Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 1st, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have three minutes. You may begin.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Conacher, the general application exemption is often seen, as you rightly said, as a loophole. This makes it possible to set aside the interest analysis, including the pecuniary component, which is significant.

What replacement language, technically specific and operational, would you recommend so that it can no longer neutralize the assessment of a material interest that is pecuniary, predictable and separate from any decision-maker?

[Duff Conacher]

With regard to the “general application” loophole, certainly if you have any kind of financial interest you should not be able to participate in the decision-making process, even if it does apply generally. That would be a solid line to draw that would improve things greatly, but again, a divestment of investments is the real way to solve that problem.

If you have an interest with a broad class of persons and entities, you could define the list there. Obviously, taxes are changed. Taxes apply to everybody. There are income taxes and some other taxes. That could be one of the defined things where you're allowed to participate. However, if you had a specific financial interest or other type of private interest that would in any way distinguish or have a significant effect for you beyond what would affect an average person, then that would be another line that could be added to those provisions to narrow them down so that the law applies more than just 1% of the time.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I will give an example that is of interest to all Canadians, the key interest rate. I know that, fortunately, most Canadians also have RRSPs and know where those RRSPs are invested. If I understand your position correctly, since these people know the companies in which they have invested, they should sell their RRSPs or get rid of them. If that's the case, I don't think a lot of people would run for office.

[Duff Conacher]

They would if they had an exemption from the tax implications of doing that, and then they could invest in GICs and government bonds for the time period that they are serving the public, which would give them a fixed percentage return. They could then return to having their financial interests that are specific to them after they leave. I don't see any problem with that.

If good people want to serve the public, they should be happy while they are serving the public to leave their financial conflicts of interest and effectively set them aside. If not, they are essentially saying, “I want to have the opportunity, which the act currently allows, to profit from my decision-making and my role as a person serving the public. I want to serve myself just as much.” You don't want people like that in office; you want good people who want to serve the public.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Conacher.

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

We have 15 minutes left.

Mr. Thériault, you have five minutes to ask your questions. Then it will be the Conservatives' turn, then the Liberals'.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll bring up the topic of recusal. Let's say it happens 1% of the time. In the case of the conflict of interest screen that the commissioner put in place, the recusal itself is managed by the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council. This is not a recusal by a mere minister at the cabinet table. The Prime Minister appointed these people. Can we really believe that the ministers at the table will make decisions that go against the Prime Minister's intentions and interests? Isn't there something nonsensical or inadequate here?

A minister may be in a conflict of interest because they have a company that bids on a call for tenders. In such a case, if the Prime Minister is in the room and thinks there is a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, the minister in question will leave the room and the contract will not be concluded. However, the Prime Minister is the person who makes all the political decisions.

The new Prime Minister has just opened the door to potential conflicts of interest. Shouldn't we be stricter and more rigorous with people who hold the position of Prime Minister? Also, what is a recusal really worth?

[Duff Conacher]

Yes, it is a difficult problem when it is the Prime Minister because of the number of people who serve at the Prime Minister's pleasure. Even if the Prime Minister recused himself, people would know what his interest is, mostly because of the disclosure. Would they go against him? They would be in a conflict of interest when doing so because they serve at his pleasure, which means serving to please him. He's the boss in this situation; hopefully, sometime in the future we'll be able to say, “She's the boss.”

Again, the solution with investments is actual divestment: selling them. Anything less and you'll leave this situation where conflicts of interest are allowed and legalized—including the worst kind, which are financial conflicts of interest—through the decision-making process, and that's going to taint it.

As an aside, I'm very surprised that Mr. Carney has created this situation. He could have cashed out his investments and he would still have had millions. He would have been fine for the rest of his life investing in GICs and government bonds. Instead, he's created a situation where pretty much every week someone in the House can stand up and ask, “Did you participate in this decision? You have an interest in it.” Why would he want every single policy and decision he's making to be tainted by this when he could have easily removed the problem in the only effective way that it can be removed?

Again, it was recommended by a federal government task force in 1984 and in 1987 and has been ignored ever since.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You're talking about the Parker commission and the Starr‑Sharp task force, among others.

In your opinion, why didn't we go in that direction? Why has it become more and more permissive over the years?

[Duff Conacher]

I can only guess that it was like, “Well, good people are wealthy people and wealthy people are good people, and we want them in office, so we have to facilitate their coming into office. Why would we think about some system, like giving them a tax break, to get rid of their financial conflicts? Let's just let them have the financial conflict of interest. Keep it secret initially. Now it's disclosed, but it's still there.” They design the act so they can still do whatever they want.

What can I say? Politicians write the rules for themselves. They wrote rules that work for them so that they can profit from their decisions. No party has stood up and said to stop it for everyone, because it also has to be for opposition party leaders, who are almost as powerful in a minority government and who can introduce bills that can pass because the opposition parties hold the majority of seats in a minority Parliament. It has to be on a sliding scale, but you have to remove these financial conflicts of interest for everyone if they have any decision-making power at all.

I don't know. Again, you would not be able to find the discussions as to why these loopholes have been left open since 1984.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you—

[Duff Conacher]

I guess cabinet minutes would be disclosed now—30 years have passed—but they wouldn't give the details as to why.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Conacher.

Thank you, Mr. Thériault. Your five minutes are up.

Mr. Majumdar, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you.

Sir, I sense your frustration. In the interest of time, I'm going to ask you some quick questions, if that's okay, for some clarity. You've raised a lot here.

When Prime Minister Carney set up his blind trust, he knew exactly what went in it. Is that correct?

[Duff Conacher]

Yes.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

It's unlikely that the assets that went into the blind trust have changed significantly in such a short period of time. Is that correct?

[Duff Conacher]

Ethics Commissioner von Finckenstein acknowledged that most trustees will not change their holdings, so I agree with that. They won't, and even if they did, they're going to be investing in big businesses in Canada, and you're going to know that they're investing in big businesses in Canada. We have conglomerates, industry sectors, that are dominated by big businesses, and you're going to be invested in them because that's what everyone in Canada invests in.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

I spent some time in the investment world before I put my name on a ballot. He co-led efforts to raise billons of dollars of capital for these funds. Is that correct?

[Duff Conacher]

Yes.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

The holdings in these funds have not been disclosed to the public. Is that correct?

[Duff Conacher]

That's right, not all of the details.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

That's remarkable, but the Prime Minister knows what's in them. Is that right?

[Duff Conacher]

Yes.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Okay, let me just try to get a sense of this. These aren't some sort of middle-class holdings. These aren't the modest savings of somebody who is making their way through the world. These are millions of dollars, to our best estimation. Is that correct?

[Duff Conacher]

Yes, according to the best estimate, including the value of the stock options.