Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 8th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number eight of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, the committee is resuming its review of the Conflict of Interest Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person. I don't think we have anybody on Zoom. We will in the second hour.

I'm going to remind everybody again about the earpieces. Make sure they're away from the microphones when you have the floor.

I'd like to welcome our witness for the first hour today. From Thurlow Law, we have W. Scott Thurlow, who is the founder.

Mr. Thurlow, welcome to the committee. You have up to five minutes for an opening statement, which will be followed by questions. Go ahead, sir.

[W. Scott Thurlow, Founder, Thurlow Law]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Scott Thurlow, and it is my pleasure to be here to share my views as the committee reviews the Conflict of Interest Act.

At the outset, let me remind committee members that the Conflict of Interest Act is designed as a disclosure act. It places an obligation on officials to disclose their assets for conspicuous public scrutiny. The act also places specific limitations on gifts and benefits and creates post-employment rules.

My experience with the act is not academic; it's practical. I have had the responsibility of representing many of your colleagues as they prepared documents to submit to the commissioner's office. As everyone on this committee is hopefully aware, those disclosure requirements are not modest. They are also publicly disclosed. In rare cases, I have engaged directly with the commissioner's office as it investigated potential violations of the act and the codes it administers.

I have some practical, real-world examples of changes that can be made to the act and corresponding codes and guidelines.

First, a conflict of interest rule should not compromise the democratic process. I would suggest a very modest edit to the current act that would ensure that participating in an electoral event—provincial, municipal or territorial—is exempted from creating a conflict of interest. Running for office should be defined as the public interest. The House's Board of Internal Economy rules already limit the use of parliamentary resources in elections.

There is a decision from a former commissioner that stands for the proposition that campaigning on someone's behalf to seek support is attempting to influence an individual's decision. Of course it is. That's also a constitutionally protected activity. It should not come under the scrutiny of the commissioner's office. Your constituents care about your positions on an array of issues at the heart of other elections, and there should be nothing to prevent you from telling them what you do or do not believe in.

Second, do we really need as many different codes as we have? Subtly, there are many different interpretations that distinguish the various codes from one another. This lends itself to confusion, which is perpetuated by a duelling banjos of rules for parliamentarians interpreted by different officers of Parliament. Having a consistent set of rules will help build a more consistent culture around what a conflict of interest is or is not. I have a personal pet peeve about a separate set of conflict of interest rules created by the lobbying commissioner, but that is a study of a different act for a different day.

Speaking of which, third, I think all post-employment limitations should be placed in one act. You may know that post-employment obligations are found in the Lobbying Act. I also don't like those limitations because they treat all designated public office holders as one giant class, which they are not. Certain aspects of those rules came to be after an order in council, which might not have been as legal as we would like. Please ask me about that.

Fourth, I think there should be clarity on the ability of members to advocate on behalf of their constituents. There is a statutory limitation on “improperly” using one's office to advance a private interest. That is not necessarily the case for individuals who become parliamentary secretaries or ministers. I would refer to you the commissioner's own guidance, which precludes you from “using your position to influence a decision to further private interests”. Advocating on behalf of a constituent's private interest should never be seen as creating a conflict.

The technical language of that document needs to reflect the statutory term “improperly influence”. It should never be improper to advance the interests of your constituents. Personally, if I were in that position, I would wear that so-called conflict as a badge of honour.

It is possible to be both a member of Parliament and a minister and have a genuine tension between your roles. Just ask a transport minister who has a farm in their riding during a rail strike. That's not a conflict of interest; that's a conflict of ideas. That's what Parliament is for.

Finally, I would conclude with a warning to stay away from assigning too much importance to the concept of an apparent conflict of interest. Certainly, this is at the heart of the test enshrined in the Supreme Court of Canada precedent on conflict of interest. The appearance of a conflict is not the same as the existence of one. This is something public officials should be cognizant of, but it shouldn't paralyze them from doing their jobs.

I can tell you from experience that a human being—a politician—waffles on the right decision because they are worried it might look bad because of some link that is so tenuous that the most hackneyed Hollywood screenwriters couldn't come up with it. People agonize over these decisions.

The committee can make recommendations on the thoughtful application of that appearance of a conflict test. Wiser men and women than me have noted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the same is true about what may or may not appear to be a conflict.

I would welcome your questions, in particular about other aspects of the act and codes that may not have been as colourfully explored by previous witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thurlow.

We're going to start with our first round.

Mr. Barrett, you'll start us off for six minutes. Go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much.

Should designated public office holders be permitted to own assets that rest in tax havens?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I will read into your question whether designated public office holders, reporting public office holders or public office holders are able to have assets that are controlled by a blind trust. The answer is resoundingly yes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

No, the question is specifically about the assets—in this case, if they're in a blind trust—being in a tax haven. If the investment is made in a tax haven, is it appropriate for a parliamentary secretary, a minister or a Prime Minister to hold their assets there?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

The first thing I would ask you is what you define as a tax haven. The colloquial term for that means taxes can be deferred to a later date when the asset is dispossessed and the gain is actually realized. Another way of looking at it is a jurisdiction that has a lower rate of tax based on income or whatever the threshold test in that jurisdiction is for generating income.

Individual citizens and individual corporations should organize their affairs in ways that seek to minimize their own taxes, if that is consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are operating—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

What about the people for whom this act is constructed?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I don't see the issue. I don't like the term “tax haven”. I think there is a pejorative aspect to it. I think it's organizing one's affairs in a way that minimizes tax.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

It certainly minimizes their payment of taxes here in Canada to support all of the things that taxes are designed to pay for.

When a government sets policy that sees Canadians who might not have the means to afford those types of investment strategies, as you've described them...it hurts Canada. These people are supposed to be serving in the best interests of Canada, which speaks to this broader question of blind trusts and whether we can simply assume that everyone is operating in the best interests of Canada.

We heard from the commissioner that, in his experience, assets that go into a blind trust come out looking the same. The trustees don't really trade; they don't really sell them. The decisions that decision-makers are making can be made knowing what the impact is on specific investments.

The challenge this creates for Canadians, who have a cratering confidence in public institutions and public office holders, is that they believe, when they look at the act or when it's explained to them.... We've heard many times someone say, “I've divested all my assets.” Well, it's been characterized in the act in a very cute way: You can divest assets into a blind trust, where they're likely going stay in the same form as when you put them in, as opposed to them not being sold.

You came out of the gate and said that you think blind trusts are great. Do you think they do service to improving Canadians' confidence in elected officials, that they're acting in the best interests of the country and not in the best interests of themselves? For example, someone could hold office while also holding their assets somewhere else so they don't have to pay tax here in Canada to pay for all the things Canadians rely on, like public health care, transportation, border security, our national police force and so on.

[W. Scott Thurlow]

The first thing I would do is take you back to your question about tax havens and say that it's a good thing the last budget talked about the global minium tax, which would do a lot to equalize that on a country-by-country basis.

Second, I would question the underlying assumption your question is based on. I use what I call the “soccer field and ringette arena” test. When I talk to the people I spend time with while we watch our children play sports, they don't bring this up as an issue of concern. They have more fundamental concerns. Far be it from me to tell you what your constituents are telling you—they have your ear at the door, absolutely—but if you have a specific example of a particular trade that you think is going to create a conflict of interest, it behooves you to make that statement public and put it forward.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

What I'd say with my remaining time, which I have heard at soccer fields and hockey rinks, is that people are concerned that the Prime Minister, who seeks to pass laws on them that would see them remit their taxes while they're struggling, is holding investments in offshore tax havens and not paying his fair share. That does bother them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. That was right on time, at six minutes.

We're going to keep it tight because we have lots of questions and another panel to follow.

Ms. Lapointe, you may go ahead. You have six minutes.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Thurlow, welcome to the committee.

I have some short questions for you. You said earlier that you didn't like the idea of including the appearance of a conflict of interest in the act.

Can you talk more about that and tell us why you don't like the idea?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

This test is based on what I'm going to call the “reasonable persons” test. It's up to an individual who has awareness of the facts to make a determination, in place of the individual who would otherwise be making the decision. When I was in law school, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek essay about Sam the reasonable man and Samantha the reasonable woman, who would be officers of the court and stand in the place of the individual who was offered the opportunity to give the reasonable person test. The issue with an appearance of a conflict of interest is that you never necessarily know all the variables that are going on behind the scenes when a decision is being made.

We've heard previously that there's the potential for someone to benefit because their trust isn't really that blind, and nobody ever trades any assets. That's not the point. The point is that when you are faced with a decision as a public office holder, there should not be an overt, direct tension in front of you that would cause stress between your official duties and your personal interests or those of somebody you know, somebody who's related to you or someone who would improperly benefit from that.

I think it's very difficult to tell public office holders that they will not be able to make a decision because of something that's held outside of their legal control. Legal control is a very important point here, because if you are free to make your decision on behalf of the country or a sector of the economy, you can stand on that decision and say, “Here are the reasons that I made it, and I'm going to disclose that on the public record.” Then you are not going to know whether or not that is going to benefit you.

There's been an allegation from previous witnesses, an allusion, that, yes, they actually do know, but it's a very bright line. Once you are a public office holder and your materials are in a blind trust, you have crossed that line and you are no longer making a decision that can legally benefit you.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

We've also heard the commissioner say that he would like to see that change. Do you have any comments on that?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

Far be it from me to disagree with someone who used to be a Federal Court judge, the competition commissioner and the chair of the CRTC. His experience is a little different from mine, but I can prove a conflict of interest. I can draw a straight line when someone gives investment advice to their sister. That's provable. The appearance is not quite as provable. It's not something that evidence is going to bear out very easily.

The other thing I would tell you is that in the interactions with the commissioner's office, many members have said, “Oh my goodness, what do you think? Is this a conflict?” They give really good, sage advice to public office holders who have divined that situation and think there might be an issue, and I think that's sufficient. However, if Parliament, which is supreme, wants to make the determination to implement a test, that's up to Parliament. I just don't think it's needed.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

We also heard from a Democracy Watch representative, and he talked about 12 recommendations for improving the Conflict of Interest Act.

Are there any you could get behind?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I don't agree with everything Mr. Conacher says. He and I have different world views, but the one suggestion he has that I think will improve transparency is to give individuals and the public the ability to file a complaint with the commissioner. I think that would improve public confidence in the system, but it has to be more than just writing an angry letter saying, “Will you investigate this MP I didn't vote for?” There has to be a modicum of evidence. There has to be some threshold for why that investigation should happen.

The other thing with those types of powers is for the commissioner to have the ability to say no and give the reasons they're not going to pursue that test. That rationale being in the public domain is going to increase confidence in the system, because someone will be able to make a request and then understand why that request was denied. Then, if they're friends with Mr. Conacher, he can help them sue the government, which he has done on a regular basis, sometimes quite successfully and for the improvement of the laws of Canada. There are some examples that I am happy to talk about. Because of the work Democracy Watch has done, we have better laws in certain areas.

Any decision would be reviewable by a judge based on the reasonableness standard and on whether or not that decision is consistent with the decision-making rules we have.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have 30 seconds left.

On Monday, we met with the Commissioner of Lobbying, and she talked about the post-employment restrictions set out in the Lobbying Act.

Do you think those rules are well understood? Do people understand what they are allowed to do and when?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I need a very quick answer, if you don't mind.

[W. Scott Thurlow]

I don't think they're really well understood, and I'm happy to go into that later.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thurlow.

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Mr. Thériault, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witness.

Something may be legal, but that doesn't make it moral. In that sense, ethics is more stringent than the law or the act. Would you agree?

[W. Scott Thurlow]

Thank you for your question. I wish I could answer in French, but I can't, because I need to get a bit technical. Nevertheless, I'd like to show my daughters that I can speak a bit of French.

Yes, I agree 100% with you. I think Dr. Turnbull said the same thing in her testimony, which is that you can't legislate ethics. Ethics stand above what the legislation is.

Rules—and I mentioned this in my testimony—will often form the cultural underpinning for developing the moral compass that will guide individuals as they make those decisions. There are a lot of things that go into establishing the individual ethics and morality of individual humans. Some people have a very different prism through which they look at these things. Some of them are very matter of fact. Some of them are far more deliberate.