Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Blanchard. It's nice to meet you. It's always interesting to meet a chief of staff. I see that we have an audience today for a reason. For an MP, it's always relevant to meet a chief of staff.

Yesterday, I asked Mr. Sabia a question about Bill C‑15, the budget implementation bill, which was introduced the day before yesterday in the House. I told him that there were tax credits for small nuclear plants, but he said there weren't. Regardless of what Mr. Sabia thinks, on page 91, there is a tax credit that has existed for two years, but that did not apply to small nuclear plants. Bill C‑15 specifically provides for a tax credit for small nuclear power plants. In addition, on page 120, there is a new clean electricity tax credit, which will also apply to nuclear power plants.

There are five players marketing nuclear power in that area, and one of them is Westinghouse, which is owned by Brookfield. In your tool, which I consulted yesterday, it says on page 3 that those who have to apply it should pay particular attention to Westinghouse.

Was the Prime Minister involved in that decision? Did you apply the screen?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

You'll understand my answers given the nature of the discussions. Yesterday, the Clerk of the Privy Council made a commitment. Six decisions have been made to apply the screen since it was implemented and—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

No, I'm not talking about that.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Let me get to my point.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'm talking about Bill C‑15 and the credits that are being added for small nuclear plants.

I have something else to tell you about this issue. Perhaps I can ask my question in full. Then you can answer it. Okay?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Ask it in full if you don't want me to answer it like this. You interrupted me as I was answering your question. Let's get to it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You're talking about the six decisions, but that's not what I'm talking about.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Go ahead.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The Clerk of the Privy Council told me that it was a general decision and that, because it was a general decision, the screen did not apply.

In your document, on page 5, we see the definition of “general application”. It says, “If the decision or discussion applies to an undetermined group of people or companies, then the matter is of general application.” I don't think five players constitute an undetermined group. I can even name them for you: NuScale Power, Westinghouse, General Electric Hitachi, AtkinsRéalis and TechnicAtome. On page 5 of your document, when it comes to whether the discussion applies to a broad class, it says, “If the decision or discussion applies to a small group, then the matter does not apply to a broad class.” So there's a problem there.

Why didn't you apply the screen?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

In this context, Mr. Sabia told you yesterday that, in his opinion, these were measures of general application that did not require the application of the screen.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'm asking you today. I assume I shouldn't repeat the question. According to your document, you are not applying the conflict of interest screen tool. You should have applied it to this situation.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

I respect that if that's your interpretation.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That's not my interpretation; that's what your document says.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

As you can see, the entire process put in place for the application of the tool is very rigorous. First, departments reflect on the work. In each case, they analyze the policies and measures that may be the subject of future decisions. Afterwards, they conduct an analysis to determine whether the screen should apply by answering questions. As you mentioned, the people who had to do this analysis initially decided that the screen did not apply. That's my understanding, contrary to your interpretation.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The least we can say is that you are having trouble complying with your document. You seem to have a lot of trouble applying your tool.

Can you table with the committee the analysis that was done and that led to the situation in which five players were deemed not to be of special interest, not a small class and not something that did not seem to be of general interest?

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair, so I can assess whether I have time to ask another question?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have 35 seconds left.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Blanchard, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner wants us to broaden the scope of the act to include the appearance of conflicts of interest. Mr. Sabia agreed. Do you agree with that?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

I'm not taking a position, and I don't think that's what Mr. Sabia said yesterday. In any case, that's not what I understood. In that regard, I don't have a—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner agrees. He's the one who proposed that.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

That actually falls under the work of parliamentarians and the committee. I respect your work, and it will be up to you to draw your own conclusions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Cooper, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Blanchard.

Mr. Carney's conflicts involving Brookfield are vast by any objective standard. That is why the Ethics Commissioner saw fit to impose special compliance measures including the ethics screen that you, along with Mr. Sabia, administer, which includes, of course, 103 companies, most of which are Brookfield-related.

Mr. Sabia, in his testimony yesterday before this committee, referenced that the Ethics Commissioner personally told Mr. Carney that he should not be meeting with Brookfield. Yet, on August 11, only one month after the ethics screen was put in place, Mr. Carney was speaking with and taking photos with Sam Pollock, who is none other than the CEO of Brookfield Infrastructure, and who also just happened to serve on the board of Brookfield Asset Management when Mr. Carney was chair. Here we have the Ethics Commissioner telling Mr. Carney not to meet with Brookfield, and one month later, Mr. Carney is doing precisely that.

How do you explain that, Mr. Blanchard?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

The Prime Minister of Canada is well aware of his ethical responsibilities and he respects each and every one of them. After speaking with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, he agreed to take very strict measures to avoid conflicts of interest.

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

Mr. Blanchard, the Prime Minister was told specifically not to meet with Brookfield and there he is, meeting with Brookfield.

Back up before that to April 30, just two days after the federal election. According to the Registry of Lobbyists monthly communication report, Mr. Carney was directly lobbied by NorthRiver Midstream Incorporated. The lobbyists registry indicates that for NorthRiver Midstream Incorporated, the parent company is none other than Brookfield.

Again, we have the Prime Minister directly meeting, being directly lobbied, this time on energy policy, by Brookfield, and again not following the spirit of the ethics screen.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

There were measures concerning ethics in place at that time, between when the Prime Minister became Prime Minister in March and when the measures that are currently in place were adopted on July 10.

I am sure that the Prime Minister met his ethical obligations during the period you referred to and that, since July 10, the companies identified have been—