I think this situation supports the Ethics Commissioner and the Ethics Committee recommendations that the ethics legislation needs to be expanded to not just include actual conflicts of interest but also perceived conflicts. As a lawyer, we need to be careful when we take on cases that there are no conflicts or perceived conflicts. It is in our rules of professional conduct and it is enforced by the courts. It is odd to me that Parliament does not operate under similar rules.
I will go with voting is not a conflict of interest. A screen prevents influence over decisions. Votes confirm decisions that have already been made. It would probably have been best if the minister's wife had not accepted the position, but she did, and had every right to as a role that she had earned through her previous experience.
I will go with Champagne and the ever present ambiguities of public service being transparently acknowledged. The job of this particular opposition is to bring down the government - not build the country under the assault of its sovereignty.
"On September 10, 2025, Champagne formalized an internal conflict-of-interest screen. He sent a copy of his recusal letter to the Prime Minister and to the Ethics Commissioner. The screen was his own instrument. It was non-public. It was not, on the record he later presented, a finding against him by the Commissioner.
I think this situation supports the Ethics Commissioner and the Ethics Committee recommendations that the ethics legislation needs to be expanded to not just include actual conflicts of interest but also perceived conflicts. As a lawyer, we need to be careful when we take on cases that there are no conflicts or perceived conflicts. It is in our rules of professional conduct and it is enforced by the courts. It is odd to me that Parliament does not operate under similar rules.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/ETHI/report-5/page-24?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Agreed.
Agreed Erin.
I will go with voting is not a conflict of interest. A screen prevents influence over decisions. Votes confirm decisions that have already been made. It would probably have been best if the minister's wife had not accepted the position, but she did, and had every right to as a role that she had earned through her previous experience.
Great points Keith.
I will go with Champagne and the ever present ambiguities of public service being transparently acknowledged. The job of this particular opposition is to bring down the government - not build the country under the assault of its sovereignty.
"On September 10, 2025, Champagne formalized an internal conflict-of-interest screen. He sent a copy of his recusal letter to the Prime Minister and to the Ethics Commissioner. The screen was his own instrument. It was non-public. It was not, on the record he later presented, a finding against him by the Commissioner.
What opposition MPs later counted was simpler. "
Agreed Ken.