Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 8th, 2025

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Giorno and Mr. Levine. I will address both of you, and I will try to be brief.

I am reassured by your opinion that the concept of apparent conflict of interest must be considered in the wording of the act. After all, the issue here is between “implicit appearance of conflict of interest” and “explicit appearance of conflict of interest”. Should it be explicitly written into the act or not? When there is an appearance of conflict of interest, it can sometimes lead to an investigation due to the apparent conflict of interest. There must be an appearance of conflict of interest for the Ethics Commissioner to say that he had not seen that and that he will investigate to determine whether there is a conflict of interest.

Here's what we want to accomplish. If it were explicitly stated, it could encourage the implementation of mechanisms that would provide a better framework for the appearance of conflict of interest so that people don't find themselves with an objective conflict of interest.

What do you think of that reasoning?

[Guy Giorno]

I don't agree with those who are worried about what can happen if apparent or perceived conflict is regulated. That's a well-established legal principle—over hundreds of years—based on what a reasonable person fully apprised of all the facts would think. Unlike at the municipal level in Ontario, at the federal level our commissioners are all lawyers and they're trained in this. This is applying a fairly standard, centuries-tested legal test to determine what a reasonable person would perceive. I think it would be, in the long run, beneficial and more helpful to address these perceived problems, as well as substantial ones.

I agree that by dealing with the perception, you can reduce the frequency of the actual.

[Gregory J. Levine]

May I comment?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, Mr. Levine. It's your turn.

[Gregory J. Levine]

I would support putting a section about apparent conflict of interest in the act.

If it's of interest, you might look at B.C.'s statute, the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, section 2, because it has an explicit rule about apparent conflict of interest. It's one of the few statutes across the country that does, and it's had commissioners' reports on it and how it works, particularly reports by former commissioner Oliver and former commissioner Fraser in B.C.

I would suggest making use of that knowledge.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

What do you think about the conflict of interest screens that are managed by the Prime Minister's subordinates, in this case? It wouldn't be managed by the Prime Minister; it would be run by a minister and their subordinates. What do you think of that? How could we, in this unprecedented situation with the Prime Minister, make things more transparent and manage them in a less suspicious way?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Levine, that's for you.

[Gregory J. Levine]

I am a bit mystified by screens, actually, as I'm sure many of us are. I understand the commissioner has used them and has found authority to use them, or at least his authority has been upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of that, but I'm troubled by them. First, the authority on which they're based is section 29 of the Conflict of Interest Act. That is just a general statement about finding measures to help people comply.

If you want screens, you should put them explicitly in the statute so that we know what they are and how they're going to operate. It's kind of an irony, because if you believe blind trusts work, why would you need the screen? It's saying they don't work, so you have to have some other mechanism to allow people to recuse themselves or to someone else...to essentially mask the fact that there is a conflict.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Giorno, what is your opinion?

[Guy Giorno]

My view is that screens, which used to be called walls, named after a very large wall in China—now the more favoured language is screens—have been observed for decades in governments and in the private sector. Private sector accounting firms, law firms and even lobbying firms use these walls or screens to ensure there is integrity so that people who are not supposed to be seeing files don't see them. It's widely observed in governments. It is absolutely a thing, and the reason I am saying I favour this is that, as I said previously, we should be, in my view—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt. Should employees be handling that screen?

In fact, the chief of staff does the screening.

So should there be a verification and a review of those operations by another authority?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to give you a quick opportunity, Mr. Giorno.

[Guy Giorno]

The challenge is that in an organization, sometimes the person at the top of the organization.... I'll use a non-political example. In the Ontario government—I worked in the Ontario government—deputy ministers have to have a screen because they are from the private sector. An ADM has to administer the screen, or somebody reporting to the DM. It's hard to have a screen in an organization when the person at the top of the organization needs a screen, but that doesn't mean the screen is not valid and it doesn't mean the principle is inappropriate, as challenging as it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thanks.

Mr. Cooper, you're starting the second round for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Levine, continuing the discussion around ethics screens, the cornerstone of the Conflict of Interest Act is transparency, yet when it comes to the ethics screen set up by the Ethics Commissioner in respect of Mr. Carney, there is complete opaqueness. There is no transparency. Would you agree with that?

[Gregory J. Levine]

I'm loath to comment on specific screens, but as a general comment, they have the potential to mask conflicts rather than make them open. I'll leave it at that.

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

That's fair enough.

Professor Stedman, when I asked him about the ethics screen and about how Canadians would know whether it was being triggered when it ought to be in the face of Mr. Carney's multitude of conflicts of interest, answered, “It's trust and faith”, and nothing more.

I would submit that's not good enough. Would you agree?

[Gregory J. Levine]

Yes, I think there needs to be.... If you're going to use screens, I'd prefer some sort of legislative scheme that says how they had to be set up. I do take the point that if you have employees monitoring it, that's an issue.

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

When you say employees monitoring—

[Gregory J. Levine]

I mean monitoring the screens.

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

Here we have a screen that is being administered by the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, both of whom answer to the Prime Minister and serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.

That is a conflict, is it not?

[Gregory J. Levine]

It is potentially, yes.

It goes back to something I was saying before about the blind trust. Either it's working or it's not. Then you seem to have a screen to try to make sure there are no conflicts there. The relationship needs to be clarified.

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

Would you support some level of oversight by the Ethics Commissioner or some sort of reporting mechanism? What would you recommend in that regard?

[Gregory J. Levine]

I think it's both of those things, actually. The Ethics Commissioner obviously knows there are screens, but there needs to be a third party watching this.

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

I would observe, with respect to Mr. Carney's so-called ethics screen, that there is no oversight by the Ethics Commissioner. There is no oversight by anyone other than the chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, both of whom are conflicted. There is no public reporting mechanism. There hasn't even been transparency around how the ethics screen is supposed to work and how decisions are made.

I would submit that in the face of the most conflicted Prime Minister in Canadian history, Canadians deserve a whole lot better than what is nothing more than a smokescreen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.