Evidence of meeting #8 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 rules.
A video is available from Parliament.
Lawyer, Ethics Consultant and Social Scientist, As an Individual
Is that because he would have to rule on it?
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Yes, but we could always avoid having him be both judge and jury while ensuring that there is at least a review of the process and some accountability.
What do you think?
Lawyer, Ethics Consultant and Social Scientist, As an Individual
Well, that's true. You could argue there's an institutional bias, but if you're talking about screening walls and walls of separation, there's no reason he couldn't have a separate process within his office that would wall him off from the problem of making two decisions on the same matter.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Do you think the definition of “conflict of interest” should be extended to cases of a general scope, rather than strictly personal interests?
Lawyer, Ethics Consultant and Social Scientist, As an Individual
You used the term “private interests”, and the reason I commented on that was that I had listened to some earlier testimony that said the only interests that mattered were financial, and I don't think that's right. I think it's good that the act talks about private interests, so I would leave that, actually.
Private interest is the thing to look at because it encompasses both financial and other types of relational interests that may come into play.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
What the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner told us was that, as long as a conflict of interest situation is general in scope and it's not just the individual or a member of his family who benefits, there's no problem.
That's why Mr. Duff Conacher said that 99% of the act means that the Prime Minister won't have to recuse himself.
Lawyer, Ethics Consultant and Social Scientist, As an Individual
That is the common law. It embodies what the common law was, and it's saying that there's an interest in common with the electors, the citizens or the people at large. It's not that you don't have a conflict of interest; it's that the conflict of interest is so broad that it's about the interests of all the people. That's essentially what it's saying.
It's not an uncommon exemption. If you look through most of the legislation in the country, you will see the same thing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Levine.
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
Mr. Majumdar, you have five minutes, followed by a sharing of time between Madame Lapointe and Ms. Church. Then we'll have two and a half minutes if anybody wants to finish up. You can think about that.
Go ahead, Mr. Majumdar, for five minutes.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Giorno, let me thank you for your service. I was a public office holder for a time when we overlapped.
I want to ask you first a bit about the difference between consequences and accountability. Your testimony described that there's not much accountability beyond public embarrassment or shame if people contravene the act, except for minor infractions. Is that right?
Lawyer, As an Individual
The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that the act was intentionally developed by people who thought that was okay.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
I recall, though, that there was another layer of accountability that came straight from the top during the Harper government, meaning your contribution to ensuring that public office holders, like members of Parliament and cabinet members, were held to a higher standard by your office, the Prime Minister's Office.
Does that seem like a fair representation, knowing what the act had and the standards you held for the government?
Lawyer, As an Individual
The answer is yes. I thank the member for saying that. I think I tried to do that, but I don't think that was a substitute for the deficiencies in the act.
Yes, we tried to be very vigilant and very firm about these things.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
It comes from the top.
I'm asking that question because it speaks to the nature of the kind of leadership we have and the potential conflict they're in.
Just to be clear—and I know this might seem a bit repetitive—the Conflict of Interest Act clearly applies to the Prime Minister. He's not above that in any way. Is that right?
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Of its 55 rules, 40 carry no actual penalty if broken.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
If the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, breached the most serious conflict rules, there would be no fine, no charge, no penalty.
Lawyer, As an Individual
That is correct.
There would be, in theory, a potential report by the commissioner that would be made public.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
There would be a report.
Sections 8 and 9 forbid using public office to further personal interests. If Mr. Carney's decisions benefited assets he knows about that are placed in a so-called blind trust, that would qualify under those sections. Is that right?
Lawyer, As an Individual
I wouldn't want to go that far, because that's what the sections say for sure, but I would hesitate to apply facts to law not knowing all the facts.
Those are certainly sections that would come into play. I would defer to the commissioner's interpretation of how they apply to those facts.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
The facts can be murky, because if his assets remain undisclosed, there's no way for Canadians to even know if a conflict exists.
Lawyer, As an Individual
Yes, but the commissioner knows his assets; they know all assets in blind trusts and not in blind trusts.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
If Mr. Carney was meeting with money managers in places like New York and elsewhere, knowing what assets he held in a blind trust before they went into a blind trust, there's really no appreciation of what degree he's making decisions and promoting specific deals that would benefit his own portfolio holdings. There's no transparency around that. Is that right?
Lawyer, As an Individual
There is no public transparency. The commissioner does have the tools to deal with that. Whether the commissioner has the resources to deal with that is another story. Certainly, the commissioner should know what's in blind trusts and the commissioner should know what personal assets are not in blind trusts.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Section 21 requires recusal from any matter where there is a conflict. Is that correct?