Evidence of meeting #5 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 assets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy & Administration, York University, As an Individual
I'm not sure that recusal would be necessary that frequently. I'm familiar with the kind of business that Parliament does. I just don't think it would happen all that frequently.
Keep in mind that the Minister of Finance—
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
In this case, what do you think would be an acceptable number of times the Prime Minister can recuse himself when he is the one who decides on the country's economic policies? We know very well that it's tricky when the Prime Minister recuses himself but his chief of staff stays in the room. I don't think the cabinet would make a decision that goes against the interests of the person leaving the room. He's not just a minister; he's the Prime Minister, who has absolute power over everybody in the room who is going to make the decision.
Should we have stricter requirements and means to regulate the current scenario? It is unusual in terms of managing conflicts of interest and a case study that would be very interesting to academics.
Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy & Administration, York University, As an Individual
Keep in mind that legislation that has a general impact on the public doesn't lead to individual conflicts of interest. For example, you might be able to argue that the Minister of Finance has a conflict of interest when bringing down tax legislation, but because taxes affect everyone, including the Minister of Finance, there's no real conflict of interest there. I think most legislation that the Prime Minister would deal with would have that general application, affecting the Prime Minister's assets only incidentally.
I just don't think that there would be recusal very often. I would guess a couple of times a year at the most.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Personally, I don't think so.
Let's look at the situation with Bill C‑5. Brookfield has interests in the railways covered by the bill, in natural gas processing, in pipelines and in nuclear power plants. Westinghouse is owned by Brookfield. Nuclear energy will be used to build small nuclear power plants. The day we decide to move forward, which will happen because the policy was adopted under a gag order in the House, we know full well that all these interests will be on the table again.
That means that, ethically, the Prime Minister should say that Westinghouse cannot bid on contracts. I would not be happy if I were currently at Brookfield. Ethically speaking, all this means that there will eventually be conflicts of interest, not just apparent ones. The Prime Minister is the one who decides; the minister who leaves the room is not just one among many. The Prime Minister can also make the decision and see if it would be an abuse of the public trust. This is an unusual scenario. Never mind any doubts about this person's merit or criticisms of the way he manages Canada. The fact remains that, from an ethical standpoint, this is unprecedented.
First, shouldn't everyone know about the screens that have been put in place, for the sake of transparency? Second, are these screens sufficient?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Unfortunately, I need a very quick response, Mr. Greene.
Go ahead.
Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy & Administration, York University, As an Individual
I still think that Bill C-5 should be considered a matter of general application. I would not be convinced that there are potential conflicts of interest here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Greene.
Go ahead, Mr. Hardy, for five minutes, please.
September 24th, 2025 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Greene.
I have a quick question for you. Are there any countries, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Scandinavia, whose democratic structure might be worth looking at? Could we learn from them or other similar jurisdictions, particularly in terms of sanctions and transparency, to see whether Canada's approach to ethics is improving?
Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy & Administration, York University, As an Individual
It's always worthwhile looking at other countries. The countries you mention have all learned from Canada. We were really at the forefront of improving standards of ethics in politics, beginning in the late 1980s, but those countries have sometimes made advances beyond where we are.
I know that ethics commissioners, including your Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, have their own networks. In addition to looking at best practices from one another, they look at other countries, and they often have speakers from other countries talking about this.
Yes, it is worthwhile keeping abreast of this.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
You said that the conflict of interest and lobbying rules had improved a lot since the 1990s, but that there were still obvious shortcomings.
The Prime Minister has interests in hundreds of companies the government is going to do business with. In your opinion, given that scenario, what would be the most urgent ethics priority to examine in 2025? We need to rebuild public trust in our institutions, but we also need to make sure we have proper oversight and are in a good position going forward.
Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy & Administration, York University, As an Individual
We want to make sure that there aren't conflict of interest scandals—proven, real conflicts of interest. It's going to be very important for the Prime Minister and his advisers to make sure that those kinds of situations are avoided. Because the ethics screens have been put in place for the Prime Minister, I think they will be avoided.
What concerns me is that other cabinet ministers may not be as well informed. That's why I think that all cabinet ministers should meet in person with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to better understand the rules, just to keep them out of trouble.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Do you think we should expand the scope of the Conflict of Interest Act so that it also applies to the appearance of conflict of interest? When there is an apparent conflict, should we be able to start an ethics investigation or should we always wait for a conflict of interest to be declared before taking action?
Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy & Administration, York University, As an Individual
I think that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner should advise how elected MPs and cabinet ministers can avoid apparent conflicts of interest as well as real conflicts of interest. The public doesn't understand the difference between the two; it's pretty arcane for them. If you're found to be in an apparent conflict of interest, in the public eye, it's almost as bad as being in a real conflict of interest, and sometimes worse.
Yes, I think the act should include both. The penalties for being in an apparent conflict of interest shouldn't be as severe as those for being in a real conflict of interest, but I think all politicians need to make sure that they avoid those as well.
As I mentioned earlier, it's something your committee should look into. If the act is going to be amended to include apparent conflicts of interest, it's important to know how this can be done in the most effective way.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
A little earlier, my colleague asked you whether, in the event of an apparent conflict of interest, the Ethics Commissioner is the person who is entitled to say whether or not there is a real conflict of interest. There could be a lot of them with all the businesses that may be subject to federal decisions.
Do you think that, at some point, that person could end up overwhelmed by the number of cases to be processed and could, by necessity, let a few slip by? Do you see that as something that could happen, given the current structure of the Ethics Commissioner's office and the way things work in Canada?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm going to need a quick response to that, Mr. Greene. I will give you a little bit of time. Go ahead.
Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy & Administration, York University, As an Individual
The Ethics Commissioner has nearly 60 people to help with the various duties of the office. It's a very complex office. I would rely on the annual reports of the commissioner as to what changes might be helpful to make it work more effectively.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Greene.
We're going to conclude today with Mr. Saini for five minutes.
Go ahead, Mr. Saini.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Professor Greene, this whole afternoon we have been focused on only one thing, the Prime Minister of Canada. I find it disturbing that we are looking for people who have never done any business to be the public office holders of the most effective office in this country. I find that disturbing.
Besides that, my question to you is this: If someone who is holding a public office has to divest their entire investment portfolio when entering public life, could they choose the option of utilizing a blank trust?
Could you give your opinion?
Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy & Administration, York University, As an Individual
I think it's counterproductive for public office holders to divest everything.
I once worked for a cabinet minister in Alberta. At that time, Peter Lougheed was the premier. At that time, in 1972, he required all his cabinet ministers to sell all their stocks and bonds, including my minister, who had to sell his penny stocks and bonds. I think that was overreach, but in those days we hadn't thought of better ways of preventing real conflicts of interest. We were in the early days.
I think the current regime is much better. It makes it more attractive for good people to get involved in politics.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
If you're going to share your time, we have three minutes and 15 seconds.
Who's going ahead?
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Greene, if we were to review the way the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is appointed, would you have any suggestions for us on how to go about it?
Professor Emeritus, School of Public Policy & Administration, York University, As an Individual
Yes. In most of the provinces there is a legislative committee composed of members of all parties. They advertise for the position of ethics commissioner. They interview the best candidates. In some cases, the candidates being interviewed will say that they won't accept the position unless the decision to recommend them is unanimous. It's so important for the commissioner to have the trust of both sides of the House.
I think it would be useful for you to look at what's done in most provinces in choosing the ethics commissioner and maybe think about changing the federal procedure.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you for that information.
Earlier, one of my colleagues talked about other countries that we could learn from, such as the United Kingdom. Which countries could we learn from when it comes to having the best ethical standards within our current laws?