Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 19th, 2025

[Michael Sabia]

I'm not sure exactly, but I made the decision 15 or 30 minutes after I saw the name Brookfield on the list.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You're familiar with Bill C‑5, which was rammed through the House of Commons. As you know, the bill lays out an economic development strategy for so-called national interest projects, projects that would open up business opportunities for Brookfield.

For example, Brookfield owns railways; a company that designs, builds and operates nuclear power plants; natural gas processing plants; and gas pipelines. The corporation is also involved in oil sands projects and port facilities. Bill C‑5 covers all of those areas in which Brookfield has assets.

Is that why you sold your Brookfield shares?

[Michael Sabia]

No.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Was it because it would be simpler to manage the situation?

[Michael Sabia]

No.

I decided to sell my assets simply to better manage my role as an administrator for the Prime Minister. My decision was not related to Bill C-5 or other considerations.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

However, do you agree that there is an appearance of conflict of interest, or even, if you don't act properly, a conflict of interest because of the role the Prime Minister played, and the assets and possessions of Brookfield, but also the government's economic policies? Otherwise, you wouldn't have sold your assets in Brookfield.

[Michael Sabia]

No, hold on.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The fact that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner reported this to you and asked for a conflict of interest screen to be applied means there was an appearance of a potential conflict of interest in the future.

[Michael Sabia]

I'm repeating myself, but I decided to sell my assets because a conflict of interest screen protects the Prime Minister. I'm not involved in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's request. He didn't ask that a screen be applied to me.

I was well aware of the fact that the Prime Minister had assets in certain activities at Brookfield. To better manage my role, better protect the Prime Minister and better manage the conflict of interest screen, I decided to sell my own assets. So it was not to avoid a conflict of interest, but to simplify things, as I was well aware of the importance of Brookfield in my activities as administrator of the conflict of interest screen.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

What does “simplify things” mean? Is it a matter of simplifying things in order to properly apply the conflict of interest screen that was required?

[Michael Sabia]

No.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

What exactly did you want to simplify?

[Michael Sabia]

Given the Prime Minister's role in Brookfield a while ago, it was obvious that Brookfield would be a significant part of my activities as administrator of the conflict of interest screen. So the idea was to simplify my activities, since it was quite obvious that Brookfield would take up a large part of my time and would be at the centre of decisions on whether or not to apply the filter.

I decided that it was much simpler to sell in order to facilitate those decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Sabia and Mr. Thériault.

We will now begin the second round.

Mr. Cooper, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Sabia.

The Brookfield Global Transition Fund I is a subject of the Prime Minister's ethics screen. Mr. Carney's disclosure states that he is entitled to carry interest payments from the Brookfield Global Transition Fund, which are essentially future bonus payments based upon the performance of the fund. What Mr. Carney's disclosure does not provide are the holdings within that fund.

Are you aware of what those holdings are, as the administrator of the ethics screen?

[Michael Sabia]

No, I am not.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Is the Ethics Commissioner aware, to your knowledge?

[Michael Sabia]

Yes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

He is aware of those.

You, not the Ethics Commissioner, are responsible for administering the screen, so how is it possible for you to make a determination as to whether the screen applies if you are unaware of what those holdings are?

[Michael Sabia]

The operation of the screen is such that, with regard to the 103 companies, we have identified a number of sectors where that fund is operating in certain of those sectors. When issues of that kind arise where—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Sabia, here's the situation with respect to that fund: Mr. Carney set up that fund. He registered it in the Cayman Islands. It's a multi-billion dollar so-called “clean energy fund”. He picked the companies, and he knows what the holdings are. He knows the public policy decisions that might influence the fund's success and therefore his future bonus pay. How can you determine whether the screen is appropriately triggered if you're ignorant of what is behind the fund?

[Michael Sabia]

Mr. Cooper, that's for the simple reason that we check everything with the Ethics Commissioner.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Then what would you do with that? Explain what you would do with that.

[Michael Sabia]

When an issue arose, if we had—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

How would you know if an issue arose? If you're blind to what is in the fund, you don't know.