Evidence of meeting #38 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 lobbying.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Again, as a reminder for everyone, keep your phones on silent. They're distracting the interpreters.
Thank you.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I was at line 2 of paragraph (b) of the motion, Mr. Hardy. I just want to make sure I've not lost you.
It continues: “…the Prime Minister's Office, or any federal government department; including, but not be limited to, each meeting the Prime Minister attended…”
When did the Prime Minister take office? As I said earlier, it was on March 14, 2025. For your information, Mr. Hardy, tomorrow will mark one year since the federal general elections took place, and you and I were elected. That was on April 28, 2025. Thus, the motion is asking for details on the international travel the Prime Minister has taken since he became the Prime Minister on March 14, 2025.
It continues: “…and every attendee at these meetings; and that these documents shall be provided to the committee in both official languages and without redaction…”
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Excuse me, Ms. Lapointe.
I hear a noise. I suspect this one is coming from one of the Surface Pros back there. It's actually interrupting the chair, and it's interrupting the interpreters as well.
Please keep your phones and your laptops, and anything else that makes noise, on silent.
Go on, Ms. Lapointe.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I'm sorry for the interpreters. It's really difficult. I too have a hard time focusing when there's a lot of noise. It makes it hard for me to focus on what I want to say.
It continues: “…within six weeks of the adoption of this motion.”
I've spoken to all the travel the Prime Minister has taken since he became Prime Minister. He has taken 17 trips to 25 countries. I was talking about China when my colleague asked his question. That trip took place at the beginning of January. The Prime Minister also travelled to Qatar and to Davos, Switzerland. Would you like me to remind you what the Prime Minister said in Davos? He said that if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. That was on the mind of many people. We have to be at the negotiating table to ensure—
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, did you give the total catering amount? I think I missed it in the translation.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I spoke about Qatar, but in this case, I was talking about the trip to Davos, Switzerland where the World Economic Forum was taking place.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Davidson. We're going to continue.
Go ahead, Madame Lapointe.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
There was also a visit to Australia in March and a visit to Japan. I would remind the committee that Japan is one of the key markets with strong potential for expanding our international trade. The people of Japan love all our agri-food products. Today, one of our colleagues spoke about lobster fishing, which is just starting. There is a strong demand for lobster in Japan. Our entire lobster shipments go to Japan and China.
The Prime Minister also travelled to Norway. We spoke about NATO. We need to sustain efforts on that front and ensure that all members are fully engaged. The Prime Minister travelled to Great Britain again and to Italy and will soon travel to the Dominican Republic for the 10th Summit of the Americas.
That's it for the Prime Minister's travel. I can also share the topics if you'd like, but I think I've covered the motion in detail. That is what the motion is asking for—
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you very much, colleague.
In short, the information on the Prime Minister's travel, the purpose and surrounding events is available. I mentioned the Prime Minister's speech in Davos. Canadians understand that if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. A large number of Canadians walk up to me to tell me that is not acceptable.
Now, we need to expand our international trade. The Standing Committee on International Trade is considering some very interesting motions for studies. You should come and take a look, Mr. Barrett. You might get some inspiration for your next motion. We also need to expand markets in Africa. Big things are happening in Africa. There is also Mercosur, South Africa, South America and all countries in the Indo-Pacific and Europe. We need to reduce our exposure to events south of the border.
Thank you very much. I'm prepared to have another turn.
Mr. Chair, please put my name down again. I will be more than glad to come back.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.
Before I go to Mr. Saini, I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to allow for a break.
We'll resume at five o'clock.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We have returned from a brief suspension.
Next on the list, on the motion, I have Mr. Saini.
Mr. Saini, in the words of Pat Benatar, “Hit [us] with your best shot”, sir. Go ahead.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Chair, we've been at the ETHI committee for the last 10 months. It seems to me that my friends on the opposite side only have one agenda, and that is a fishing expedition for something we know is not there.
The other thing is that our country is going through some very difficult times, and it seems to me that the members on the opposite side just want to make sure that they derail the government agenda of building a strong Canada.
In the last eight to 10 months, we have heard constantly that Canadians don't have faith in our government and the Prime Minister. I just wanted to remind everyone that a year ago, we had an election where the people of Canada elected the Prime Minister, which says they have trust and faith in him. They had two choices. One was the Leader of the Opposition, who couldn't hold his own seat. Canadians elected a Prime Minister they believed was the right person at the right time to lead the country in a difficult time.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON
Mr. Chair, I just lost volume.
Did he just say that Canadians elected a minority government? Could he just clarify?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I believe that's what he said. Just make sure you have your earpiece in, Mr. Davidson.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON
Okay. They elected a minority government. Thanks very much.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
We've heard a lot of testimony from a lot of experts who said that the best system in the world to look after ethics is in Canada. This was not only heard from Canadians. We also heard witnesses from overseas who said that Canadian ethics are the best in the world. However, we still continue ignoring those things.
We also heard from Ms. Turnbull, who said that you cannot create ethics laws based on one person. However, it seems to me that my friends opposite have only one person in mind: the Prime Minister of Canada. It's sad that we are working under these circumstances.
I want to find out what we are trying to address here. Regarding the proposal Mr. Barrett put out, most of the information is already there, and it's very effectively done. All the systems are in place and functioning as intended. The Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen is an effective preventive tool. Its purpose is to stop conflicts before they arise. By all accounts, it is doing what its purpose is. We also heard directly that the Prime Minister, before he became Prime Minister, put everything in a blind trust. Those blind trusts are not something the Prime Minister started. They've been going on for years. Every Prime Minister, whether they were Conservative or Liberal, has used them effectively. Therefore, we already have the required transparency in place.
What is being proposed today is further monthly reporting on external and internal records—broad categories of communication—along with detailed travel information. My colleague Ms. Lapointe went through the places the Prime Minister has gone to, and the purposes for that. His travel has been very successful. If you look, we have the best economy, and it is doing what it is supposed to be doing. We have created more jobs than our friends in the United States are telling us. They lost 6,000 jobs, whereas we gained 80,000 jobs in Canada. That is from the work the Prime Minister is doing, and it's working.
We also heard from the Ethics Commissioner that the essential safeguards are there. This is to ensure that the Prime Minister is not aware of the screening applied until decisions are finalized and made public. The protection exists to preserve the integrity and independence of that process.
There is also a practical side to this. Public servants are already meeting the current reporting requirements. Adding a much more frequent and detailed reporting structure would require a significant amount of time and resources, which quite inevitably means less capacity for other important work that concerns the role of this committee. We have before us important studies and responsibilities, including work related to the Lobbying Act and other reports, that require careful attention.
These are issues that have a direct impact on Canadians and their lives, issues on which our efforts can make a meaningful difference. Transparency is essential, and accountability matters. At the same time, it is worth considering whether increasing the volume and frequency of reporting necessarily leads to better oversight, especially when systems have already been validated and reporting is already under way.
The question becomes this: How do we ensure that we maintain strong accountability while also being mindful of the effectiveness, proportionality and priorities that matter most to Canadians in these times?
I'm going to talk about conflict of interest—
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Actually, I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
If Mr. Davidson has any question, he needs to allow the other people respectful dignity, and I don't see that. Last week, the same thing happened. I would expect that he would let people continue doing what they're doing.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Professor Lori Turnbull made a critical distinction between soft and hard approaches to ethics regulation, arguing that the concept of an apparent conflict of interest belongs in a code of conduct, not in legislation. She told the committee:
Enforcing that into a law is a different thing. I think the appearance of conflict of interest is problematic. It can cause a trust problem with the public. There's a reason to enumerate that in a code. Enumerating it into a law starts to create problems in terms of back and forth around whether there's really an appearance. How do you get into the legalities of that? If you're going to start fining people in terms of administrative monetary penalties, that's messy to me....
This is legislation, not an aspiration, and the consequences of getting it wrong are severe.
Scott Thurlow pointed to the fundamental difficulty of proving the appearance of conflict objectively and warned that including apparent conflicts of interest in the act would “create more problems than it solves.” Michael Wernick, with a decade of experience at the highest level in the public service, cautioned against the concept as well, stating he doesn't think we can describe potential issues of perceived conflicts in the future in a way that can be supported, including in principle, and believes extending the act to include apparent conflicts would make it harder to apply.
On the general application rule and the recommendation of narrowing the exclusion for a decision of general application, particularly as it applies to prime ministers and the parliamentary secretaries, this recommendation, if implemented, could render senior members of the executive unable to govern.
On the blind trust, let's start with the fact that the federal Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that the Prime Minister is in full compliance, with assets in a blind trust, no communication with the trustee and a rigorous conflict of interest screen operating exactly as it should. The two administrators of the screen, who are the most senior civil servants, Michael Sabia and Marc-André Blanchard, are not minor figures. These are two of the most senior and experienced people in Canadian public life. Mr. Blanchard described the system as “one of the most comprehensive and rigorous” he has seen in his entire career. Mr. Sabia said it is “every bit as rigorous as any screen [he has] in the private sector, pretty much ever.”
The commissioner himself confirmed to the committee that the screen is working well, and then there are the provincial commissioners. Ontario's integrity commissioner, Cathryn Motherwell, was unequivocal. She has described the blind trust as an essential tool and told this committee she has not seen evidence, in her experience thus far, that indicate that trusts do not work. We had Quebec's ethics commissioner. She had the same opinion. She has been working in her jurisdiction and suggests that blind trusts do...and noted that additional compliance measures can be added if we need them.
If that isn't enough, the Federal Court of Appeal, the highest court in this land, has confirmed that the conflict of interest screen is a lawful and reasonable exercise of the commissioner's authority. This is a settled law.
Let's be honest about what's happening here. The opposition had before it the federal Ethics Commissioner, two sitting provincial commissioners, the Federal Court of Appeal decision and two of the most respected administrators in the country all pointing to the same thing: The system we have is very rigorous. Our friends on the opposition continue to ignore all of those facts.
Professor Lori Turnbull drew a very clear distinction, saying apparent conflicts of interest belong in a code of conduct, not in legislation. Her words were direct: “Enumerating it into a law starts to create problems in terms of back and forth around whether there's really an appearance.”
Michael Wernick, the former clerk of the Privy Council, cautioned that perceived conflicts cannot be described in legislation “with a lot of clarity.” Scott Thurlow warned that this would “create more problems than it solves.” Perhaps the most telling story came from Guy Giorno, the former chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper, who supported the idea in principle. He conceded that extending the act to an apparent conflict would make it “harder to apply”.
Then there's the practical reality that Professor Andrew Stark put squarely on the table. An ethics commissioner could find themselves compelled to rule on allegations effected by political opponents on social media in a parliamentary system built on adversarial debate. This is not a hypothetical issue. This is a certainty that my friends continue to push for.
We believe this recommendation would put vague and highly subjective legal standards into federal legislation, and the unintended consequences of getting that wrong are serious.
Let's be clear about what the general application exemption actually is. It's not a loophole. It's a foundational feature of ethics legislation that exists in virtually every regime across Canada. The federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's own legal counsel confirmed this to the committee directly. Scott Thurlow pulled apart the practical, consequential penalty when he asked, “if we don't have a general application rule, will parliamentarians ever be able to vote on anything? Where do we draw the line with something in front of Parliament that is important for the country to keep going?” He went further, pointing to trade agreements like CUSMA, the federal budget and the countless other matters on which a parliamentarian's past experience will enlighten and have bearing.
Professor Andrew Stark acknowledged that the Prime Minister, in that way, would simply be unable to govern effectively. Michael Wernick recommended against expanding the concept of private interests in this direction, noting that many policies, including the federal budget, have implications that touch virtually everyone.
What the opposition is proposing is so narrow that this rule, specifically for the most senior decision-makers in the country—the Prime Minister and the cabinet—would not strengthen accountability. It would create an unworkable regime at the exact level of the government where effective decision-making matters the most.
We, with my friends on the opposite side, talked about tax havens. Let's start with what Canada's leading tax law scholar, Professor Allison Christians, told the committee. The chair of law at McGill University was categorical when she said, “A tax haven is not a technical term,” and “Every country could be accused of being a tax haven”. She doesn't recognize that term and she couldn't use it for us.
A lot of Canadian taxes are even lower than those in the U.S., and Canada could be considered a tax haven. Are we telling the world that investing in Canada is wrong because Canada is a tax haven? This is the philosophy my opponents are trying to spread.
Scott Thurlow was very blunt when he said, “I don't like the term ‘tax haven’. I think there is a pejorative aspect to it.” When Andres Knobel of the Tax Justice Network acknowledged that declaring a jurisdiction as a tax haven is often politically driven and inconsistently applied—
Conservative
