Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 8th, 2025

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

Good morning and welcome.

In his 2024-25 annual report, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner proposes to amend the Conflict of Interest Act to explicitly expand its scope to apparent conflicts of interest by amending section 5 to read as follows:

5. Every public office holder shall arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest.

Do you agree with this proposal, and if so, why?

[Guy Giorno]

I would not have drafted it that way, but in general, I believe it's appropriate to add a perception or appearance standard, because I believe it's appropriate to have the commissioner deal with situations where a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would perceive that such a situation existed. That's for public confidence reasons.

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

Do you think expanding the application of the Conflict of Interest Act to the appearance of conflict of interest could make its application more difficult or easier?

[Guy Giorno]

It makes it harder to apply, yes.

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

As I've asked other witnesses, what conflict of interest laws in other countries or other Canadian provinces and territories would you suggest as a model?

[Guy Giorno]

I don't know what Mr. Levine would say on this, but my answer is—and I've said this before—that I believe the federal Conflict of Interest Act is among the gold standards. By my count, there are five different ways of defining conflict of interest. This act uses an opportunity-based test, which I think is one of the best.

The last point I'll make is that, even though the federal public sector doesn't use the same definition as this act, the policy on people management and the directive on conflict of interest established by the Treasury Board uses, in my view, a definition that's inferior to this one. I think this act is the gold standard. When I go to other places, like municipalities with a municipal integrity commissioner, I point to this definition as one of the leading definitions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

[Gregory J. Levine]

May I say something?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

If it's quick, Mr. Levine, please add something to the discussion. I have two more rounds to do.

[Gregory J. Levine]

I won't belabour it, but I would go to the B.C. act if you're dealing with apparent conflicts of interest. In some ways, the Members' Integrity Act of Ontario's formulation is better than that of the federal act—not on apparent conflict of interest but on conflict of interest generally.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We've heard consistently about both Ontario and British Columbia, and we've heard about Quebec as well.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At this time, I would like to move a motion that I put on notice on October 1.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead.

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

The motion calls upon the Prime Minister to come clean and disclose exactly who he met with and who they represented, and the particulars of what was discussed when the Prime Minister met in New York City and London, England, with leading global investment leaders.

Since the motion was put on notice, the Prime Minister has disclosed the names of who he met with. Frankly, those names raise even more questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Hang on. Before we move forward with any discussion on this, the motion, as you said, was on notice, so it's in order. I'll give you the floor, but perhaps at this point I should dismiss Mr. Giorno and Mr. Levine because we are near the end of the time we needed.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you for your testimony and expertise on this issue. It was very helpful today. On behalf of the committee and of Canadians, I want to thank you for that.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead on the motion.

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

Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister's so-called ethics screen covers Brookfield. In light of the Prime Minister's very real conflicts of interest due to his connections to Brookfield, including his future bonus pay worth tens of millions of dollars—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Sorry to interrupt again, Mr. Cooper, but I don't believe you read the entire text of the motion. I need you to do that to put it on the record. I know it's on notice, but I need you to put it on the record before you continue.

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

The motion reads as follows:

That, having regard for the fact that the Prime Minister met with several “business as well as investment leaders” in his recent trips to New York City, New York, and London, England, and the Prime Minister has refused to disclose which individuals and/or entities he met with during those trips, and is subject, pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Act, to an ethics screen intended to prevent him from making decisions related to 103 companies that would place him in a conflict of interest, the committee order, from the Prime Minister’s Office, the production of records which comprehensively list each individual, and, if applicable, the name of which entity, corporation, organization, and/or agency they represented and their job title, that was present in a meeting with the Prime Minister, the time and date at which those meetings took place, and what was discussed in those meetings, from and including September 21, 2025, to and including September 28, 2025, and that these records be deposited with the Clerk of the Committee in both official languages no later than one week following the adoption of this motion.

That is the motion. It's about transparency. It's about seeing whether the Prime Minister's so-called ethics screen is, in fact, working.

The Prime Minister met with top global investment leaders in New York and London. They were secret meetings. When he was asked who he met with, he refused to say. This motion was put on notice; subsequent to that, the Prime Minister disclosed the names of the individuals he met with. That limited disclosure, frankly, raises more questions than it provides answers, because among the representatives of the companies he met with are those who have ties to none other than Brookfield.

The Prime Minister's ethics screen covers Brookfield because of the very real conflicts of interest he has arising from the time he was CEO of Brookfield Asset Management, but we have the Prime Minister meeting in secret, in New York and London, with global investment leaders with ties to Brookfield.

I would cite, for example—

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I just want to understand where my colleague is going with this motion. Is he amending his motion? Is he moving another motion? If he's giving notice of a motion, I think he's already debated that motion.

I just want to know exactly where he's going with this motion. What is the agenda? If he's giving notice of a motion, it cannot be accompanied by an explanation. If he's amending the motion, he is, once again, getting into—

I just want to know exactly what his position is.

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

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No.

Just hang on a second.

Mr. Sari, the motion was put on notice on October 1. Mr. Cooper has now moved the motion that was on notice, and it was distributed to all members. Every member has a copy of the notice and the motion. He properly moved the motion just now, and he's speaking to the motion. He has the floor. Ms. Lapointe is afterwards. Everything is in order here.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

If I understand correctly, Mr. Cooper is speaking to the moving of his motion. We are now at the tabling of the motion. Is that correct? Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're on the motion right now, yes. Thank you.

Mr. Saini, do you have a point of order?

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

It is a matter of privilege. I have another commitment. We were supposed to finish at—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry.