The committee was studying the Conflict of Interest Act, hearing from three witnesses: W. Scott Thurlow, founder of Thurlow Law; Gregory J. Levine, a lawyer, ethics consultant and social scientist appearing as an individual; and Guy Giorno, a lawyer appearing as an individual.
W. Scott Thurlow argued that the act should not compromise the democratic process, recommending that participating in an electoral event be exempted from creating a conflict of interest. He suggested consolidating the various conflict of interest codes into one consistent set of rules and placing all post-employment limitations in a single act, noting that the current rules treat all designated public office holders as one class, which is inappropriate. Thurlow warned against overemphasizing the concept of an apparent conflict of interest, saying it could paralyze public officials, and disagreed with witnesses who advocated for enshrining it in the act, though he supported allowing the public to file complaints with the commissioner if there is a threshold of evidence. He also argued that the rule of general application is necessary to avoid paralyzing parliamentarians, and that blind trusts are a sufficient legal mechanism, disagreeing with suggestions that they are a loophole.
Gregory J. Levine emphasized that conflict of interest is not corruption, but a precondition that, if not disclosed and managed, could lead to biased decision-making. He supported adding an explicit provision on apparent conflict of interest to the act, citing British Columbia’s Members’ Conflict of Interest Act as a model, and noted that such a provision would help address perceptions that undermine public confidence. Levine expressed concern about ethics screens, saying they have the potential to mask conflicts rather than make them open, and recommended that screens be explicitly legislated and overseen by a third party, such as the Ethics Commissioner, rather than being administered by staff who report to the public office holder. He also argued that the definition of “private interest” should not be limited to financial interests, as emotional and relational interests can also affect decision-making.
Guy Giorno argued that most of the Conflict of Interest Act is toothless, with 40 of its 55 rules carrying no penalties, and recommended that all important rules be backed by enforceable sanctions, including fines or imprisonment. He also recommended moving key provisions from the policy document “Open and Accountable Government,” such as annexes on fundraising and conduct for ministerial staff, into the act to give them legal force. Giorno supported adding an appearance-of-conflict standard to the act, disagreeing with Thurlow, and said that perception is substantively important for public confidence. He opposed merging the offices of the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner, arguing they regulate different sectors, and noted that blind trusts and ethics screens have been used for decades, though he acknowledged that the act does not require reporting when a screen diverts a matter away from a public office holder. Giorno also said that five years is an appropriate post-employment lobbying ban and that the act should not be structured to turn people away from public service.
After the witnesses’ testimony, the committee debated a motion by Michael Cooper to order the Prime Minister’s Office to produce records of meetings the Prime Minister held with investment leaders in New York and London, including who was present, what was discussed, and the timing of the meetings. Conservative members argued the motion was necessary for transparency, given the Prime Minister’s conflicts of interest related to Brookfield, while Liberal and Bloc Québécois members debated its merits, with some saying the information had already been disclosed and others supporting it for greater transparency. The motion was moved and debated, but no vote was recorded in the transcript.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.