issue at every possible occasion over the past 10 months that we've had this committee in operation, I question why they have focused so much on this when all of the testimony that we've heard is that the Prime Minister has gone above and beyond his ethics requirements. He has done so in collaboration with the Ethics Commissioner. He has set up one of the most stringent screens that we've heard of, according to testimony from some of our witnesses, such that the Ethics Commissioner himself believes that this is a measure that works well.
If we're thinking about this, it's important for us to think about how this actually works, to understand fully why this conflict of interest screen is as effective as it is.
Mr. Sabia described this as a “rigorous process” of implementing the screen “that has been fully validated by the Ethics Commissioner.” He said:
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.
Then he went on to describe a comprehensive assessment tool that he later, at our request, tabled to this committee to demonstrate just how serious this government and this Prime Minister are about applying the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen and establishing a serious process to ensure that no conflict arises. That assessment tool broadly covers key areas that warrant specific attention. It covers guidance to public servants on how to conduct an analysis of what could create a conflict. It creates a standardized process to undertake this type of assessment. This might very well be the most comprehensive set of instructions and the first tool put in place by the Privy Council to give effect to a conflict of interest screen.
Conflict of interest screens happen across government. They can happen across cabinet. This is not an unusual circumstance for a member of cabinet to find themselves in. It is not unusual for ministerial offices, for the Prime Minister's Office and even for senior offices in the civil service to have to constantly be alert to, be aware of and deal with conflicts of interest, because they can arise in a wide variety of places from person to person. You may not even have a screen, but you can still find yourself in a conflict of interest because parliamentarians come with families and friends. Even if you don't have a formal screen in place, each one of us has a responsibility to always be alert to the potential for a conflict of interest to arise. That responsibility, that obligation, exists for every member of Parliament.
This assessment tool further institutionalizes and provides further guidance to a much broader group of public servants, in particular, who need to know how and when to apply a conflict of interest lens and how a screen would operate. In that sense, it's very useful. It no doubt will be a useful assessment tool, not only for other ministers but also for the hundreds of other senior public servants who find themselves among the designated public office holders who may be likely to have a conflict of interest screen.
The conflict of interest assessment tool in use now—just to give you a sense of how it works—first sets out whom it's administered by. This follows the same language disclosed on the Ethics Commissioner's website:
This screen is administered by my Chief of Staff and by the Clerk of the Privy Council to ensure that I am neither made aware of nor participate in any official matters or decision-making processes involving the Companies' interests. I may, however, participate in a discussion or decision on a matter that is of general application or that affects the Companies' interests as a member of a broad class of persons unless those interests are disproportionate to the other members of the class.
The screen is operative to try to meet that objective. The tool then goes into “How to conduct the analysis”:
To conduct the analysis, contextual information related to the companies that are subject to the screen and the sectors of the Canadian economy that warrant specific attention is set out...followed by a list of questions to guide the analysis as to whether the screen should be applied.
The assessment tool talks about “Matters that must be included in the screen”. It talks about “Matters requiring assessment” and areas where “specific attention” is warranted. Then it offers a questionnaire designed to guide an individual on how to conduct the analysis required, which is then “documented in the template” associated with the tool and “developed [expressly] for this purpose.”
That questionnaire is seven questions long. It involves examples, and it involves a lot of guidance that's available to anyone who is considering whether or not the conflict of interest screen should be invoked. It also goes on to define what is a matter of general application and what is a broad class. I think that's important, Mr. Chair, because I know that's been a source of some discussion here within the committee.
In terms of how the assessment tool works to help answer questions on whether a decision or discussion is one of general application, an individual needs to think about the following:
If the decision or discussion applies to an undetermined group of people or companies, then the matter is of general application.
If the decision or discussion applies to a regulated activity and to an identifiable group, then the matter is not of general application.
If the decision or discussion applies to a particular entity, person or group of entities or persons, or to a particular situation, then the matter is not of general application.
It sets a pretty clear scope for what constitutes general application.
For a broad class, similarly:
If the decision or discussion applies to a large number of entities or people, who may have different characteristics, but share at least one important characteristic...then the matter applies to a broad class.
If the decision or discussion applies to a small group, then the matter does not apply to a broad class.
The assessment tool even goes so far as to provide an example:
The mortgage insurance sector in Canada is comprised of two main players, one of which is subject to the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen.... As it is not possible to conclude that a matter involving mortgage insurance relates to a broad class of persons, such matters will trigger the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, in accordance with the Clerk's decision as administrator of the screen.
Mr. Chair, we have a very thorough.... There are 10 pages of guidance on the assessment tool that Mr. Sabia and PCO tabled for our committee and for all members here to review, to have a look at and to have comfort with the seriousness with which PCO and PMO are looking at this issue—that's 10 pages' worth of guidance. Serious thought has gone into creating this tool.
I believe that Mr. Sabia, when he was here, called this one of the most “robust” conflict of interest screens he's seen throughout the public and private sectors in his long career. I take that advice and that commentary, along with the commissioner's, who said that this is “a measure that works well”.
Again, I come back to my colleague Mr. Barrett's motion. As I read it, Mr. Chair, it continues to be along the lines of the same type of fishing expedition and the same type of soliloquy that we have heard at this committee: trying to find smoke where there is no fire, to make an issue where the independent commissioner of ethics and the non-partisan Clerk of the Privy Council have both stood behind what the Prime Minister's Office, the Ethics Commissioner and the PCO have put in place to manage effectively a situation that has arisen many times in government, facing members of the executive, with a screen in place on how to manage that effectively without compromising the day-to-day work and functioning of the government.
Mr. Chair, my opposition to this motion is rooted not in opposition to a regime that I believe works well and effectively, but in how motions like this one are repetitive and redundant. They are motions that take up the time of committees, the House, the government, the Prime Minister and the hundreds of public servants whose time and energy are used to fulfill motions like the one before us today. Those are precious resources.
At a moment in time when Canadians want us to be focused on them, building this country, making it more resilient, making it more sovereign, ensuring that we are building Canadian prosperity for the future, ensuring that we have a Prime Minister who is focused on the economic turbulence that we've been thrown into as a country, which Canadians across the country are experiencing, we know this is exactly the type of motion that Canadians would see as distracting a government. They would see it as redundant and unnecessary, particularly when they know that, as ethics committee members, we are already in receipt of information on a continuing basis from the Privy Council on the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen. That was an ask by this committee and committee members, which Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard, without hesitation, agreed to deliver on when they appeared before us last fall—without hesitation.
Here we are, many months later, debating a motion from Mr. Barrett that goes into this level of detail to try to surface every manner of correspondence and digital record, essentially, across the whole of government. I think Canadians would see this for what it is. It is an attempt to derail a government, a Prime Minister and a public service that are working hard right now for Canadians on the issues that matter most to them and that are going to serve our country going forward. These issues require all of us, as parliamentarians, to be as focused as we can be on ensuring that we come out of this current challenge that we have globally, on account of our neighbours to the south. It's a difficult but important time for our country.
I look forward to hearing some of my other colleagues on this motion as well, including my colleagues across the way, to understand why the information we've had to date has been insufficient, why the opinion of our independent and distinguished Ethics Commissioner is, for them, somehow insufficient and why the reporting we receive as committee members is insufficient in their minds. As we hear more, both from my colleagues and from members opposite, I hope we will all take a step back and think carefully about how we are spending our time while we are here representing Canadians, as parliamentarians.
Let's do the best work that we possibly can to ensure that we are building Canada and that we are focused on the issues that are going to make a difference in the day-to-day lives of Canadians, as opposed to treasure hunts and fishing expeditions like this one.
With that, I'd like to turn this to one of my colleagues, but I ask that you please put me at the bottom of the speaking list.