Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 20th, 2025

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

I'll split my time with Mr. Hardy.

Sir, you talked about blind trusts. I understood that you believe them to be effective. Is my understanding correct?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I believe them to be of some use. I'm not going to say they will necessarily deal with every ethical issue, but yes, I think they have their uses.

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

Would a principles-based approach require more than just a legal separation? We heard testimony from the Ethics Commissioner here that once funds go into a blind trust, it's most common that there is no turnover of the assets that are in that trust. In order to eliminate the ability to reasonably predict financial outcomes of policy decisions, ought there to be consideration given to divestment into that trust in the form of cash instead of specific controlled assets or a requirement for turnover of the items that are held in trust?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I think I agree with you where you started, that the principles require more than just saying, “There's a blind trust, so everything is fine.” As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the reason principles-based legislation or regulation is so important in this area is that everything is fact-specific. I couldn't answer your question as to the efficacy of particular disposal of particular assets in an abstract way, because it depends exactly on how much, what other assets a person has and what part of their portfolio they represent. It's very fact-specific, and the fact-specific answer will influence what we've been talking about until now, which is what reasonable people think when they watch my behaviour. It's this combination of factors that requires a case-specific, principles-based approach.

It may sound as though I'm not answering your question, but I meant to answer your question very specifically: Yes, one does need more than just saying, “A blind trust is all you need and everything is fine”, but equally, there's no one answer for every situation. Does that make sense?

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

That's great.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Hardy, you have the floor for two minutes and five seconds.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Greenberg, if I understand correctly, in England, the people responsible for conflict of interest screens for a minister or the Prime Minister have no employment relationship with them. Is that correct?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I'm sorry, but I didn't get the question.

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

No problem.

If I understand correctly, in England, those responsible for the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screens, for example, do not work for him. Can we agree on that?

[Daniel Greenberg]

Yes, in relation to the House of Commons registration of interest, the ministerial adviser on ethics is the adviser to the Prime Minister, and he is a civil servant.

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

That's perfect. That individual is completely independent and doesn't have to take direction from the Prime Minister, and they're not on the Prime Minister's payroll.

Do you think that someone elected strictly to serve the public before their boss is the right person to put in place to manage the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screens for things like his assets?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I think that one needs to develop the system for appointment of people with different regulatory responsibilities in a way that gives trust to the system. I'm not going to say more than that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy and Mr. Greenberg.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There was a second part to my question earlier. That's why I want to come back to it.

Mr. Greenberg, you said that Great Britain relied mainly on the Nolan principles and a code of conduct to resolve conflicts of interest, whereas Canada uses the Conflict of Interest Act.

Do you think the principles applied in Great Britain could be adapted to the Canadian context?

[Daniel Greenberg]

As I said in a previous answer, I'm a believer in a hierarchy of legislation so that the principles are encoded in the legislation in a way that allows legislation to be applied in a purposive and principles-based way. That takes a very subtle construction of a legislative mechanism, so that you have certainty through law, and flexibility and agility through quasi-legislation.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Sari, you have the floor for four minutes.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Greenberg, thank you for being with us. Your presentation was exceptional. We've learned a lot today.

In my opinion, one of the main objectives of work related to ethics rules and laws is to have more transparency and public trust. In preparing my questions for today, I found that you focused on raising awareness, not only among policy-makers and those in power but also the general public.

In your opinion, what concrete steps could we take to educate the public about the risk of misperceptions, and what role could the committee play in that regard?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I strongly support the principle underlying that question, if I may say so. When I became commissioner, I decided that I was going to do a lot of outreach and public engagement as part of my role, because I have found that the public start from a very low level of trust in politics and politicians, and the more one explains the system that exists and the methods that we use to ensure that most politicians are indeed wholly actuated by public interest, the more the public listen and the more their trust rises. I would say engagement with the public, outreach.... By the way, if you will permit me to say this, engagement does not mean allowing the public to come to watch us. Engagement means engaging with the public, listening to the public and allowing them to feel that their contribution is valued and incorporated into the way that we run our system.

I think that outreach and engagement are absolutely key. I completely agree that, in the end, this is about trust. The only thing we're doing here is about shoring up trust between the public and the politicians.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I completely agree with you, because when we want to raise public awareness, the objective is to gain the public's trust.

Do you think that the behaviour or words of a few members who focus on the details rather than addressing the issues in a comprehensive way sometimes undermine the process to gain public trust?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I believe that one of the principles is enshrined in our code of conduct. I will read rule 11 of the code of conduct to the committee. It's very short, and I believe it answers the question exactly: “Members shall never undertake any action [and that includes speech] which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

In closing, I'm going to ask you a much more technical question.

We strongly agree on one point, which is raising awareness among members of the public, because they are stakeholders. Could you give us some concrete examples of action we could take to ensure that the public is involved in this exercise of transparency and trust?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We are near the end of your time, Mr. Greenberg, but I am going to give you an opportunity to answer that, if you can, in a quick manner, or invite you to undertake to supply the committee with that response.

[Daniel Greenberg]

No, I can do it.