Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

The committee studied the Conflict of Interest Act, hearing from Michael Wernick, former Clerk of the Privy Council, and Samuel Cooper, an investigative journalist.

Michael Wernick argued that the Conflict of Interest Act is one tool among several for democratic governance and that mandatory divestitures could deter people with private-sector backgrounds from entering politics, which he said would be a loss. He suggested that perceived conflicts of interest are inherently subjective and that Parliament should consider a ladder of sanctions, including higher fines or barring candidates from elections, rather than overly strict rules for all public office holders. Wernick disagreed with the idea of expanding the definition of "private interest" to cover decisions of general application, saying the act should target specific personal relationships, but he had no objection to writing specific rules for the Prime Minister's office. He also recommended that the committee look at OECD comparative reports and consider strengthening other tools like the Lobbying Act and the foreign agent registry.

Samuel Cooper testified that Canada's democracy requires an independent body to administer ethics screens and that the Conflict of Interest Act should be broadened to cover the appearance of a conflict of interest, not just actual conflicts. He argued that the current system, where the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's chief of staff manage the screen, is not independent enough, and he advocated for full divestiture of prior investments for public office holders. Cooper noted that his technical knowledge of the act came largely from Democracy Watch's Duff Conacher, and he disagreed with Wernick's view that the appearance of conflict is too subjective to legislate, saying reasonable people can perceive conflicts when business relationships extend into politics. He also raised concerns about Prime Minister Carney's ties to Brookfield's investments in China, suggesting they raise questions about access and influence.

The committee's questioning included procedural exchanges, but no motions or votes were recorded in the transcript.