Evidence of meeting #42 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 screen.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you.
I would ask you to wait for just a moment, please, Mr. Fortin.
The clerk will read the motion in French to clarify things.
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mrs. Church's amendment to Mr. Barrett's motion proposes replacing “the fifteenth day of each month” with “a quarterly basis”. I will read the motion with the proposed amendment:
That the committee: (a) require the Privy Council Office (PCO) to provide the committee, on a quarterly basis, with a report detailing each time an assessment was undertaken relating to the application of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, pursuant to the Assessment Tool on the Application of the Prime Minister's Conflict of Interest Screen, including assessments originating in the PCO or any department, from the previous month; that these reports include: (i) a summary of each instance where an assessment was triggered; (ii) the record of the outcome of each analysis; (iii) any records of discussions or considerations that are in the possession of the PCO or any department related to each analysis, including notes and meeting minutes; and (iv) any correspondence related to each analysis, including emails, text messages, instant messages, and other records of conversations; and that the first report shall be provided to the committee by no later than June 15, 2026, and shall include the complete set of information for each assessment since the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen came into effect;
Mrs. Church then proposes adding two new items to Mr. Barrett's motion after item (a). The proposed wording is as follows:
(b) post the reports publicly on the committee’s website; and (c) invite the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner every quarter, to discuss the contents of the most recent quarterly report from PCO.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Fortin and Madam Clerk.
Are we all clear on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Al Soud?
I am going to ask for a vote on the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We are now on the amendment to the motion.
Do I see somebody's hand? No.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now on the main motion.
Ms. Chagger.
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Chair, I've sent this around. Can you please share it with all members to make sure they have it in their preferred language? Then we can all read from the same thing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I appreciate that being sent prior to the intervention. It has been sent by the clerk in both official languages.
I expect that you're moving an amendment, then.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
This is an amendment to the main motion.
Go ahead, Ms. Chagger.
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
This is an amendment to the main motion as amended.
Mr. Fortin, have you received it?
Liberal
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Chair, I move:
That the motion be amended by:
1. by replacing the words:
“an assessment was undertaken relating to the application of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, pursuant to the assessment tool on the application of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, including assessments originating in the PCO or any department, from the previous month; these reports must include (i) a summary of each instance where an assessment was triggered; (ii) the record of the outcome of each analysis; (iii) any records of discussions or considerations that are in the possession of the PCO or any department related to each analysis, including notes and meeting minutes; and (iv) any correspondence related to each analysis, including emails, text messages, instant messages and other records of conversations; and the first report, which shall be provided to the committee by no later than June 15, 2026, shall include the complete set of information for each assessment since the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen came into effect; and”
with the words:
“the Prime Minister’s conflict of interest screen has been applied. Given that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has advised the Prime Minister against learning of when his screen has been applied until a decision has been finalized and made public, such decisions shall be shared after this point, subject to any limitations or privileges that may apply such as national security or cabinet confidence”; and
2. by adding the following:
“(b) require the Privy Council Office (PCO) to provide the committee, as necessary, any updates to the assessment process for applying the Prime Minister’s conflict of interest screen;”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Chagger.
We have an amendment to the main motion. Everybody has a copy of it.
There is some discussion. Mr. Barrett has put his name on the list.
Go ahead, Mr. Barrett, please, on the amendment proposed by Ms. Chagger.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
The Clerk of the Privy Council came to committee. He provided us with the assessment tool. It's entitled “Prime Minister's Conflict of Interest Screen”. It's a maximum of two pages of analysis.
There's an overview that it prescribes. The summary is only one sentence. The position on whether the screen should apply is only one sentence. Why the screen applies is only one sentence. As to the facts that are to be included, that's not, in and of itself, information that ought to rise to the level of national security or non-public information.
I appreciate that whatever we adopt here should not create conditions where we would expect the PCO to release non-public information. That would render the screen useless—publishing information they're looking to screen from the subject of the screen, who, in this case, is the Prime Minister. I get that. We're not looking to work around the screen. We're not looking for information to be made public when it could still be acted on or traded on, or when decisions could be taken because of it.
It says:
Explain the Prime Minister's involvement?
Does the decision or discussion involve direct engagement between any of the Companies listed in Annex A [of the Prime Minister's screen] and the Government of Canada?
Are the interests of one of the Companies involved in the decision or discussion, and if so, in what way?
It goes on. The second page of this tool.... I won't read each one into the record.
There's a decision page at the back. The decision page says:
Do you concur that this issue [engages/does not engage] the application of the Prime Minister’s conflict of interest screen?
Your decision is sought by Click or tap to enter a date.
For positive recommendations, we have applied the screen on a precautionary basis, pending decision.
Yes
No
I need more information.
Then there are two signature blocks, one for Mr. Sabia and one for Monsieur Blanchard, with “Yes”, “No” or “I need more information”.
We're looking for the two pages that the Clerk of the Privy Council—one of two people responsible for the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen—furnished to the committee. That's what we're looking for. He was the one who made their existence known to us, and they're relevant. That's why he told us. It's because they're relevant. What we've received since then is a letter from the deputy secretary to the cabinet. It details some of the circumstances and some of the information, but it doesn't provide the level of granularity that would be of interest to the public. It's also important to know when the screen has not been applied.
We've pursued this issue and will continue to pursue this issue in a spirit of collaboration—truly. I think this process has the potential to provide transparency to Canadians on an issue in the public interest.
There is a ton of media coverage and tons of online discussions about the appearance of conflicts of interest. Why did a meeting between the Prime Minister and this organization or that individual not trigger the screen? How did this action not trigger the screen?
This is a time when we have an opportunity to enhance public confidence in public office holders and our democratic institutions in order to set us apart from other countries. We hear people saying, “Canada has some of the strictest laws” all the time. That doesn't mean that you can't improve on them, and I think that we have the opportunity to do that. It's not an indictment of anyone; it's transparency. I think that it would be beneficial in a lot of ways.
We talk about access to information here. I won't get into a long departure from my core remarks; I'd like to conclude them, but we can do a lot better. I think everyone would agree, all members would agree, that access to information is a very frustrating process even for parliamentarians and definitely for members of the public, including the media.
We need to do better. We can improve on the systems, and this is an opportunity to do that. Is what the motion has better than nothing? Yes, it is, but let's do better than that.
I wonder if the reason we're not seeing some of these things is that there's a reticence on the part of the PCO to provide that information to the committee. I have no interest in just talking in circles around it, and I don't think other members do either.
I wonder if there would be an openness to having the individuals officially responsible for the administration of the screen, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council, come to talk about it again at this point. Perhaps we could have some folks from PCO come for an hour to tell us what we should be looking for. They could directly inform the committee's work in a very helpful and positive way. They could say, “Well, that's really interesting what you said, Mr. Barrett; however, in 100% of the instances, points two, three and four would have to be redacted for the very same reason every time. Point one is the same every time. In fact, the letter that we're providing to you could only be augmented by providing this piece of information. If the committee wishes, we'd be happy to do that.”
I imagine that if we asked them to come before us in advance, they would undertake to put forward the most information they're prepared to offer. We understand the makeup of the committee. The Liberal members have a majority; I get that, but I also think that well-intentioned members around the table could look to build something that is durable and will survive.
We've heard the reason that Mr. Carney has this screen in place is that he brings with him an experience that has created the conditions necessary for this. Certainly, Liberal members have said those are exactly the kinds of conditions from which a prime minister should come. Well, then I would expect that we would want this tool or mechanism to be durable to survive after this Parliament.
One great thing about this country is that we have elections, and people choose to run in them and not to run in them, but if you look historically, no one is around forever. We've had more than a couple of prime ministers. We'll have another one after Mr. Carney.
This tool, this reporting mechanism, should survive the next election and the election after that, and it should only seek to create more transparency for the public and reduce the number of questions that members of the public have about how they can go on and have that meeting.
It's for the same reason that we have the regime with the Ethics Commissioner with our disclosures and for the same reason that we have the Lobbying Act. Those weren't only necessary under the government in which they were created. In fact, they continued thereafter, but we haven't improved on them in a meaningful way. That's why we're reviewing the Lobbying Act. That's why we reviewed the Conflict of Interest Act. We are the drafters of this new tool, and we have the opportunity to do our best to get it right.
Who better to inform us on that, instead of any or all of us getting it second-hand, than to have not the Clerk of the Privy Council himself come back, but someone from his team who is an expert on this and who could articulate why some things would make sense and why they wouldn't make sense. Then the committee could undertake to do that.
For members' consideration, I offer that. That concludes my remarks.
Thank you, Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. Cooper, I have you next, followed by Ms. Church. Go ahead on the amendment.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
I speak in opposition to the amendment, because quite frankly, what it does is gut accountability and transparency. We have the most conflicted Prime Minister in Canadian history. There have been more than 500 conflicts, with 103 conflicts related to Brookfield, in which the Prime Minister has stock options. He stands to make tens of millions of dollars from these options, and from future bonus pay, he stands, again, to make tens of millions of dollars.
We had, in the fall, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's chief of staff come before this committee when we had questions about how the so-called ethics screen would hold up. The Prime Minister holds this up as the gold standard to say that with this ethics screen in place, in the face of 500 conflicts of interest, including 103 related to Brookfield, all is well. Decisions that relate to Brookfield are not being put in front of him, on his desk, and he is recusing himself, because of this so-called robust screen.
The Clerk of the Privy Council, in order to demonstrate the supposed robustness and, frankly, to suggest that there was some level of transparency involving how the screen was applied in terms of documentation, came to us and said they have an assessment tool. Any time there's something flagged wherein the Prime Minister might have a potential conflict of interest, there's an assessment process. Very specific questions are considered.
Once the process is triggered, there is a maximum two-page analysis that documents the issue that had been flagged and the analysis that had been undertaken in respect of the flag in relation to a potential conflict involving the Prime Minister. Then there's a final sign-off by the two persons responsible for administering the ethics screen—the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council. They tick off “yes” to say the screen should be applied; “no” to say the screen shouldn't be applied; or the third option, which is that they need more information and need to go back to the drawing board. That is what the clerk and the Prime Minister's chief of staff have told us is being documented every time a potential issue or conflict is flagged.
With this amendment, which I said guts transparency and accountability, we will only learn of the times that the screen has been invoked. As Mr. Barrett said, that's better than nothing; we'd like to know when the ethics screen has been invoked, but equally relevant is to know the times in which that screen has not been invoked when a question of a potential conflict of interest involving the Prime Minister has been flagged. That is critical in order to understand if the screen is working as it should be, and if in fact decisions involving potential conflicts of interest are being properly captured so that they are not put on the Prime Minister's desk. He's not privy to them.
From the standpoint of transparency, when the Prime Minister's Office says, “Rest assured that we're documenting these instances; there are records”, what good are records if no one can see them? What is being offered with this amendment is that we only see some of the records. We don't see other records that arguably are as material if not more material.
Any time that an issue has been flagged—therefore invoking the process—I'd like to know why ultimately the decision was made as to the screen not being invoked. We need to see both. With this amendment, we only see the positive decisions, not the decisions where the green light is actually given to the Prime Minister to be involved on matters that could relate to Brookfield or could relate to other interests that he has. On that basis, this amendment is problematic.
At the very least, I'd like some better understanding as to what the basis is, what the rationale is, for not including records when a potential conflict has been flagged but a decision has been made to not invoke the screen. What is problematic about presenting that information to this committee? Why is the Prime Minister's Office hiding those outcomes from Canadians? What is it they don't want to show? At the very least, I'd like some explanation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Cooper.
Next on the amendment, I have Ms. Church.
Go ahead, Ms. Church.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Chair, I'll be brief, because I take my colleagues' comments to heart and under consideration.
The amendment that we're proposing does meet some of the tests that my colleagues across the way have set out. The process we have in place right now—the letters we've received from the deputy secretary to the cabinet, the quarterly letters we are receiving that detail the situations where a screen is applied, and the following up, in the course of those letters, with additional information as it is able to be disclosed about decisions that are being made in government at an appropriate time—is an exercise in transparency and accountability that I think we haven't seen before. This is a move in the right direction.
I am heartened that, during the parliamentary break, we received the latest of the letters from the deputy secretary to the cabinet detailing situations that have arisen since February, outlining details around two of those situations where those details can be made public at this time and noting, importantly, that there are additional situations still under consideration that are not yet public, on which we will presumably be provided with details in due course. The letter finishes by setting out that the next quarterly report will be given by August 15.
The process we've set out here is actually a good one for keeping this committee informed on an ongoing basis, and particularly with the portion of the amendment that requires the Privy Council Office to provide the committee, as necessary, any updates to the assessment process for applying the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen. That was actually a nod to what my colleagues across the table are suggesting: that we ensure this committee is informed on a continual basis of the process, both through PCO and by requiring the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to be invited to committee every quarter following one of these reports. It gives an opportunity for this committee to quite transparently consider some of the situations that committee members might be interested in.
I won't belabour this, but what we've come to here is actually a very good development in terms of the conversation we've been having on this for some time now—since last fall—about the process that's under way. There's a good rhythm and now a good sense of the time frames in which we can expect new information. We have a PCO that has been responsive in giving us information according to the schedule that we've set out to date.
This amendment goes one step further in suggesting that we can engage PCO as needed, that we are going to post reports publicly on the committee's website and that we are going to invite the commissioner as need be following these reports. This is a good development, and we'd like to see it move forward.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Church.
I'm going back to Mr. Barrett on the amendment.
