Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 20th, 2025

[Daniel Greenberg]

The main difference is that, at present, we do not have an equivalent legislation to your Conflict of Interest Act. We rely primarily, as I said, in the House of Commons, on a code of conduct, and in the House of Lords on their code of conduct. There is a ministerial code for ministers, which, again, is a quasi-legislative mechanism and not legislation.

The biggest difference between us at the moment is that you do more by legislation that we do by quasi-legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor for two minutes and 15 seconds.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Greenberg, thank you for being with us today. You talked about the British regime, where the emphasis is on Nolan's seven principles of public life ethics-wise. Do you think a principles-based approach, as opposed to the one mentioned, effectively prevents substantial conflicts of interest?

[Daniel Greenberg]

Yes, I do, and I will take you through the Nolan principles with that in mind.

First are openness and accountability. You cannot have any effective regime for acknowledging and avoiding conflicts of interest unless the public has trust in that regime. That trust depends on openness, and that depends on some system of registration and publication.

Second, objectivity and selflessness are absolutely the founding principles of avoiding conflicts of interest. I am there as a selfless member of Parliament or public official. I am actuated not by my self-interest but by the interests of the public. In the language that I read to you earlier from our code of conduct, we base our conduct on a consideration of the public interest. That is selflessness and objectivity. I am required to look at the public policy before me objectively, from a position of principle, and not subjectively, through the prism of my own personal interest.

Finally, we have honesty and integrity. I believe that it is fundamentally part of a member of Parliament's integrity that they serve the public in the interest of the public, and not in their own interest.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Greenberg, one of our concerns has to do with section 2 of the Conflict of Interest Act, which limits conflict of interest to private interests. Everything general in scope is therefore not regulated, so there is no conflict of interest when the interest also serves other people.

That puts us in an odd position. I know you're not commenting on specific cases, but we're in a pretty unique situation right now. Let me explain: An individual who is the head of a company that has control of 916 companies, with $1 quadrillion in assets, becomes Prime Minister before people are even aware of his conflict of interest declarations.

When this individual becomes Prime Minister, the first thing he does is pass a law that, for the next few years, will consider the sectors in which the company he headed up has a hand. Obviously, he put his assets in a blind trust. So he won't be privy to how much his assets grow, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider that he knows they will grow.

As such, should there not be additional requirements when someone holds the highest office of the state and decides on the economic policies and strategies of that state?

I know that we're on the dividing line between ethics and politics, but this is a real problem. When it comes to ethics, we must not legislate for a single exception. The fact remains that, given the current situation, we may end up with precedents. We want people with private sector know-how to run for the most senior positions in the public service, even the head of state. Then we're satisfied with the rules we have in place. Personally, I think we need more rules.

In a scenario like thus, isn't there at least an apparent conflict of interest?

[Daniel Greenberg]

You're quite right—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have two minutes and 15 seconds, Mr. Greenberg.

[Daniel Greenberg]

That's fine, because I wasn't going to answer the question anyway. It won't take me very long not to do it.

You're quite right. I'm not going to say anything that appears to reflect on a particular case, nor am I going to tell you what your policy ought to be.

To try to be helpful, what I can do is give you another specific example of the way we address this kind of issue in our own jurisdiction. In chapter 3 of the code, which deals with “Lobbying for reward or consideration”, we have in paragraph 4 a principle that members are not regarded as lobbying for a particular company if they are making an observation that is relevant to an industry as a whole.

I mention that because I think it's relevant to the kind of balance that you are talking about. If you are going to try to decide how to make sure that people are involved in public policy when they have specific interests, this is the kind of route that you can use to achieve that—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Mr. Greenberg. We're having problems again with the microphone and the interpretation.

I've stopped the clock, Mr. Thériault.

I'm wondering if you can just move it up a little bit further.

[Daniel Greenberg]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That may be a little bit too high, sir.

Try it right there. Tell us what the weather is like in Toronto today.

[Daniel Greenberg]

I can apologize to the interpreters. I'll use this as an opportunity to apologize to the interpreters, who always do a phenomenal job, and I'm sorry that I'm making their job more difficult.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's still causing us some problems. I'm not sure if it's the headset, because we've adjusted it a few times.

Can you speak more softly?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I can try. It's not my normal way, but I can try.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm trying everything here, sir, because I find your testimony fascinating and I want to keep it going.

Let's try again. Go ahead.

[Daniel Greenberg]

I'll try again, with apologies to everybody.

I was just drawing attention to the principle we have that if a member is making observations about a general matter that is benefiting an industry as a whole, they are not regarded as seeking—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, sir. It's not working.

I'm going to suspend for a minute to see if we can get this worked out with our technicians. Hopefully we can. Then we'll come back. If not, we'll have to figure something out.

I'm going to suspend for a minute. Hang on, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for your patience, Mr. Greenberg.

It looks like we have corrected it by unplugging and plugging in again.

Mr. Thériault, the clock shows that you have only one minute left. However, because of the technical problems, I'm going to give you a little more time to ask your question and have Mr. Greenberg answer it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Greenberg, I wanted to talk about the issue of an apparent conflict of interest related to general interests. I don't think we should strictly limit the notion of conflict of interest to private interests. The world has changed. When the act in its current form was passed, situations were simpler to manage: The only question was whether a spouse's interests were being advanced, or whether a contract between a company and the government created a conflict of interest. However, today, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about something bigger.

Shouldn't matters of general application also be included in the notion of actual or apparent conflict of interest?

[Daniel Greenberg]

I hope you can hear me now, and I do apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We can, sir. It's working well.

[Daniel Greenberg]

That is why I drew attention to a provision that you may not have heard properly, so I'll say it again.

In paragraph 4 of chapter 3 of our guide—which deals with paid lobbying, for the benefit of the researchers after this meeting—we do address exactly that point. We say that if you are, for example, a landlord or an employee of a landlord but you are making a point that benefits the industry as a whole because it's an industry-wide policy point, then you are not regarded as seeking a benefit on behalf of your employer. That concept, I think, can be enlarged to meet the point that you are making.

I take the point that interests are more complicated than they once were. It is possible to find ways to allow people to deploy their experience of the real word, if you like—the commercial world, or whatever it is—and balance that with their service of general public policy and service of the public as a whole. Those are techniques that one can use in order to strike that balance.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead for five minutes.