Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Blanchard, for joining us today. I'm grateful to you for taking the time to properly answer our questions.

You spoke about Nigel Wright earlier. He appeared before this committee when he was Stephen Harper's chief of staff. You spoke about the conflict of interest screen applied to him.

You told my colleagues on the other side a few times that Mr. Wright's situation was comparable to Prime Minister Carney's situation.

Can you talk about the similarities between these two cases?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

That situation involved the Onex company, which had a major impact on the Canadian economy. Mr. Wright was a senior executive in this company. His situation was similar to the situation being discussed here. There was a divestment of assets into a blind trust.

Following discussions with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner at the time, we agreed to set up an ethical wall. To the best of my recollection, this involved around 40 companies operating in four or five sectors of the economy.

More or less the same type of measures are being implemented. Personally, I have a great deal of respect for Nigel Wright and for what he did. In this particular case, he supported the process. He felt that it was acceptable and normal under the circumstances.

I'm saying that we can draw a parallel with Mr. Carney's situation.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Since Mr. Wright's appearance, the same system has been in place to ensure that people who decide to participate in Canadian politics remain free of conflicts of interest. This is done either with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, or with the trustee.

This system has been around for over ten years.

Isn't that right?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

This system has been applied to many politicians, in one way or another, for well over 10 years.

The divestment measure is often applied in a blind trust for public office holders.

An ethical wall has also been implemented multiple times throughout the history of our governments, both Conservative and Liberal. These measures have proved highly effective.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Indeed, this system doesn't pose any issues. It works quite well. It's a preventive measure to ensure that the politician in question doesn't end up in a conflict of interest situation.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Exactly.

That's why I referred to the Federal Court of Appeal ruling. Interestingly, we could have a recusal system that works more as a remedy than as a preventive measure, in some respects.

In this case, there was a divestment. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Prime Minister agreed to do more and to go above and beyond the divestment. A list of companies known to the Prime Minister was compiled. This list can be found in annex A.

We also introduced a preventive measure to ensure that the Prime Minister doesn't end up in a conflict of interest situation. This is important not only for the Prime Minister, but also for the institution that he represents and for the government. The goal is to ensure the government's success.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have one and a half minutes left.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Good. Thank you.

How does your participation and the Clerk of the Privy Council's involvement in this mechanism strengthen the independence of the process in practical terms?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

You must be able to predict, you must see decisions coming and you must anticipate certain meetings if you want to ensure that you don't end up in a conflict of interest situation.

That's why the Prime Minister and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner jointly mandated the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's chief of staff to carry out this work.

In my opinion, individuals are the ones who ultimately change things through their self‑imposed rigour. When ethical standards are set, and when individuals abide by them, the desired results are achieved.

If you end up in a situation where one of these components is missing, you won't achieve a good result.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchard and Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday, Mr. Sabia spoke of collaboration on a daily basis. Today, you're talking about frequent contact.

Do you see accountability as constantly asking the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner whether you're on the right track?

In this sense, does the Commissioner or his office participate in the administration of the screen?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

The Commissioner contributes to our analyses.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

In a way, he's involved.

Isn't that right?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Yes, in a way, he's involved.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

This bothers me a bit, and it has been bugging me since earlier.

Yesterday, I asked Mr. Sabia how we could make the process even more rigorous, because I think that it needs to be. I also asked the Commissioner this question, and it still wasn't clear. So I'm asking you the same question today.

You spoke about Nigel Wright. However, he wasn't the prime minister in this situation. When the Prime Minister knows that a cabinet minister may face a situation involving an apparent conflict of interest, the Prime Minister can handle the situation. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner won't be handling it.

That said, who will handle this type of situation when it comes to the Prime Minister?

All the measures that we've been talking about are in place.

When I asked the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner whether the accountability should go through his office, he responded as follows: “I can't be both judge and stakeholder. If my office is involved in the administration of the screen, I'm the one who must make a decision in the event of a conflict of interest.”

In a sense, despite the process, not everyone has mastered this proximity and this tool, if we look at how people talk about the complexity of the administration of the screen.

I think that there are flaws. To correct them, you ask the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner whether you're on the right track. Basically, it's as if the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner were a full‑time member of your team to ensure a rigorous administration. Isn't that right?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

I would say that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner gives advice as we move forward with our work.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Is this tool the brainchild of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

No, the tool was—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Did he validate it?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

We discussed this tool with him. I gathered that he was comfortable with the idea of using this type of tool.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Indeed, if properly applied, the tool could meet certain criteria.

We'll be addressing the issue of proximity and the desire for somewhat more objective accountability with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Did you apply the conflict of interest screen to Mr. Carney's communications with the companies listed in his declaration?

Is Mr. Carney prohibited from communicating with the companies on the list?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Mr. Carney knows his obligations—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Did you apply a screen?

Yesterday, Mr. Sabia said that you weren't asking him to recuse himself and that you were imposing decisions on him.

Did you prohibit Mr. Carney from communicating with Brookfield?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Mr. Carney knows the list of companies in annex A. We don't need a screen for this. This concerns direct contacts.