Evidence of meeting #6 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 conacher.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm going to have to stop you there. We're over the five minutes, Mr. Stedman. Maybe you can pick this up through the line of questioning, but thank you for that.
Ms. Turnbull, welcome to the committee. You have five minutes to address us. Thank you.
Lori Turnbull Professor, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Thank you very much for having me.
I will start by saying that ethics regulation, as you all know, is important and complicated work. There is a lot of room for robust dialogue and disagreement about how ethics regimes should be designed. There is no perfect way to do this. There is no way to rid the system entirely of ethical transgressions. There will always be debate about where the line is. No matter how well crafted the rules are, there's no substitute for good judgment. An individual's own ethical compass is always going to be a much greater determinant of their actions than any code of conduct.
When we create and revise conflict of interest and ethics rules for politicians and public office holders, the goal is obviously to protect the public and protect the public interest. Those who occupy public office are also private citizens with interests of their own. We want to make sure that elected officials' private interests do not affect public policy and do not take precedence over the public interest, so we ask elected and public officials to accept certain rules, constraints and responsibilities to maintain a healthy and transparent separation between their public roles and their private interests. The specifics of these responsibilities are going to depend on the kind of role they play; for a cabinet minister, it's going to be different than for a backbencher.
The ethics regime has been adapted over time, often in response to new events, new circumstances and new people. Sometimes there's controversy and it will get a lot of media coverage. If there's a scandal that grips the public's attention, there's a sense that there must be something wrong in the rules or there's some loophole that needs to be closed.
Sometimes, where there's smoke, there's fire, but not always. All public office holders have their own personal circumstances and they interact with the ethics regime in unique ways. Some people have fairly straightforward financial portfolios and likely wouldn't need an ethical screen even if they held the highest public office. Other people have significant financial holdings or they have had leadership roles in the private sector, which could result in the need for a more in-depth effort to separate out their public responsibilities and their private interests.
Others still have relationships, as opposed to financial circumstances, that give rise to a sense of conflict of interest or potential impropriety of some kind. We tend to focus on finance when we talk about conflicts of interest, but sometimes social circumstances can also cause the public to be concerned about whether or not people are acting appropriately.
I'm going to try in a couple of minutes to address some of the issues that the committee has been talking about in recent days.
First, I think I understand the concern about blind trusts. The problem, I think, is that the public office holder is not completely blind. You know what you own when things go into a blind trust. The public is blind, though, because the specific circumstances of blind trusts and ethical screens are not available to them. They get the general; they don't get the specifics. There are trade-offs, obviously, between the public's right to know and the individual's right to privacy when it comes to their financial holdings and those of their family. It's not a small thing. Overreach with respect to disclosure and asset management can deter some people from holding public office. I don't gloss over that. I think it's very important. It is important to remember that ethics regimes exist to enable people's participation in politics, not to make it impossible and not to make it undesirable. Access to political office, as you know better than I do, is important. We want to make sure that's real.
Questions have been raised about whether ethics rules should apply to leadership candidates. Leadership contests are run by political parties for the most part, as you know, with Elections Canada having an oversight role when it comes to the flow of money, because there are limits about what you can give, how much you can give and who can give. That's fine. In other words, this is not the wild west and it's not totally lawless. To expect leadership candidates to disclose their assets would be to place an undue burden on candidates who at that point are private citizens, unless they are elected or members of cabinet already, in which case they are already subject to an ethics regime. However, as private citizens and as candidates alone, they have no power. They're not making decisions on behalf of the public. They're not directing finances. They're not doing any of that, so disclosure requirements at that point would have no public purpose and serve no public value.
However, if it's the case that you're looking for a loophole—and this sort of thing doesn't keep me awake at night, but if it does—there might be one here given the fact that opposition party leaders are not subject to an ethics regime in the event that they are not part of the executive. If somebody is running for leader of an opposition party and they win, if you're not the government, you're not subject to the Conflict of Interest Act. To the extent that you want to worry about this person perhaps becoming Prime Minister soon in the event there is a defeat of the government and there's a replacement by a new person, maybe that's a loophole, yet the person would be subject to the Conflict of Interest Act in the event that they became a member of the executive. I'm not stressed out about any of that.
I'm going to stop because that's my five minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Turnbull. That avoids my having to stop you, which I appreciate. It's the worst job in the world, especially when someone is saying something as interesting as you and Mr. Stedman are. I hate doing it, but I have to stay on time.
Mr. Cooper, you're going to start us in the first six-minute round. Go ahead, sir.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Professor Stedman, I want to ask you some questions about the Prime Minister's so-called ethics screen. This so-called ethics screen encompasses 103 different companies, including Brookfield. These companies engage in everything from energy to ports to transport to infrastructure to fishing—you name it. These companies are involved in all manner of activities that touch upon federal public policies and decisions that the Prime Minister could be involved in making.
Are you aware of any ethics screen that has been put in place that is as vast as the one put in place in respect of Mr. Carney, given the vast number of potential conflicts of interest that he is involved in?
Associate Professor, York University, As an Individual
The easy answer is no. There's no way I've ever heard of anything quite this broad.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you.
This so-called ethics screen is being administered by the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council. Given the large number of companies captured by the screen and the large number of potential conflicts of interest involving Mr. Carney, do you have any concerns about the practicability, on a day-to-day basis, of these two very busy people properly and effectively screening out conflicts of interest from the Prime Minister?
Associate Professor, York University, As an Individual
Absolutely. I was quoted on this several times when the election was happening. I have no idea how they'll be able to screen for all these things and continue to do their jobs at the same time. I wonder if there's some sort of automated process they have in place. I've said several times that it would be nice to know more about how they're going to operationalize this screen. I don't think we have any information about how they are actually managing to do this.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
There's no transparency.
Pursuant to the ethics screen, just to be clear, Mr. Carney may still participate in discussions and make decisions affecting these 103 companies on most matters, even where he stands to personally and financially benefit. Isn't that right?
Associate Professor, York University, As an Individual
That's correct. The disproportionate clause that comes into his screen I've also commented on as being unique and something that we should learn more about. I think that came up with your previous witness too.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Speaking of the disproportionate clause, that is language that is not found in the Conflict of Interest Act—is it?
Associate Professor, York University, As an Individual
It is not in the act. Nope.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
It's not defined in the ethics screen—is it?
Associate Professor, York University, As an Individual
No, it's not in the screen. It's the kind of thing that the trustees, I suppose, are supposed to figure out. It would be nice to know how they've defined it so that as a public that's interested in knowing more, we could also—
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
It's really going to be left to the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council to interpret, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not there is a disproportionate interest. Is that right?
Associate Professor, York University, As an Individual
That's my understanding—absolutely.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Here we have an ethics screen that is unprecedented in scope and administered by two of the busiest people in government, who are making decisions as to what the Prime Minister sees and what he doesn't see, based upon an ambiguous proportionality standard. In the face of all that, what assurance do Canadians have that this so-called ethics screen is working?
Associate Professor, York University, As an Individual
It's trust and faith. I'm not sure you have any sort of documented assurance in any way whatsoever. You just have to hope that we put someone in public office who acts with integrity, at this point.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Just to pick up on that, you can't point to any tangible proof—documents, disclosure, public filings—that would prove to Canadians that the screen is working. That just doesn't exist. There are no checks and balances.
Associate Professor, York University, As an Individual
There is no evidence suggesting, or we have no evidence demonstrating, that there's actually been a decision made with respect to the screen—period. It's just not something that there's a public reporting mechanism for.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Can you understand why Canadians would be skeptical about the effectiveness of the screen in light of all the issues you have identified, coupled with the fact that it is being administered by two people who answer to and are beholden to the Prime Minister, including his chief of staff?
Associate Professor, York University, As an Individual
I am equally skeptical, so, yes, I can understand why the public would be.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
You spoke about transparency and the need for the Prime Minister to, at the very least, be transparent about how the ethics screen is working on a day-to-day basis. Am I correct?
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
We've seen really no transparency. Is that fair?