Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

The committee was studying the Conflict of Interest Act, hearing from Daniel Greenberg, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for the United Kingdom House of Commons.

Daniel Greenberg advocated for a principles-based regulatory approach over technical definitions, arguing it forces members to focus on the purpose of rules rather than merely ticking boxes. He cited examples from the Canadian act, such as the definition of "common-law partner" and "gift or other advantage," to illustrate how technical definitions can obscure intent. He recommended using quasi-legislation, like codes of conduct, to influence behaviour and complement legislation that imposes duties and rights. He noted that in the U.K., the code includes a "test of relevance" requiring members to consider whether interests might reasonably be thought by others to influence their actions, addressing apparent conflicts of interest. He also discussed blind trusts as a useful but not sufficient tool, and emphasized the importance of public outreach and engagement to build trust, citing lay members on the standards committee as a practical example. He disagreed with the notion that ethical standards alone are more effective than law, stressing they must complement each other in a legislative hierarchy.

During member questions, Greenberg declined to comment on specific cases, such as Mark Carney or Rishi Sunak, but offered general principles. He noted that in the U.K., ministers and members of Parliament have registered interests publicly available, and that the ministerial adviser on ethics is a civil servant, not employed by the Prime Minister. He addressed concerns about general interests by pointing to a U.K. principle where members advocating for an industry-wide policy are not seen as lobbying for a specific company.

The committee also debated a motion for the production of documents from the Prime Minister's Office, with Michael Barrett arguing that the response did not include records like calendars or emails and proposing a deadline of October 29 for compliance, failing which the matter would be referred to the House. Leslie Church suggested a friendly amendment to include the Privy Council Office, which was accepted by consensus, with members agreeing to request the information comprehensively by that date.