Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 20th, 2025

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You're not saying that they're more effective in ensuring a framework in general.

[Daniel Greenberg]

I—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

However, ethical standards very often go beyond legal requirements, and the obligations associated with them are much greater. As a result, we take into account a broader range of actual or potential behaviours. Ethics should look forward, not backward.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have about 30 seconds left in this round, Mr. Greenberg, so go ahead, sir.

[Daniel Greenberg]

Thank you.

Not quite, because the truth is that in law you could say, “You can't do anything at all that relates to anybody you had any dealings with at all”, so you could go far, but the problem is that it's a very blunt instrument. If you want to be nuanced, you have to use quasi-legislative principles.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault and Mr. Greenberg.

We will now begin the second round of questions.

Mr. Hardy, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Greenberg. Thank you for being with us today.

In England, is it possible right now to become a member of Parliament, a minister or a prime minister without the public being explicitly aware of the assets one holds? Can people be sure that elected officials always make decisions in the public interest and that they always have good intentions, as you stated in your opening remarks?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I'm sorry; I'm not sure I caught the full flow of the question. In the middle it was a bit fuzzy. I beg your pardon. Could you repeat it? I do apologize.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Yes, absolutely.

Can someone become a member of Parliament, a minister or a prime minister without the public being explicitly aware of their assets? I'd also like to know if the decisions this individual will make will potentially affect their assets in the future.

[Daniel Greenberg]

I see. I beg your pardon. I caught the question.

The answer is slightly complicated, I'm afraid. For ministers who are also members of Parliament.... The registration requirements of the code of conduct apply to ministers as they apply to all other members of Parliament—members of the House of Commons. As I said before, those registration requirements are relatively complex. They're certainly relatively detailed. Members of the public can go on and inspect the register, which is published frequently during the year. It's updated frequently, and they can inspect the register to see exactly what a minister's or another member of Parliament's registered interests are.

Some ministers are not members of the House of Commons; they are members of the House of Lords. There are different rules that apply to members of the House of Lords, but there is still a registration scheme, and members of the public will be able to have a look at the registered interests of a minister who is a member of the House of Lords.

For senior public servants or senior officials, there is also a registration scheme. As a senior official, an appointed official of the House of Commons, I have a register of interests. Again, the public can inspect that online—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Excuse me, Mr. Greenberg, but we are having trouble with interpretation. There's something happening with your sound.

I'm going to suggest that you move the microphone up a bit, because it sounds like we're getting an impact on the microphone. It's crackling a little bit.

[Daniel Greenberg]

Is that any better?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, it is making a difference to the interpretation team here.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Hardy, I stopped the clock when you repeated your question.

You have two minutes and 45 seconds left.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Greenberg, thank you very much for your first answer.

If I understand correctly, in England, the general public is able to obtain information on the assets of people who are elected. There are different levels, as you explained.

Conflict of interest screens are put in place to ensure transparency, so that the people can trust in their institutions. In England, could those responsible for these filters possibly report directly to the prime minister? Is it acceptable to use these filters that way in England?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I'm not sure what you mean by “acceptable use of the ethics screen”. I'm sorry to be difficult.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

That's fine.

If I set up a conflict of interest screen and the people responsible for it work directly for me, in my office, or are very close to me, doesn't that somewhat hamper efforts to be transparent and have no connections? Is this done the same way in England?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I see. Yes, I caught the point. I apologize for being slow.

My answer is this: process, the transparency of process and the publication of rules. The more the process is published.... How do I decide what is registered and what is not registered and what the criteria are? The more that is transparent to the public—not just the rules but the process used to apply them—the clearer it is that those are being applied impartially and professionally. I take the point underlying the question, but my answer is, process. Publish the process.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

As soon as a conflict of interest becomes apparent or is demonstrated, is it acceptable in England for the individual to stay in office? What are the consequences? Do you think a $500 fine is sufficient, or should there be further consequences if a conflict of interest is demonstrated, or if the public understands that an elected official has crossed the line? What are the consequences in this type of case in England?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have about 30 seconds, please, if you can answer that.

[Daniel Greenberg]

It depends. The ministerial adviser, who is a prime ministerial appointment, can recommend a range of options. For me, in the House of Commons, I can rectify certain matters in accordance with the published process or I can send things to the committee. The committee on standards can recommend to the House, and that can end up with a suspension of the member, or it could be an apology. There is a wide range of different results that can occur, and it's important that the results, or the outcome, should be proportionate to the incident.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

We're going to go to Mr. Saini.

I understand you're going to be sharing your time with Madame Lapointe. You have five minutes.

You can start us off, sir. Go ahead.

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

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Greenberg.

I understand you were commissioner when Rishi Sunak was the Prime Minister of Britain. It is widely known that he had assets worth billions of dollars. How did you manage that portfolio?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I have two points. First, I'm not the adviser on ministerial interests. As I said before, I advise on members of Parliament, and he was also a member of Parliament. The Prime Minister has a personal adviser on ministerial standards and receives advice from them.

Although I said I was not going to talk about individual cases, as it happens, in the one that you raise regarding Rishi Sunak when he was Prime Minister, there is a published investigation by me, which is on my website, related to interests of his wife in a care company called Koru Kids when he was giving an answer before the liaison committee. That's all published. It's on the website. You can go and see exactly how I dealt with that. There was a complaint of non-declaration. I investigated it. I rectified it in a consensual resolution with the then prime minister, as a result of which he accepted my judgment. He apologized to the House through me, and he and I agreed on a package of measures to prevent the recurrence of a non-declaration.

As it just happens, in the particular incident that you gave, there is a published trail of evidence to show how we dealt with that when it arose.

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

Thank you.

What are the major differences that you see between the ethics legislation in England compared to Canada's, and how can we improve it?