Information & Ethics Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[Jean-François Routhier]

Of course, I cannot speak for the other commissioners of lobbying. But I can tell you that, for the commissioner of lobbying in Quebec, budgets are annual. I also sense a great deal of respect for the office and for the legislation.

We do not have all the powers we would like to have. In addition, if we succeed in amending our legislation, which I hope will happen very soon, we will not really need a lot of additional resources because of the huge amount of work we did beforehand, especially on the registry of lobbyists.

I can't comment on the funding for the federal commissioner. But I can tell you that, in Quebec, we are seen as important. We get the budget that we want.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Barrett, you are next, for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thanks, Chair, and I thank the witnesses.

I have a motion that I put on notice. I'm going to move it.

I move:

That the committee:

(a) require the Privy Council Office (PCO) to provide the committee, on the 15th day of each month, with a report detailing each time an assessment was undertaken relating to the application of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, pursuant to the assessment tool on the application of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, including assessments originating in the PCO or any department, from the previous month; these reports must include (i) a summary of each instance where an assessment was triggered; (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 the first report, which shall be provided to the committee by no later than June 15, 2026, 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; these should include, but should not be limited to, each meeting the Prime Minister attended and every attendee at these meetings; and these documents are to be provided to the committee in both official languages and without redaction within six weeks of the adoption of this motion.

It has been provided in both official languages to the clerk, with the requisite notice.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

The motion was put on notice. It is in order. Mr. Barrett had the floor. He moved the motion.

I am going to take this opportunity to thank Commissioner Motherwell. We have limited time.

Commissioner Motherwell, I want to thank you for appearing before the committee today. If there is any other information that you'd like to provide to the committee, please feel free to do that.

Thank you for your evidence today, Mr. Routhier.

I'm going to dismiss both the witnesses and go to Mr. Barrett on his motion.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.

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

Thanks, Chair.

It's a comprehensive motion, and it is to furnish the committee with information. These are items that came up during our public hearings on the review of the Conflict of Interest Act, as well as in the fall when we were dealing with conflicts of interest related to the Prime Minister's involvement with Brookfield and his holdings. It comes down to one of the core functions of this committee, which is about accountability. It's about providing transparency for Canadians.

We actually received a reasonable response from the individuals who administered the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen—his chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council—when they offered some PCO documents with respect to when the screen had been invoked. Regular reporting of that to a standing committee for which the mandate—

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I just want to know how long the committee will take.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't understand the question, Ms. Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

The meeting was supposed to finish at 5:30 p.m. I just want to know when it will end.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have the room until 5:45 p.m., because the resources are available.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're giving the floor to Mr. Barrett now. I know that Mr. Sari also wants to speak about the motion.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Barrett, you may continue.

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

Chair, for members of the committee who don't know what time it is, what time the committee started or what time it ended, the option always exists to ask the chair off-mic and not on a point of order. I don't think that would in fact be a point of order.

It is certainly on brand for the member opposite to make non sequitur interruptions solely for the purpose of being disruptive.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Speak to the motion, please, Mr. Barrett.

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

It's important when we're in committee for points of order to reflect the Standing Orders. That point of order did not reference the Standing Orders, so it was out of order. I'll take the opportunity to identify that, because it was disruptive to the committee, which is also contrary to the Standing Orders.

To the matter at hand, though, this is important. This is an accountability committee. We have the opportunity to bring accountability to bear, and we've been successful in doing so with accountability committees over the last few years. Many times, we have heard from Liberal members that since there's nothing to see here, we don't need to discuss it, we don't need document production orders and we don't need to have witness testimony.

What did we get when we had fulsome investigations and when committees fulfilled their mandates? We uncovered corruption in government with the Liberal government. We uncovered matters that have led to criminal charges being laid against government contractors when Liberal members said there was nothing to see there.

We've seen ample instances where improvements to the rules and to the laws could be made. This is, of course, very relevant. Several members of the current Liberal government have been found to have broken the very ethics laws that we review when we are discussing the act.

We're looking to bring transparency and accountability forward for Canadians, and we have the opportunity to review the instances where a conflict of interest screen has been invoked or not so that Canadians can have an understanding of that when they see the decisions the Prime Minister is taking and the meetings that he is involved in, which brings us to why travel itineraries are important.

The refrain, often from Liberal members, is, “There's nothing to see here and therefore you don't need this information; don't look over there.” Certainly, I would say that if there's nothing to hide when we're looking at the head of government, then transparency is critical. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The same members of the government today are the government members, Liberal members, who were involved in more ethical breaches than any government and any party in Canadian history. It's pretty chilling that when the proposal to reconstitute committees was brought forward in the House, under the auspices of reflecting the number of seats that the government has in the House, they exceeded that percentage. Their rationale was that the percentage of seats they have in their standing on committees should mirror or reflect seats in the House, but they've exceeded that.

The amendment that we put forward was to preserve the accountability of committees, because we're not dealing with legislation. That's not where the issue has been. In fact, if the charge is that there's been a slowdown on the passage of legislation, in the review of subject matter or in dealing with agenda items at this committee, only one party has filibustered, and it's the Liberals.

Chair, you can seek unanimous consent. The last time I suggested that, we had a special guest in Mr. Turnbull, who, before I even got the words out of my mouth, said that the Liberals were intent on filibustering.

I think this would provide transparency. It would provide accountability. Again, sunlight certainly does prove to be the best disinfectant. If history is any indicator, if there's reluctance or a refusal to furnish us with the information, then we can infer from this that there is another cover-up at play.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I will advise committee members that if there's some digging in on this, we can go until 10 o'clock tonight. We have resources until that time.

Go ahead, Mr. Sari.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It is good that we have the resources until 10:00 p.m., because the topic we are dealing with today is so pertinent and so important that it is best if we all understand what is behind the motion we are discussing.

The motion we are studying, as introduced by Mr. Barrett, my colleague opposite, may be noble in its objectives, as he said so well, but I have doubts as to its relevance. I can describe the motion with a single word: redundant.

I will go over each of its requests one by one.

When I first received this motion, I tried to understand what it was all about. Of course, I understood that it asked for the Privy Council Office to provide us with information on the application of the conflict of interest screen, even though that information has already been provided after Mr. Sabia appeared here, before this very committee.

Let us also recall that the information was communicated to the public during a meeting of this committee, along with the letter we received from the Privy Council Office. The letter explained, word by word, what is requested and the way in which the screen was applied. In addition, what is of interest, certainly to the members of this committee and to the Canadians following our work today, is the way in which the assessment was done. It is important for us to know that this is an authority exercised by the government and by ministers, of course, especially when it comes to the Prime Minister.

The screen is applied according to conditions.

I have seen no witness, I repeat, no witness, appearing before this committee who has questioned the current process of monitoring conflict of interest. If I use the Prime Minister as an example of this monitoring, the Ethics Commissioner himself recognized before this committee that the process of monitoring conflicts of interest established for the Prime Minister—as I said earlier—and which also served to trigger an assessment and to govern the whole process, is effective.

What do we mean by “effective”? This is important because effectiveness means that objectives have been met. I am explaining what the term means because, once again, something here is redundant. For the information of us all, “effective” means that the desired results have been achieved. That's what “effective” means.

The question that I would ask my colleague who is introducing this motion today is this: What is it all about?

If the measures are effective and achieve their objectives, why are we asking to be given every single item?

I am still trying to understand this motion because I feel that it might have been put together at the last minute on the back of a napkin. Once again, I am giving him a chance, because his basic objective is quite a noble one.

Let me return to the notion of effectiveness.

I am saying that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner recognized that the current process of monitoring conflicts of interest that was established to trigger, manage and monitor the whole system is effective. It is effective in preventing—notice that I said “preventing”, not just “monitoring”—any case of an appearance of conflict of interest. That is the system we have in place.

Next—and now I am referring to the questions raised in the motion and to several questions we have heard today—it is important to know whether these measures that we have on paper and that everyone considers to be effective are practical. The answer is yes. Not only have the Prime Minister and his team used these screens, known to be effective, but they have also been transparent with us and have told us when, how and in which situations they have been applied.

I will now go through the items one by one because, as I have said, the use of the conflict of interest screen has been evaluated. The information has already been provided to us here. We have already been told how many situations were covered. Clearly, the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen has been applied.

Let's move on.

We are asking for the information to be available on the 15th day of each month. I understand why the 15th day was chosen. It is because it may allow the information from the previous month to be gathered, plus 15 days in which to prepare and send the reports. Some may see that as bureaucratic and involving more paperwork, but I understand why my colleague proposes the 15th day. I understand this technical detail.

However, what I feel that my colleague and his team do not understand is that our country is presently involved in a tariff war. The tariff war requires our Prime Minister to look for partnerships all over the world to mitigate the situation under which we were a little dependent on the United States.

Look at how the motion is written. I would really like the people listening to us to understand exactly what is being requested. It also asks for every trip that the Prime Minister takes to be listed. But that is information we can already have. Absolutely nothing is being hidden; all the information is already public.

On February 13, 2026, the Privy Council Office committed to doing that, specifically and in writing. We already had that commitment. Last February 13, the Privy Council Office told the members of this very committee that, on a quarterly basis, it would provide the committee with details about the cases and situations in which the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen has been applied. Moreover, as late as November, towards the end of the year, we received some details. On February 13, 2026, we received the first quarterly report. The commitment the government agreed to was fulfilled, as we can all see.

So once again, I ask my colleague: What is this about?

I go back to the press conference this morning because it is important. I really liked my colleagues speaking about transparency and, above all, the public's trust in institutions. That is important.

However, let us not forget that sometimes when we try to influence perceptions, when we talk about hypotheticals and when we try to get our faces on TV, it can erode the public's trust in our institutions of any kind. I can tell you this because I have experienced it myself. I have worked very hard with young people, trying to encourage them to feel closer to institutions, whether that be the police, the fire service, local councils, cities, or provincial and federal institutions. Sometimes, on social media, you can find posts designed to get the greatest possible number of views. They concentrate on the sensational rather than on the facts, and that can damage the efforts made by elected officials, by our institutions, and by the government to gain the trust of young and old alike.

Introducing this motion today is an attempt to send a message that the government is in the business of hiding things from us or not giving us all the information. That is wrong. What this motion introduced by my colleague Michael Barrett does not say is that the government and the Privy Council Office are doing a lot of work on transparency. That is why I took the floor now to state that I am not in total agreement with the motion.

When Mr. Barrett spoke earlier, he did not mention that last February 13 we received a first report for the period ending on January 31, 2026. So we have a report that brings transparency and clarity to the subject, not only for the committee, but also for the public. We do not want the matter of applying the Prime Minister's conflict of interest filter to be something that confuses Canadians. On the contrary, the Privy Council Office stepped up. It provided all the information and explained in detail how the process is triggered and how things are handled subsequently. It told us about the Prime Minister's response. It told us what happened and what did not happen. I found it crystal clear. The information is complete and transparent and shows an openness for discussion.

Despite that, a motion was introduced that insinuates that we have received nothing and that there's a wall or a black box that prevents people from seeing what is going on. Frankly, that's completely wrong. The opposite is true. Introducing a motion like this is simply an attempt to influence perceptions and to get faces on TV. It's an attempt to send a message that we are hiding something. That's completely wrong. I have the dates, the facts and the items that were asked for.

So that I do not forget, I would like to go back over the items requested in the reports.

First, there was a request for a summary of each instance where an assessment was triggered. We have that already.

Then, there was a request for a record of the outcome of each analysis. That was requested for each monthly report, but not all government files are handled in a month. That's something that those opposite have unfortunately failed to understand.

The motion also asks for any records of discussions or considerations that are in the possession of the Privy Council Office. Once again, not all that information will be accessible in a month. So there may be some redundancy in the very request. The same reports will reappear each time, given that the files may not be finished, simply because the discussions will not have been completed.

We are also asking, not only for the minutes of each analysis, but also for any correspondence related to each analysis, including emails, text messages, instant messages and other records of conversations.

According to the motion, the first report should be in the committee's hands by June 15, 2026.

Let's be serious. How many resources are they going to have to mobilize in order to gather all that information? I repeat that it is redundant, because it has already been provided or will be. The request is for all the details. But too much information sounds the death knell of real information. Too much is as bad as not enough, as they say.

Now let's look at point b) of the motion. I am at a loss for words here, but I am keeping my head when all around are losing theirs. That's important. At least, I hope so.

Point b) of the motion that Mr. Barrett is introducing today asks the committee to “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”. It also asks for a list of every attendee at every meeting he attended.

Do you recall that, when we met with Mr. Sabia and Mr. Marc‑André Blanchard in a public meeting in this very room, we asked them a question about this very matter? I seem to remember that only one of the people I see opposite today was at that meeting, namely Mr. Hardy. When we asked the question, their answer was that they could provide that information.

So what he is trying to do here by introducing this motion today is to say that we have no information. I said it before and I am saying it again: That is not true. I can surely be forgiven for having some doubts about the intent of this motion and the motives behind it.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I am all ears, Mr. Hardy.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

I just want to point out that we are told that it's completely false and then, in the same speech, we are told that Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard said that providing the information is no problem at all. So if what we are doing is false, and if providing the information is no problem at all, then the committee just has to vote and we can finish all this and move on. If we clearly have access to the information, let's just stop talking.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Garon, do you want to raise a point of order?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Yes. Mr. Chair.

We understand that people can speak for as long as they like. That's fine because the Standing Orders allow us to do that. We all know the game. However, misleading the committee is like misleading the House. I feel that, at some point, the member has to think about his words before he speaks. When he says things that are demonstrably false when checked, it is the equivalent of a breach of our parliamentary privilege.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You are right, Mr. Garon.

Generally, I do expect that members will be forthright and truthful in what they say. I don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise, but I appreciate what you're saying.

Mr. Sari, the floor is yours.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Let me go back to Mr. Sabia's comments. I would ask you to read the minutes. I am talking to those who were not here at the time, but who are here today. First, welcome. I go back to that point because we asked the question. That's all I am saying. Go and look at the answer and you will see whether it's something that impels us to make this motion or not. That's all I have to say on this point.

I am going back to point b) once more. I have forgotten where I got to.

So the motion asks for documents related to “all international travel that he has taken since he became Prime Minister”. It asks for a list of “each meeting the Prime Minister attended and every attendee at these meetings”. In addition, it requires “that these documents are to be provided to the committee in both official languages and without redaction within six weeks of the adoption of this motion.”

There's one other point about which I find myself once more asking how relevant it is. Our committee previously invited two people who applied the conflict of interest screen to thePrime Minister. They showed up and answered all the questions they were asked.

Another point is that the Prime Minister should not be informed about the screen being applied before a decision is final. That is important. The Prime Minister himself should not be informed about the screen being applied before a decision is final and made public. This avoids all conflict. That is also important. We really have to remember the commissioner's comments. It's not what I am saying, it's what the commissioner is saying.

I now want to bring my comments to a close.

It can be summed up in one word: redundant. This motion is redundant from start to finish.

I am not just bothered by the fact that the motion is redundant; I am bothered by the amount of detail requested. We have already been given a report. Asking for so many details simply makes the information a little less useful. It loses its relevance. That's not helpful for us. I am no expert in travel arrangements or how productive the work is. But I think it could make all the officials' work slower because we are asking them to come up with a rather major effort in their work day.

It's not just redundant, in my view; it makes me question the objective behind the motion. That's important.

First, I do not know why we are tabling this motion at this time, given that we have the reports in our hands. What message do we want to send to the people listening to us, to Mr. and Ms. Canadian-in-the-street?

Second, while I question the motion for being redundant, I also question the amount of detail requested. I question the manner in which the motion was written, because, in my view, the objective is not transparency. The objective is not really to increase transparency and the public trust. That is certainly not going to happen.

I don't know whether it's because you are looking for clips. I feel that you have had your fair share and we have heard a bunch of things in your clips. We even had a press conference today.

I feel that the government is doing its job now. The Prime Minister had the confidence of the public, and not just in the three most recent by-elections. He has the public's confidence overall, in Quebec or elsewhere. In addition, work is being done. But here we are saying that we do not have complete confidence in that work.

As for the facts that Mr. Barrett used to justify the motion, I found them inappropriate. The experts have clearly told us that we have to be very careful when we are introducing motions, proposing regulations or changes to regulations or legislation, or applying filters. We must not make the subject, the problem or the procedure personal. Mr. Barrett's entire introduction is personal. The experts have told us: Be very careful not to personalize matters by referring to one person, one example, one fact or one incident. The long-term scope of this motion really cannot be based on reasoning that applies to one person.

To conclude, I am not comfortable or in agreement with this motion. I am not comfortable because of the objectives behind the motion. This is not why I became involved in politics. This is not why I stepped up, put my face on campaign signs and had them stuck to posts. This is not why. On the contrary, let me say it again: I am very proud and very happy to be a member of this committee because I find that we examine rules, regulations and legislation in order for the government to have ethical ways of doing things. We should be assuring the public that things are transparent and worthy of their trust, not the opposite. What I am seeing here today is the complete opposite of what I really want to do.

I am going to ask Mr. Barrett a lot of questions about the details he is asking for and about the effort that will be required. Unfortunately, he is asking for something that can only slow down the work of our officials. They do excellent work and we should be thanking them for it. I do not see how this motion will help them at all. Instead, it will adversely affect their effectiveness and efficiency. I feel that we must take that into consideration when we draft motions of this kind.

In conclusion, I have some quick questions for Mr. Barrett.

Was he aware of the February report? As I read his motion, it seems as if we received nothing and that nothing happened.

Are the details we have in the letters and the reports not enough in his eyes? Do they not show transparency and good faith on the part of the government?

When we start writing a motion that we want to introduce with some speed, right after the committee has ended the discussion on another motion, it must be urgent. That's what I want to ask Mr. Barrett about. What is the urgency behind this motion? What did he see that made him decide that we need it? What triggered this in an honourable member of Parliament, whom I respect? Why does he find all this mass of detailed information so urgent?

I find it redundant and too detailed; I find that it is asking for too much. I hope that my colleague Mr. Barrett will take the time to reconsider and to frame his motion better. Given the rapport we have established, I feel that as a responsible person and a respectful MP, he should look again at the motion as drafted. Of course, I am asking him, if possible, to withdraw it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.