Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll carry on with Mr. Blanchard's remarks about the conflict of interest screen:
…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, and they are also an effective way to manage potential conflicts for individuals within the government. In recognizing the reasonableness of the application of ethical screens in government, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed: This practice of publicly identifying the potential conflicts of interest of each public office holder before any problematic situation has occurred strikes me as an eminently reasonable way to ensure the furtherance of the Act's purpose… The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner determined that a blind trust combined with a conflict of interest screen is the appropriate measure for Prime Minister Carney. When appearing before you, the Ethics Commissioner confirmed that the Prime Minister divested himself of all his interest in a blind trust.
Mr. Blanchard noted that the Ethics Commissioner further added as follows:
[T]o avoid a situation where he would make a decision knowing that it would increase the value of one of the companies he divested […] we set up this screen.
Mr. Blanchard went on to say that:
It is in this context that the Prime Minister and the commissioner agreed to a screen as a preventive and appropriate measure of compliance. The Clerk of the Privy Council [Michael Sabia] and I [Marc‑André Blanchard], as chief of staff to the Prime Minister, are the administrators of the screen.
Mr. Blanchard reported that the Ethics Commissioner also said:
Let's be practical. Anything that goes to the Prime Minister for a decision goes through either one of these men or both. They are in effect the keyholders of what gets on his desk and what he deals with. They are the logical ones to make sure he does not get involved in these things.
Mr. Blanchard also noted as follows regarding his responsibility with respect to the screen:
It is important to underline that my role is first and foremost about ensuring that conflicts are prevented. The administration of the screen is a responsibility I approach with utmost seriousness. In practice, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office are in constant communication. Although some meetings or events can be planned without the direct participation of the Privy Council, no official policy or government decision can be adopted without the participation of the public service and the political arm.
That quote is very important. We need to make sure the Prime Minister makes the right decisions. The Privy Council Office and Marc‑André Blanchard ensure that the screen is always applied every time a decision needs to be made to ensure the right decisions are made.
Mr. Blanchard also noted that:
The screen is administered on a daily basis by the Privy Council Office.
It is administered on a daily basis.
When a department or agency prepares a note, a policy proposal, an update or any other document for the Prime Minister, that document is first assessed using the assessment tool developed by the Privy Council with the assistance of the Ethics Commissioner. That tool enables us to determine whether the screen may apply.
I'll continue with Mr. Blanchard's statement. My colleague Mrs. Church also described this aspect clearly earlier.
Privy Council governance officials then perform due diligence, review the analysis and ensure that all relevant information has been considered. Their recommendation is submitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for review and approval. Once the clerk has confirmed his position, his office sends it to me for review and agreement. When both administrators agree, the decision is referred to the Privy Council governance officials to continue implementation. Today, all the recommendations from the public service have been jointly confirmed by the Clerk [Michael Sabia] and me [Marc‑André Blanchard]. For negative determinations, where the screen does not apply, no further action is required by departments or agencies. For positive determinations, departments must clearly identify the material as subject to the screen. These documents are not shown to or discussed with the Prime Minister. The screen is applied on a precautionary basis. As soon as the analysis indicates there may be a triggering factor, access is restricted pending the final determination of the administrators.
Mr. Blanchard added as follows:
I would like to point out that the system currently in place to prevent the Prime Minister from being in a conflict of interest is one of the most comprehensive and rigorous I have seen in my career. It is proactive and preventive and, above all, it is extremely rigorous because of the high level of awareness within the government.
That came from Marc‑André Blanchard.
We also met with Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and he noted that:
The conflict of interest screen is a method that has been approved by the Federal Court of Appeal and that helps in administering the Conflict of Interest Act. It's a preventive measure. We don't want a conflict of interest to arise that would require the Prime Minister, or anyone else, to recuse themselves. For that reason, the men responsible for his day-to-day work and the documents that land on his desk will review them to see if they contain anything that may cause the Prime Minister to have to recuse himself. If they find something that represents a potential conflict of interest, they'll prevent it from getting to the Prime Minister, and they'll go to another minister. The Prime Minister is only informed about it when the decision takes effect, so he has no chance of changing that decision. In short, it's a preventive measure that was approved by the Federal Court of Appeal. Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard are the people who are responsible for all the documents that come before the Prime Minister, whether on the bureaucratic side or the political side. The two of them work with a large team to review every single thing that has to come before the Prime Minister to see if there's a potential conflict of interest. If so, the document isn't presented to the Prime Minister. Representatives from the Prime Minister's Office have explained to the committee what they do to manage the screen. Based on their testimony, I believe that it's a measure that works well.
The commissioner said that, not me.
Back to Mr. Barrett's motion. With regard to point (a), I'd like to say that has already been taken care of, specifically through the conflict of interest screen and blind trusts.
Back to the Privy Council Office. In summary, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner acknowledged that the current process to manage conflict of interest put in place for the Prime Minister is an effective measure to prevent the occurrence of conflicts. The Prime Minister and his team have been transparent about that with the committee. We invited them to appear before the committee and they agreed without hesitation.
In the letter to the committee dated February 13, the Privy Council Office made a commitment to provide the committee, on a quarterly basis, with the details of cases where review of the conflict of interest processes is triggered. The commissioner made it clear that the Prime Minister should not be informed that a review has been applied before a decision is finalized and made public in order to prevent potential conflict. Asking for such an amount of details even though a report has already been provided would not serve any useful purpose and would only slow down the work of public servants.
That's it for the first part.
I would like to say that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which we sit on, is mandated to review the Lobbying Act, the Conflict of Interest Act, and ethics laws. However, instead of doing that, members are dragging out debate on motions that are a waste of time for everyone.
Most standing committees are mandated to oversee one or more government departments and are charged with the review of the statute law referred to them by the House of Commons, departmental operations and expenditures and the effectiveness of the department's policies and programs.
For our part, this committee is mandated to look into ethics, lobbying and conflicts of interest. Committees are free to initiate any study related to their mandate, and that is what we do.
The House can also refer specific matters to committees through an order of reference. The House almost systematically refers the following matters to standing committees: bills; matters for in-depth study, reports and other documents tabled in the House pursuant to a statute; estimates, including the funds requested for government programs and activities; non-judicial government appointments, such as when new commissioners need to be appointed; and cases where the government failed to respond to petitions and questions on the Order Paper within the required time frame.
We're lucky to have a functioning democracy.
Chapter 3 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which focuses on privileges and immunities—it is available online—states that “Parliament has the right to institute inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents.” That is the matter before us now: The production of documents. I will quote section 3.44:
By virtue of the preamble and section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament has the ability to institute its own inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents, rights which are fundamental to its proper functioning. These rights are as old as Parliament itself. Maingot states: The only limitations, which could only be self-imposed, would be that any inquiry should relate to a subject within the legislative competence of Parliament, particularly where witnesses and documents are required and the penal jurisdiction of Parliament is contemplated. This dovetails with the right of each House of Parliament to summon and compel the attendance of all persons within the limits of their jurisdiction.
I would remind the committee that the Clerk of the Privy Council came here without any hesitation. The Prime Minister's chief of staff Marc‑André Blanchard also came here. I spoke about that earlier. He spoke about what he knows and how things work.
I'll carry on with my quote:
These rights are now exercised for the most part by committees [including our committee] pursuant to powers delegated to them by the House in the Standing Orders. Permanent orders of reference allow committees to conduct inquiries into departmental and policy matters.
That is what we are doing.
I will continue:
In addition, the House may refer additional matters to its committees for study. In the course of its study into a particular matter, a committee may wish to hear testimony from public officials, private individuals or representatives of groups, organizations and associations. In the majority of cases, witnesses invited to appear before a committee do so willingly. If a witness declines an invitation to appear, the committee may issue a summons to the witness by adopting a motion to that effect. If the witness still refuses to appear, the committee may report the matter to the House and the House may order the witness to appear. If the witness disobeys the order, the witness may be declared guilty of contempt and liable to sanctions.
I want you to know that I've served on other committees, including the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I remember we invited the president of Air Canada and he didn't want to appear. However, bearing in mind what I've just read out for you here, he did not have any option but to appear before us and to answer the tough questions that Air Canada was being asked and evidently continues to be asked.
I will now cite section 3.45:
Committees are not empowered to compel the attendance of the Sovereign, the Governor General, Lieutenant Governors, members, senators, officers of another legislature or persons outside of Canada.
That has come up in the course of our studies in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics: We cannot compel the attendance of people outside of Canada.
I will continue:
Should a member refuse to testify, the committee may report the matter to the House, and the House will decide what action is necessary. While senators may appear before House committees voluntarily, if a committee wishes to extend a formal invitation to a senator, the House may adopt a motion for a message to be sent to the Senate requesting that it grant leave for a senator to appear before the committee.
I will move on to section 3.46:
For the purposes of an inquiry, the committee may send for any papers that are relevant to its order of reference.
That is somewhat the issue we're dealing with now. We're talking about the production of documents, even though a conflict of interest screen and a blind trust are already in place.
I will continue;
Typically, these documents include government reports, statistics, memoranda, agreements and briefs, and they are, with rare exceptions, provided voluntarily. There is no limit on the types of papers that can be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist, regardless of their format, and that they are located in Canada.
Believe you me, some of my colleagues across are very creative.
As stated in a report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in 1991:
The power to send for persons, papers and records has been delegated by the House of Commons to its committees in the Standing Orders. It is well established that Parliament has the right to order any and all documents to be laid before it which it believes are necessary for its information.
We have asked a lot of questions regarding one part, namely, the part that refers to “any and all documents to be laid before it which it believes are necessary.”
A screen and a blind trust, which are well administered, are already in place. Furthermore, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has said all of this is being properly administered. He is an officer of Parliament, as my colleague noted, and this is not a political appointment.
I will get back to the report that was cited:
The power to call for persons, papers and records is absolute, but it is seldom exercised without consideration of the public interest.
Public interest means the interest of Canadians.
The House of Commons recognizes that it should not require the production of documents in all cases; considerations of public policy, including national security, foreign relations, and so forth, enter into the decision as to when it is appropriate to order the production of such documents.
I'm still reading from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice:
However, the Speaker stated that the absolute right to order the production of documents does not de facto extend to individual members’ requests for information. If a committee's request that it be given certain documents is met with resistance or disregarded, the committee may adopt a motion ordering the production of the requested documents.
That is what we have before us now and the subject of our debate.
If such an order is ignored, the committee has no means to enforce the order on its own. It may report the matter to the House and recommend that appropriate action be taken. It is then a decision of the House whether or not to issue an order for the production of papers. This may be done by adopting a motion or by concurring in the committee’s report.
That is what we're doing now, by way of a motion.
The House may also invoke its disciplinary powers, and the individuals concerned may be called to the bar of the House, cited for contempt or otherwise punished.
It also states as follows with respect to committee work:
In November 2009, the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan reported to the House that its privileges had been breached by the government’s failure to produce documents requested by the committee relating to the detention of Afghan soldiers by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. The House, in turn, adopted an order requiring the production of the documents; the government refused, citing national security concerns.
This was discussed earlier in the text.
Members raised questions of privilege based on the House’s absolute right to order documents. The Minister of Justice insisted that, as the government had a duty to protect information that could jeopardize national security, that right was not without limits.
As we can see, national security came up in 2009 and it has come up again.
In his ruling, Speaker Milliken ruled that it was within the powers of the House to ask for the documents specified in the order, and that it did not transgress the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. Thus, he concluded that the government’s failure to comply with the order of the House constituted a prima facie breach of privilege. However, he gave the parties two weeks to develop a mechanism that would accommodate the government’s concerns over national security and the House’s right to receive the documents.
During the Second Session of the 43rd Parliament, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations studied allegations concerning federal scientists at the government microbiology laboratory in Winnipeg. For its study, the committee repeatedly ordered the production of documents by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The agency refused to produce the documents, so the committee presented a report to the House recommending that it order the production of the documents. Rather than concur in the committee report, the House adopted an opposition motion on the subject on June 2, 2021. The motion ordered the agency to produce the unredacted version of all documents demanded by the committee in accordance with specific conditions. On June 7, 2021, the Speaker tabled a letter from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel indicating that the documents had not been produced in accordance with the conditions set out in the motion. A question of privilege was raised that same day. In his June 16, 2021, ruling, Speaker Rota explained that the president of the agency was concerned that the order of the House did not offer the appropriate guarantees for protecting information related to national security, adding that the agency was collaborating with the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians on the matter. However, in finding a prima facie question of privilege, Speaker Rota stated that the latter committee is not a committee of Parliament. He added:
Nothing in the act affects or limits the privileges of the House to order the production of documents, even those with national security implications. It is for the House and not for the government to decide how such documents are to be reviewed…
I will come back to the remarks by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner that I cited earlier:
The conflict of interest screen is a method that has been approved by the Federal Court of Appeal and that helps in administering the Conflict of Interest Act. It's a preventive measure. We don't want a conflict of interest to arise [for] the Prime Minister…
I read regulations and testimony that applies to the first part of Mr. Barrett's motion.
In the second part of his motion, namely, point (b), Mr. Barrett has proposed that the committee “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”. This refers to international travel.
Mark Carney became the Prime Minister on March 14, 2025. Elections took place. We're going to celebrate our first anniversary tomorrow, April 28. Tomorrow will mark one year since Mark Carney's election. He is the 24th Prime Minister of Canada.
If we want to know where the Prime Minister has visited, that information is quite easy to find. He has made 18 trips and visited 25 countries over the past year, since he was elected as the leader of the Liberal Party. He has visited Australia once, Belgium once, China, Egypt, Germany, India, Japan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, South Korea, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and the Vatican. He travelled to France twice, Great Britain three times and the United States four times.
I hope everyone remembers that everything changed on the geopolitical front with the election of the president of our neighbour south of the border. We have no choice but to work with him and to expand our markets. I'm also privileged to serve on another committee, the Standing Committee on International Trade. I served on a committee for three years during my first term and now, I have the privilege to serve on a different committee. We need to remember that everything has changed since then. We have no choice but to expand international trade and to find ways to reduce our reliance on our neighbour to the south. We need to expand our trading horizons, and our Prime Minister is doing that.
When the Prime Minister went to France not too long ago, he met with Emmanuel Macron and with the prime minister of France. He went to Great Britain and met with King Charles III and his prime minister in London. He has met with Donald Trump in the United States several times. We need to continue working with our allies. We need to continue working with the United States, but we also need to look to other parts of the world. He travelled to Rome, Italy and attended the inaugural mass of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV when he was chosen as the new pope. He travelled to Belgium, and this is very important because he met with Ms. Ursula von der Leyen from the European Commission. That is important. He attended the 2025 summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, in the Netherlands.
Incidentally, NATO member countries must honour agreements. As you know, we have met our target, which was set by NATO, to increase defence spending by 2%. That has been done. We need to make sure that Canada invests in defence and that the men and women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces have all the resources they need for Canada to maintain its sovereignty. We have a very big country and we must protect it.
Ukraine is a democracy. It's important to visit this country because its people are facing very difficult times. We need to keep up the visits and offer them encouragement and support.
We need to visit Poland, Germany, Lithuania and Mexico. Mexico is a signatory to the Canada—United States—Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. If Canada is to succeed, we need to keep up meetings with our Mexican counterparts. Mexico, the United States and Canada have close ties. Our supply chains are deeply intertwined. We need to sustain dialogue and find solutions to respond to challenges. We intend to continue our visits to the United States.
We must not forget Egypt. Events in that part of the world are deeply appalling. There is Israel, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Iran. The situation in these countries is very difficult.
The Malaysia region, where the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Summit took place, has a large population and is a very promising market. Its people love Canadian products and recognize the value of Canadian know-how.
The same applies to Singapore, which is in southern Asia, along with South Korea, where the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum took place in November last year. The United Arab Emirates is another country.
We need to maintain ties with all of these countries. We need to form alliances if we want to deliver prosperity for Canada and invest in our infrastructure.
The G20 summit took place in South Africa in November last year, and the Prime Minister was in attendance.
With respect to China, the relationship broke down—