Information & Ethics Committee on May 4th, 2026

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

That's exactly why you're elected, to make that decision. I will administer it.

I'm not here to comment on your report. Your report was sent to the government. You will have hearings on it, and at that point in time, I will give my views of any amendments you suggest.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

In fairness, Commissioner, you're making a recommendation on one, but you're refusing to say one way or the other on the other. You're prepared to say you believe a perceived conflict should be covered. You've staked out very clear ground on that.

In this case, I'm looking for the same. Either you agree or you don't. You've made it clear that you agree on the question of perceived conflicts being included, in spite of Parliament's having excluded it originally. In this case, Parliament previously excluded it. The committee has recommended that there be a modification made to the law.

You're well within your right, sir, to offer your opinion, as you did on the former subject.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

My opinion, as set out in the annual report, was based on three years of experience in this job and the urgent needs that should be addressed because they're outdated. These are such things, as I mentioned, like exchange-traded funds, etc., that you have to get rid of because they're controlled assets. I have never understood why that.... Presumably, it's because it didn't exist.

Now, you're talking about making a value judgment. I made my value judgment on the question you're posing right now. Is this excessive, asking people to divest? Does that mean we won't get good people to accept, or is it something that is necessary? That's really a judgment of Parliament. I can give my opinion when an amendment is presented or discussed, but it's not something I advocate for at this point in time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Ms. Church, you have six minutes. Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, thank you for being here with your colleagues today and for your continuing work in this capacity.

First of all, for all of us in the room and anyone watching, my colleague Mr. Barrett referred to the report of the committee. It was a majority report. On this side of the table, we issued quite a strong dissenting opinion.

One of the areas that I want to explore with you has to do with how the majority report recommended removing some of the purposes of the act, including paragraph 3(d), “encourage experienced and competent persons to seek and accept public office”, and paragraph 3(e), “facilitate interchange between the private and public sector.”

Commissioner, do you agree that those remain important purposes of the act?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

If you remove those, you really amend the whole concept of the act. As I mentioned in my answer to Mr. Barrett, the act is a balance between bringing the best people in and making sure that there are no conflicts.

You're now starting to say.... It's suddenly taking away the goal of wanting to bring the best people into the public service. It becomes very questionable. Why are you doing this? What are you trying to achieve here? All it means is that it will be much more difficult for people to come in and serve the public than it is right now.

It seems to me that the dual goals expressed in the act are actually in very good balance. Making that balance and making the right decision is part of my job. We want the twin goals. We want people to have confidence in their public officials, but we also want to make sure that the best ones come in—not only those who have no conflicts because they have no assets but that they have not done anything that could possibly amount to a conflict.

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

In that vein, then, as your office administers and provides advice to parliamentarians, the tools in your tool kit—whether they're disclosure, blind trust or a conflict of interest screen—work well, in your assessment, to ensure that we are able to establish that balance you're speaking of.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

You heard in your hearings regarding the possible improvements of the act how everybody basically said we were close to the gold standard internationally in terms of conflict of interest. We have managed to avoid any serious conflicts of interest. No government has fallen over a conflict of interest, big scandals, etc.

The system is not perfect. There's no question about it. It could be improved, but by and large, it works and it works well.

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

One of the other areas where we had some disagreement on the committee and where our dissenting report goes into some detail is the question of a general application. I want to put this back to you.

When you appeared with your legal counsel, Michael Aquilino, he stated, “The general application exemption is found in all ethics regimes in Canada. It's an almost uniform provision across all provinces.” Can you confirm that is still the case?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I'm not aware of anyone who does not have a general application exemption. After all, it's the job of Parliament to make sure of rules that apply generally. If you apply it to everybody just because they have an interest, that doesn't mean they should be disqualified.

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

Do you see a challenge if Parliament were to remove this general application in terms of the functioning of the executive of government—ministers, the Prime Minister and parliamentary secretaries—in the absence of a general application provision?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

It's difficult. Think, for instance, of the Income Tax Act. It's a general application. It applies to everybody. All of you pay income tax. I pay income tax. If you can't now make rules on tax.... You may not call it a general exception, but there has to be something whereby you can do your job and legislate something that applies to everybody.

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

That makes sense.

I have one last question for you, if I have time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have 53 seconds.

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

In terms of controlled assets, one of the debates we've had at this committee is around holding controlled assets and the operation of a blind trust. When a controlled asset enters into a blind trust, is it considered divested, in your estimation?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Yes. That's what the act provides. You could either divest it or put it in a blind trust, the goal being that you don't touch it, you don't know what happens to it and you can't influence its value.

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

Once an asset is put into a blind trust, the person who was the original holder of it is considered to have divested that asset.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Church.

Mr. Bonin, you have six minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Commissioner and associates.

I would like to go back to the Annual Report 2024‑2025, in respect of the Conflict of Interest Act, which was tabled in the House. In your opinion, are there two or three key recommendations that should absolutely be implemented?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I mentioned the issue of controlled assets. That is too strict. I think capital markets are developing. We have new instruments, among other things. All trade-related items are prohibited; that's too much. We have to be able to moderate things. There are new instruments that do not influence anything, but they are prohibited and must be divested.

Second, there is no one who can do my job. If I'm unable to do my job, basically, my office doesn't function, can't make decisions, because all decisions are personal. There should be a mechanism for somebody else to do my job. I would suggest the lobbying commissioner, but it could be someone else. There has to be a mechanism.

Third, there are a lot of activities that members of Parliament or public servants could do for the common good that they are prohibited from doing. You can teach at a university without pay and teach a course on how government works, whatever your specialty is. Right now, however, if you want to teach at a university, they'll say that's great, but you have to become a university employee because the agreement with the unions is that everyone who teaches has to be an employee of the university.

I can't tell you that you can go there to share your knowledge or expertise, that it has nothing to do with your position and that it will help students grow. No, I can't say that. You cannot be a university employee.

We need to be able to make changes to certain practices if there is no potential conflict of interest.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Do you think the current framework is archaic, that it doesn't allow us to get to the bottom of things and that reform is needed?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Could you rephrase your question, please?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Let me give you an example. The federal government created the Major Projects Office. In that office, there are people who are essentially loaned to the office by financial institutions, private companies, banks, for example, because of their expertise. Meanwhile, they receive some financial compensation from their previous employer, such as a bank.

The person is not in a personal conflict of interest, but a bank could finance a company for a project, for example. So the person is not in a conflict of interest; they are simply signing a document.

Should the framework be reviewed from that perspective?