Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 20th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault. Your time is up.

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

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Blanchard, yesterday, the Clerk told us he sold his Brookfield shares within minutes because he couldn't oversee the Prime Minister's screen while he was still holding them.

Why shouldn't the Prime Minister meet that same standard and simply divest by selling his assets, instead of holding them and potentially continuing to benefit financially from decisions he takes in his role as Prime Minister?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

I believe that what has been set up for the Prime Minister is the highest standards of ethics. First, there's a divestment of all of his assets. Second, he has agreed with the Ethics Commissioner that for the list of companies in annex A of his public declaration, there will be the possibility, when needed, to establish an ethical wall.

This is very rigorous. As I've been explaining to this committee, we have a rigorous assessment tool. It is a rigorous process. It is working and it has been used in the past. I believe that this reflects the highest level of ethics, and that Canadians see it as a very transparent way of doing it. I've shown you that courts are in agreement with this and that this way of doing things is more transparent to Canadians than any other choices we could have made.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Do you think it's more transparent than if the controlled assets were sold before the Prime Minister had the opportunity to make any decisions?

Do you think having them in this process, which needs to be administered, is more transparent than him simply divesting them fully? That's the question.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

I think it's very transparent on the part of the Prime Minister—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

But is it more transparent, sir?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

I think it's very transparent on the part of the Prime Minister to have gone through the divestiture of his assets, putting them in a blind trust and convening with the Ethics Commissioner, agreeing to set up an ethical wall for the companies listed in annex A and working with him to ensure that the process is well respected and that he respects the highest level of ethics.

It's a practice that the OECD recognized as being one of the best in the world on this matter.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

You used the phrase “one of the best”. My question to you is about whether we can improve on it. I think that Canada has the opportunity...and that's the study we're undertaking at the committee right now. Can we improve on the system that we have? Are there concerns or loopholes? Are there things that are giving rise to Canadians' loss or lack of confidence in our democratic institutions? We have an opportunity to improve on it. It doesn't necessarily serve as an indictment against Mr. Carney, but is there an opportunity?

I appreciate your reference to how it has been used in the past and to the Federal Court ruling. That's important context, and it serves well to inform the evidence that this committee will have in taking recommendations forward to the House, but is this the best way? If a prime minister, if Mr. Carney owns controlled assets, even if they're in a blind trust, and if he knows what he put into the funds that he stands to benefit from, through interest payments in the future, and the decisions he and his government take improve that portfolio, Canadians understand that, well, he's going to profit from the decisions that he takes. If he owns it, the potential for him to financially benefit continues.

Wouldn't it be cleaner, simpler and improve the confidence that Canadians are able to have in the process if the requirement were for prime ministers and for party leaders, including the Leader of the Opposition, to sell all controlled assets? Then, if there were investments to be made, the discussion could be had about whether a trustee could make those, but perhaps they don't hold controlled assets while they're in office. Wouldn't that, just simply, eliminate the risk and thereby solidify and actually improve Canadians' confidence?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to take that as a statement, Mr. Barrett, because we're 15 seconds over. If you want to return to it later, then you're more than welcome to do that.

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

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Blanchard, for being here. I'm sure you've had more productive uses of your time than being here for these two hours, from what I've heard so far.

I'm going start with something Mr. Cooper said. He started by saying Mr. Carney's conflicts are vast, and then he ended by asking whether it wouldn't be better if the PM just heeded the advice of the commissioner. In your opinion, and in the opinion of the others who were involved in this process, has the Prime Minister heeded the advice of the commissioner and followed the rules?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

To the best of my knowledge, the Prime Minister has always taken advice from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, has always committed to it and has always complied with it.

This is one thing.

The other thing is this: I want to say that what has been agreed upon between...the Ethics Commissioner, who is an independent public office holder—he is an officer of Parliament—everything that he has proposed the Prime Minister has agreed with. We have a very extensive process to ensure that we prevent, as much as we can, any possibility of conflict of interest.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

Something that Mr. Barrett suggested, other than this not being an indictment of the Prime Minister, when he asked his first round of questions—and he just did it again—was that you put these assets in the blind trust and then you could subsequently act to benefit the blind trust. The fact of the matter is that, when assets go into the blind trust, you no longer know what happens after. The assets and the structure of the trust could change because the trustee is now responsible for that. Is that right?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Yes, it is. That's actually what Nigel Wright was saying in his testimony. This is why I quoted Mr. Wright, because I thought it was the assessment of the reality.

This is what is happening: Mr. Carney has divested of his interests in a blind trust. He doesn't know now. It's actually not up to him to make any decisions in relation to these assets. The decisions are made by a trustee. Then, on top of that, the Prime Minister has accepted this ethical wall to ensure that we prevent any possibility of a conflict of interest.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks.

We know that Mr. Wright was always going back to Onex. In fact, he went back to Onex while Prime Minister Harper was still in office. To try to distinguish the two is a bit of a false narrative, in my opinion.

Would you agree with that?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

It was certainly a difficulty for the ethics committee at the time, the fact that Mr. Wright wanted to go back. He was just on a congé sans solde from Onex.

In some ways, he kept a lot of his relationships with Onex, which is not the situation of Mr. Carney with Brookfield.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Majumdar suggested that there's a “cloud of uncertainty” and conflicts. I would suggest that's not true. In fact, there is just a flurry of allegations. If you look at this study, the original purpose of it was principled. It's to review the Conflict of Interest Act, including the conflict of interest rules. That's a noble, principled approach to what we should be doing as members of Parliament.

However, the reference from the House of Commons amending it suggests that it include a consideration based on the unprecedented extent of the Prime Minister's corporate shareholders' interests. I'm not sure what the word “unprecedented” adds to that. If you're talking about a Prime Minister who has had success...I don't understand.

I'm suggesting to you, and I would like to know if you agree or not, that this is purely a political exercise. We should be reviewing in this committee the Conflict of Interest Act, not trying to fire off random questions about the Prime Minister or any other member of Parliament in the hope of scoring some political points, which have not been made.

Would you agree with that?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

As I said before, I happen to agree with you, but I'll leave the political games to all of you parliamentarians.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

I'll end with this. You were the CEO of McCarthy's, one of the biggest law firms, if not the biggest law firm, in Canada.

As a lawyer myself, I understand conflict of interest is important. As a multinational and multi-provincial firm, you were in a prime position to review the conflict of interest provisions in your office. If you're wrong, you get sued or you get sanctioned by the law society, so the last thing you want to do in that position, or as the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, is get into that situation.

Isn't that right, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Quickly.

[Marc-André Blanchard]

I totally agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

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

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Maloney and Mr. Blanchard can say all they want that the Prime Minister has satisfied these threshold standards set by the Ethics Commissioner, but I would refer to the testimony from yesterday when Mr. Sabia, the Clerk of the Privy Council, was asked whether he would say to Mr. Carney that he can no longer speak with Brookfield. The answer from Mr. Sabia was that it wouldn't be necessary for him to do so, and that, in discussing things with the Ethics Commissioner a few months ago, the commissioner told him to do just that. In other words, don't talk to Brookfield. What did the Prime Minister do instead? He met with Sam Pollock, the CEO of Brookfield Infrastructure in Washington. He was lobbied by a company that is owned by Brookfield, and he had a private breakfast working meeting with four Brookfield investors in London. That's hardly following the guidance of the Ethics Commissioner.

I want to pick up on a line of questioning by Mr. Majumdar about who is screening who.

In that regard, do you screen Mr. Carney's texts?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

Mr. Cooper, I'd like to answer your question about meetings. I was given some information with respect to the meeting that I believe you're still referring to in your—

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

I asked you a question. Do you screen Mr. Carney's texts?

[Marc-André Blanchard]

I think it's important that I answer your question about the meeting. You said that in one of the first—