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.