Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 1st, 2025

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

The Prime Minister on the weekend met with investment leaders and business leaders in London and in New York. When he was asked who he met with and what companies they represented he didn't provide an answer. We don't know if these companies are connected to Brookfield or any of the other companies that are subject to the screen. We don't know anything about what those discussions were.

Should Canadians be concerned about the Prime Minister not coming forward and disclosing that information? Shouldn't he?

[Ian Stedman]

There's no obligation to. The question is whether there should be a moral standard to do so. There's no legal standard to do so. It does raise the question of whether or not we could go back and meet with the commissioner and talk about whether the screen is robust enough and has enough detail in it about how it should be implemented.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

You spoke about transparency. I would submit that, consistent with that, it would be the proper and correct thing to do for the Prime Minister to disclose it. That would be consistent with being transparent.

[Ian Stedman]

There's a moral argument to be made. I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Sari, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your very interesting testimony, Dr. Turnbull. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Stedman.

I'd like us to talk about true, complete independence and the ability to achieve that. We agree that any system or institution depends on true independence. However, commissioners can be appointed.

Dr. Turnbull, what mechanisms should we put in place to change our model for appointing commissioners? Could multiple parties create short lists of candidates or could public hearings be held, for example?

[Lori Turnbull]

This is a really interesting question because I think the Ethics Commissioner's role can very easily become mired in political and partisan back and forth. Claims about whether someone has acted with integrity obviously can be highly political and partisan things. It's really good if there is some agreement among the parties about who the person is. I think it's good to have some agreement in terms of the qualifications that you want the person to have, and agreement among the party leaders about the role that the person will play. That way, the person isn't totally politicized in the event that they make a decision that some parties don't agree with.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

For a variety of reasons, these positions are sometimes vacant. How could we replace the acting commissioner? Have you identified mechanisms used in other countries or other organizations that could be applied here at home?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The interpreters didn't understand what you just said, Mr. Sari. I'll stop the clock to give you time to ask your question again.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We talked about appointments. Now we're going to talk about interim processes in the case of a vacancy or long-term absence.

How could we replace the commissioners? How could we find a person to fill the position, instead of bringing in acting commissioners?

[Lori Turnbull]

Sometimes in other jurisdictions, including within Canada at the provincial level, you can have another person who is an agent of Parliament who was appointed on a similar.... You know, the person is non-partisan, the person holds certain credentials whether they're a judge or whatever, and they might meet the credentials for another appointment as well. They could hold over for a period of time while you choose someone. We can do something like that.

I wouldn't want to put a whole lot of emphasis on that and treat that too much as a solution in the event that this position is vacant. The Ethics Commissioner holds a very important and specific role when it comes to judgment about how these sorts of matters are going to be dealt with, especially because it's not the law. Sometimes we look at the importance of having a judge in this kind of role, but this is not about deciding whether the legal threshold has been met. It's about judgment. It's about public trust. It's much more nuanced. I think the choice of who plays this role is very important.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

In your academic work, you've highlighted the importance of a robust ethics enforcement mechanism. What do you think of the Conflict of Interest Act as it currently stands in 2025? Do you have any suggestions for us?

[Lori Turnbull]

I don't necessarily think that including a whole bunch of things in the act that aren't already there is going to solve all the problems. I admit that, when I was younger, when I started in all of this—and I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on conflict of interest and ethics regimes for members of Parliament—I really felt then that the more things were enumerated, the more ethical everybody would be.

Now I know that's wrong. Now I know that there's not much you can do to force somebody to do what they are not inclined to do. You can't force someone to be ethical. You can't force someone to make the kinds of decisions the public is going to trust. It's a judgment call on that person's part. Of course there are things like bribery, fraud and breach of trust that are in the Criminal Code. That's a different level. Ethics is specifically a non-legal but very important space in the relationship between elected officials and the public.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I would like to ask you a question that I asked your colleague earlier.

First, is it possible to eliminate apparent conflicts of interest altogether?

Second, if we establish an entire code of ethics, are we democratically opening the decision-making role to all Canadians?

[Lori Turnbull]

The piece around the appearance of conflict belongs in the code, not in the law.

Those of us who spend a whole bunch of time thinking about the regulation of ethics can spend time distinguishing between soft and hard approaches to ethics regulation. A soft approach is a conflict of interest code where the language is often aspirational: We want public officials to achieve the highest ethical standards. Your behaviour should be beyond reproach. You should be living at a level that is above typical citizen level. It should be really beyond reproach, because you have a very special responsibility in terms of protecting the public interest. Sometimes people talk about the smell test. That's what's there: Your behaviour should always pass the smell test.

Enforcing that into a law is a different thing. I think the appearance of conflict of interest is problematic. It can cause a trust problem with the public. There's a reason to enumerate that in a code. Enumerating it into a law starts to create problems in terms of back and forth around whether there's really an appearance. How do you get into the legalities of that? If you're going to start fining people in terms of administrative monetary penalties, that's messy to me, and it misses the point.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Turnbull.

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

Mr. Thériault, you have six minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

Professor Turnbull, is ethics more stringent than the law?

[Lori Turnbull]

Yes, because I think the threshold around the public's expectation about what it means to be ethical is not going to be met by compliance with a law. The public expects more than that. That's why we have ethics rules in the first place. We didn't always have an ethics regime. We didn't always have a code of conduct for members of Parliament. That has just been in the last 20 years or so.

It's because sometimes, even when people act in accordance with the law, there's a sense that it's still not right. It's still not enough for the public to feel that they I trust you, that they trust you with their money and they trust you with the policy decisions that are going to affect them and their family. It's very important, I think, that ethics and law are not the same thing.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's often said that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral.

We need to revise the act. We are dealing with a very unusual scenario, the situation of the new Prime Minister. It's unheard of. Professor Stedman admitted that, and we can agree on that very objectively. When I say that, I'm not playing politics. I just see that ethically, as Professor Stedman was saying, it's not just about doing good; it's also about looking good in the eyes of the public.

What would it take to achieve that goal, in your opinion? You're saying it's not necessarily the law or legal constraints that are going to get us there.

Also, is what currently exists sufficient, given the scenario I'm talking about?

[Lori Turnbull]

There has been a lot of attention paid to the Prime Minister's pre-political life. He came to this role, it seems, very quickly. The former prime minister stepped down, there was a leadership race and, all of a sudden, Prime Minister Carney is the Prime Minister. It happened very quickly, and I think the public didn't get a lot of time to get to know him, necessarily, but what they are left with and know about are his role in the private sector, the kinds of things he did, the offices he held and a bit of information about what his financial holdings look like. Now he's had to put that out in public in a certain way.

I don't necessarily know that the ethics regime is not able to handle that. His case is unusual, yes, and the kinds of holdings he has and positions he's held, of course, those things are unusual. I suspect that's probably what contributed to his political success in the first place. He's an unusual case in that he has a much longer list of things he has to recuse himself from, put up a screen about or put in a blind trust. The point of the ethics regime is to enable his participation, as it would for anybody else who has been successful in the private sector.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

However, is it enough?

Right now, some experts are telling us that, when it's of general application, there is no problem with conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest. Is that sufficient? What should be done?

[Lori Turnbull]

We think it's not enough. If the public has an issue with it, they'll let people know. I don't get the sense, personally, that there's a widespread sense that the Prime Minister is in public office for the wrong reason. If he really cared about money all that much, I suspect he would have stayed in the private sector. I suspect he's leaving money on the table by being in the role he's in.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You'll notice that I'm not naming him, but I'm trying to use him in a scenario.

I'm not naming him, except that, you'll agree with me, the position of prime minister should be subject to greater requirements than that of a mere minister or an ordinary member of Parliament. It is quite easy to see if ordinary members of Parliament are getting themselves into hot water with a conflict of interest problem, since they are not running the country, setting the country's economic directions or meeting with lobbyists around the world.

Shouldn't there be more transparency, then, given the fact that this is an unusual scenario? There's a difference between a member of Parliament, a minister and a prime minister, even for an accusation. Is that enough, or should more be done?

I understand that we can always impute motives and play politics with ethics. Personally, I want to do the opposite. We have a job to do. What do we need to do?

You seem to be saying that it's like squaring a circle and that it won't work. I think the current law is insufficient. The proof is that the situation we are currently in has not been properly regulated and is beyond us.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, you have completed your six minutes.

Maybe we can come back to that question later.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

However, I asked a question.