I'm rereading Mr. Barrett's notice of motion for the benefit of the people listening to us.
I'll continue:
… (ii) the record of the outcome of each analysis; (iii) any records of discussions or considerations that are in the possession of the PCO or any department related to each analysis, including notes and meeting minutes; and (iv) any correspondence related to each analysis, including emails, text messages, instant messages, and other records of conversations; and that the first report shall be provided to the committee by no later than June 15, 2026, and shall include the complete set of information for each assessment since the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen came into effect; and (b) order the production of the Prime Minister's travel itineraries and related records for all international travel he has taken since he became the Prime Minister that are in the possession of the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's Office, or any federal government department; including, but not be limited to, each meeting the Prime Minister attended and every attendee at these meetings; and that these documents shall be provided to the committee in both official languages and without redaction within six weeks of the adoption of this motion.
It's interesting, but complicated to undertake it all. It's going to slow down the entire government process as well as the process in departments, and even our committee.
I'll go back to what my colleague said earlier when she spoke about the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen and the assessment grid. Marc‑André Blanchard and the Clerk of the Privy Council, the well-known Michael Sabia, explained that to the committee last fall, as my colleague noted.
I'll read what Mr. Michael Sabia said. He was the first of the two to appear before the committee. In his opening remarks, he stated as follows:
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I think we all know that democracies around the world are under pressure from lots of different sources—social media disinformation, globalization and a string of health and financial crises. All of them contribute to that pressure.
By the way, that was last fall. At the time, the conflict in the Middle East had not yet broken out. Everything happening between the United States and Iran has made things more complicated. The pressure has not eased.
That said, I'll get back to Mr. Michael Sabia's remarks:
That said, according to organizations from the OECD to not-for-profit organizations like Freedom House, Canada is doing very well in terms of the quality of our democracy relative to the rest of the world.
That is good news.
Why is that? I guess there are many reasons, but at least in part, it is the result of a deep-rooted culture of integrity that we are lucky to have here in Canada—the integrity of public office holders and, of course, of the public service. That culture of integrity is the basis on which strong democracies are built. In my view, that's Canada.
While culture is hard to measure, as we all know, we do see proof of the quality of Canadian democracy everywhere. It's in our rules, in our laws and in our processes. For instance, all Canadian public servants are subject to a rigorous values and ethics code. Most relevant for today's conversation, obviously, is the question of the Conflict of Interest Act, an act that plays an important role in reinforcing that culture of integrity. The work of your committee also plays an important part in that, because fundamentally, this is about Parliament ensuring that the Conflict of Interest Act is effective in upholding the transparency and accountability that contribute to Canadian democracy. With respect to the Prime Minister's blind trust and the screen, like every other public office holder since 2007, the Prime Minister is subject to requirements under the Conflict of Interest Act. In addition, the Prime Minister and the Ethics Commissioner have agreed to and published a public declaration on agreed compliance measures, which include the screen and the blind trust. As you've heard already from the Ethics Commissioner, the blind trust and the screen are in place to promote transparency and public confidence in decision-making. In Canada, I think we're all pretty familiar with those screens. They've been in place for many years in public and private institutions and under governments of varying political stripes.
He spoke about governments of varying political stripes, but there are not that many, just the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Let me continue with Mr. Sabia's remarks:
It's also worth remembering that the Conflict of Interest Act and tools like the screen are in place to enable government to attract people with diverse backgrounds, including from the private sector, while ensuring the integrity of decision-making. How does it work? We've put in place a rigorous process to implement the screen, and that has been fully validated by the Ethics Commissioner. As a first step, policy decisions that might trigger the screen are identified and reported to the senior management of departments and agencies as they arise. Then departments and the Privy Council Office conduct a very robust case-by-case due diligence examination. At that point, if there appears to be even a remote possibility that the screen may be needed, it is immediately put in place. Why is that? It's so that we always err on the side of caution. To ensure that those principles underlying the screen are consistently applied, we've developed a comprehensive assessment tool that provides a framework to assist in the analysis.
Mr. Sabia provided us with that rigorous framework, as my colleague explained earlier, to ensure that it is assessed properly.
I'll get back to Mr. Sabia's remarks about the screen and the tool:
Government officials receive rigorous training across the public service, especially in the most relevant departments. Both the assessment tool and the training materials have been thoroughly reviewed and validated by the Ethics Commissioner.
I have a lot of esteem for all the people who work in Canada's public service. We can say that they do a very thorough job, and I would like to thank the ones that work here with this committee and support and help us to do our work.
I'll get back to Mr. Sabia's remarks:
Following the work in departments and following work in the Privy Council Office, the deputy secretary for governance at the PCO then makes a recommendation on the screen's application. As an administrator of the screen, I review that recommendation and take a decision. All the advice, as you know, from the public service on the full range of issues for the Prime Minister comes through the Clerk of the Privy Council. That perspective gives me a broad perspective, and that broad perspective is critical in my role as an administrator. I would like to say that I regard that role as an administrator as a very important duty. Finally, decisions are shared with the Prime Minister's chief of staff—the second administrator—for concurrence and immediate implementation.
That refers to Marc‑André Blanchard.
Although it is not mandatory under the Conflict of Interest Act to disclose the manner in which the screen is applied, I want to share as much information as possible with committee members and Canadians.
That is what he did.
We decided to ask whether the screen should be applied to 13 situations. Every single one, without exception, was validated by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. According to the principles underlying the assessment tool validated by the Ethics Commissioner, the screen did not apply to seven of the situations. Five of those seven cases did not involve any direct interaction with the companies subject to the screen. The other two situations pertained to tax measures on matters of general application. The screen did apply to the six remaining situations. The Ethics Commissioner was clear: the Prime Minister cannot be informed of the matters before a final decision is made public. Otherwise, it would go against the very purpose of the screen. The Prime Minister is not aware of four of the six matters to which the screen applies. The other two cases are now public information, with a final decision having been made. I'm sure you'll have questions about those cases, so I would be pleased to discuss them.
He did that. He appeared before the committee and answered questions.
Michael Sabia added the following with respect to the Privy Council Office:
In short, we believe we have established a very rigorous system that is applied with great care and attention. The public service is well aware of its responsibility to always ensure the integrity of the office of Prime Minister.
Michael Sabia spent an hour with us and answered our questions.
Marc‑André Blanchard also appeared before the committee once after that and he answered our questions. I'll give you a summary of what he told us. He appeared last fall as well. Obviously, he was happy to appear before our committee. He said:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss my responsibilities as chief of staff to the Prime Minister and, more importantly, as the administrator of the verification mechanism agreed to between the Prime Minister and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Last April, Canadians elected Prime Minister Carney in a moment of economic volatility, geopolitical realignment and growing pressure on democratic institutions.
By the way, that appearance took place last fall, as I said earlier. At the time, the developments in the Middle East had not occurred and the impacts that everyone is feeling now had yet to be felt.
I'll continue with his remarks:
Canadians chose Mark Carney as Prime Minister because of his deep experience in both the public and private sectors. In fact, they did not elect him in spite of his vast global private sector experience but precisely because of it. Canadians understood that if we are to build a stronger, more resilient economy—one worthy of being the strongest in the G7—this experience is not optional. It is essential.
I think Canadians understood that yet again. Today, we had the opportunity to welcome three new members to our caucus. Canadians continue to put their trust in Mark Carney.
A key condition for this government's success is public trust. At the heart of that trust are the high ethical standards the Prime Minister set for himself and for everyone who works with him in his office and across government. Part of protecting that trust is ensuring that the ethics screen, agreed upon by the Prime Minister and the Ethics Commissioner, is implemented, always erring on the side of caution.
As you all know, Mr. Blanchard is the administrator of the screen.
An important part of my role as an administrator of the screen is precisely to ensure that the Prime Minister is not put in a situation of conflict of interest. As you know, the conflict of interest screen is a compliance measure developed under the direction of the Ethics Commissioner, in accordance with the requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act. The fundamental purpose of the screen is to prevent conflicts of interest. It serves as a mechanism to identify, report and redirect issues that fall into the categories established by the Ethics Commissioner. It is an administrative and procedural mechanism based on the principles of transparency and integrity set out in the act. Conflict of interest screens are frequently used in legal and commercial settings—