Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When I asked Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard how many times they had asked the Prime Minister to recuse himself, they corrected me and told me that they don't ask him; they impose it on him. Mr. Blanchard told me that he had imposed on Mr. Carney not to meet with the companies listed on his statement. I asked him the following question: Was that also imposed for telephone communications? Was Mr. Carney instructed not to communicate with Brookfield? His answer was no. He told me that Mr. Carney holds himself to the highest standards.
I have to admit that I was frankly perplexed by that answer. I was told that there's ultimately no need to tell him not to communicate with those people, not to call them and not to receive their calls, because he knows his obligations. We know that Mr. Carney must have quite a full address book.
If the same logic had been applied to the matter of the blind trust, a blind trust wouldn't have been imposed on him. He would have been told that he knew his obligations and that he set himself the highest standards possible.
Don't you think that shows a lack of rigour on Mr. Blanchard's part as a manager of a conflict of interest screen?
Doesn't that show that a chief of staff isn't the right person to manage this screen?