Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Yes, by the virtue of our function, we have views over....

We see the process. We're fully aware of the process, and that's what enables us to take preventive action to ensure that the Prime Minister isn't placed in a conflict of interest.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Essentially, before making any decision, the Prime Minister is already covered and these potential conflicts have been screened out.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Yes. This is the goal of the entire process.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

This has been overseen by the Ethics Commissioner, who has been satisfied with the level of rigour of the implementation.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Yes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the conflict of interest screen was an appropriate measure.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Yes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Our Conflict of Interest Act has a very high standard, because it says not only that the Prime Minister must not or the public office-holder must not get into an actual conflict of interest but also must protect against a perceived conflict of interest.

In essence, with these two, both the blind trust and the independent administration of an ethics screen, as you've described, doesn't it make it almost impossible for the Prime Minister to be perceived of being in a conflict of interest?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

For any potential and real conflicts of interest, I agree with you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I appreciate your testimony here today. It seems to me that this is a very rigorous process.

You said at the very beginning in your opening remarks that this was the most rigorous process that you've seen in your career. You were Canada's representative to the United Nations, you were the executive VP in charge of global division at CDPQ, and you were chairman and CO of one of the largest law firms in the country, and you're telling us that this is the most rigorous that you've seen.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

The reason I say that is the number of people and how pervasive it is in the system in the bureaucracy on the political side that so many people are aware of it, are sensitive to it and are raising flags at the right time. This is really what the rigour of this system is.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

In my past, many moons ago, I worked in medical research ethics for a while. The highest standard in medical research ethics is something called a double-blind research trial.

This seems, to me, to apply to this moment, because there's essentially a double-blind here. On the one hand, the Prime Minister does not control the ethics screen and, on the other hand, he's not in control of the assets that he once held.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

He's not aware of when we screen something. That is a very important point.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you.

Next is Mr. Thériault for two and a half minutes. After that, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party will each have two and a half minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner wants to introduce the concept of apparent conflict of interest into the Conflict of Interest Act. I know you didn't want to get into that line of reasoning earlier, at the beginning of our discussion. However, I would posit that situations like the ones we have with the Prime Minister would be subject to more effective oversight or much more proactive measures than is currently the case.

In addition, as I continue to reflect on the highest degree of excellence and transparency for a prime minister, I'd like to give you the example of Paul Martin, who set up the Gomery commission regarding the Liberal sponsorship scandal. He seemed to have much higher standards than Mark Carney: When he was minister, he kept his boat company, but when he became prime minister, he sold it.

This goes back to my first question, which was also the first question I asked Mr. Sabia yesterday: Wouldn't your life be simpler if Mr. Carney had been as exemplary as Mr. Martin?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

I think Mark Carney is behaving in an exemplary way, since he divested his assets and put them in a blind trust.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's a blind trust, but it's important to consider the scope of Bill C‑5, which was passed under a gag order. In that context, someone who puts their assets in a blind trust doesn't know how much their wealth will increase, but they know for certain—especially if they're a businessman in the world of finance—that their wealth is increasing.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

I disagree with you on that, in the sense that the Prime Minister divested his assets, put them in a blind trust, then agreed with the Ethics Commissioner on an ethics wall that—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's a screen; it's not a wall.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

He agreed to an ethics screen—which is a wall, in my opinion—that affects the list of companies mentioned in schedule A. As we've seen, a rigorous process is in place to ensure that this is implemented. I think that what Mr. Carney has agreed to do meets the highest standards.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

It's a rigorous process, but it isn't without its flaws.

Will you ask Mr. Carney to recuse himself from the vote on Bill C‑15?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Please give a brief answer.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

The screen actually doesn't apply during the vote on Bill C‑15. It's just at the level of [Inaudible—Editor].

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Review your tool, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Barrett, you have two and a half minutes. Go ahead.