EDITORIAL: Federal conflict law is notoriously weak

The federal ethics commissioner has no power to remove, discipline or even impose a substantial fine on politicians who break the law.

Published Aug 04, 2026  •  Last updated 2 hours ago  •  2 minute read

Forrme Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau. Photo by Dave Chan /Getty Images

See more Toronto Sun on Google — save as a Preferred Source

Article content

The good news is the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously ruled that citizens’ rights group Democracy Watch, and Canadians in general, have a right to apply for judicial review of decisions by the federal ethics commissioner.

Article content

Recommended Videos

Article content

The bad news is the legislation which guides the actions of the commissioner — the federal conflict of interest act — is notoriously weak and has no teeth when it comes to enforcement.

It is not part of the Criminal Code under which politicians and other public officials can be sentenced to prison upon conviction for corruption, fraud and breach of trust.

Under the federal conflict of interest act, the commissioner has no power to remove, discipline or even impose a substantial fine on politicians who break the law.

The maximum fine, $500, is for administrative foul-ups, such as failing to file paperwork on time.

At the time the law was passed under the Stephen Harper Conservative government in 2006, the belief was that a public finding by the commissioner that a politician had engaged in a conflict of interest — in effect a public shaming — would be an effective deterrent to future wrongdoing.

Article content

The problem — then and now — is that many politicians have no sense of shame.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau was found to have violated the conflict of interest act twice — in the Aga Khan and SNC-Lavalin affairs.

Since in the real world it is the prime minister who sets the ethical standards for his government, the idea Trudeau would have disciplined members of his cabinet found to have violated the act — which in fact occurred — was absurd.

According to then ethics commissioner Mario Dion, Trudeau would have been found guilty of violating the conflict law a third time — in the We Charity affair — if the legislation prohibited politicians from having an apparent conflict of interest.

Dion ruled it did not, although that’s one of the issues Democracy Watch will submit for judicial review, arguing Dion made errors in fact and law in arriving at his decision.

That said, a positive result of the Supreme Court ruling, Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher said, is that it will allow citizens to apply for judicial review of decisions by a wide range of government tribunals, not just the ethics commissioner.

Read More

1. 

   EDITORIAL: Canada sacrificing security for trade

2. 

   EDITORIAL: We followed science and got a little lost

Article content