Information & Ethics Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

I have a list of people who wish to contribute. Mr. Hardy, you are at the top of the list. Please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Here we go again with another Liberal monologue. We have just got out of 17 hours of Liberal monologue and now we see my colleague with opening remarks that went on for 25 minutes. Other Liberal colleagues joined in, cellphones came out and everyone was ready for the circus to start again and to talk endlessly.

Personally, I listened attentively to my colleague's comments.

Let me quickly tell you why I became involved in politics. I became involved in order to stand up for the public interest. However, when there is no transparency or when we see things like we have seen this morning in committee, my view is that it is not working. The Liberals have announced clearly that they will reject at least 20, if not all 23 recommendations. So those who are not always in agreement with my Liberal colleagues will have to stand up for themselves, and firmly.

We have been talking about effectiveness, because we do all the time. It's all good and it's all effective. Let me reassure you as I quickly go through my notes. We talk about effectiveness, but for whom? When we on our side find that things are not effective, we are told to stop asking questions, that we are not making sense and that we are slowing everything down. But when the Liberals find things effective, everything is effective. It's like saying that the only kind of effectiveness is Liberal effectiveness.

For some time now, the Liberals have been quoting two witnesses, but those witnesses are both direct employees of the Prime Minister. I do not know how that is neutral or fair to the public when the only two witnesses we hear quoted work directly for the Prime Minister.

The motion we have here asks for clarity and transparency. It's now Thursday evening and the committee has just sat for a two-hour session on lobbying. In that session, witnesses came again to tell us that transparency and accountability are vital for our institutions to regain public trust.

We are told to stop being sensationalist. We are told that Mr. Barrett wrote the motion on the back of a napkin. It seems clear to me that my colleagues think that he does not know how things are done. We are told that we need to be factual. What can be more factual than asking for facts? We are asking to have access to information so that we are able to pass it on to people for them to form their own opinions. We are not asking the government to analyze the information we should be receiving. Nor are we asking them to tell us what information might be relevant. We are asking them to give us the information so that those whose job is to criticize the government are able to do so and to ask questions.

Earlier, Mr. Cooper tried to introduce a motion, but he was interrupted six times. Madam Chair—Mr. Brassard was not in the chair this morning—and the Liberal members interrupted him repeatedly. That's the problem, right there. When questions are asked, they are not good questions unless the Liberals ask them

Let me talk about clips now. We have had 17 hours of monologue. The Liberals never get tired of accusing us of wanting clips, but they had a good number themselves in those 17 hours of monologue. They were on camera all the time. I don't really know what they wanted to point out, but they were on camera for 17 hours. So they can't come and tell us that we want clips. They clearly want to be on TV a lot.

Then, I do not know whether I have the right to show it here, but I have a report from Statistics Canada that tells us that 72% of Canadians no longer have trust in our institutions. So when we introduce motions asking for access to information, it's not redundant. Statistics Canada tells us that Canadians no longer have trust in our institutions. So, please, I am asking for transparency and accountability. That's the first thing to do to win back the trust.

I will end there. They ask us what is so urgent. We told them. The urgency is that the Liberals want to control all the committees. The urgency is that, for the first time in history, we have a majority government without a democratic vote by the people. The Liberals want total control of all the committees so that we will no longer be able to ask questions or hold the government responsible for its actions. That's the urgency, right there.

I know that someone asked earlier when we are going to end all this. It will end when we become able to be transparent with Quebeckers and Canadians, and when people feel that the government is responsible for its decisions. That is our role.

Really, that's where I will stop. This is not about the Liberals versus the Conservatives and the Bloc. It's about us having one of the best Parliaments in the world, where we have the opportunity to hold the government to account every day, regardless of the party in power. It is extremely important.

But what we are seeing here, and what we will soon be seeing again—because the Liberals have given us a perfect demonstration of what is coming—is that, when the Liberals have the majority on committees, we are going to be cut off every two seconds when we go to ask questions. The Liberals are not even in the majority yet, but they did it just now when Mr. Cooper wanted to introduce his motion.

This is why it's so urgent.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

I do have a list that has Ms. Church, Ms. Lapointe, Mr. Saini and Mr. Hogan on it.

I am going to suggest that the parties talk about this over the next couple of days and figure out whether there is something that can be agreed to. If not, it's up to you guys, but I don't want to continue this tonight, and I'm not continuing this tonight.

I will suspend to the call of the chair. I did have resources tomorrow from 9:00 a.m. until midnight, but we will resume this on Monday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. This meeting is suspended until that time to the call of the chair.

[The meeting was suspended at 6:17 p.m., Thursday, April 23]

[The meeting resumed at 3:33 p.m., Monday, April 27]

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

We are resuming meeting number 38 of the committee. It, and the debate, were suspended on Thursday, April 23.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person, in the room. I don't think we have anybody on Zoom.

When we last left our superheroes, we were on committee business. We are now resuming debate on the motion that was moved by Mr. Barrett on Thursday, April 23, 2026.

I'll remind the committee what the motion says:

That the committee:

(a) require the Privy Council Office (PCO) to provide the committee, on the fifteenth 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 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.

When we last left the suspended meeting, I had a list that started with Ms. Church, followed by Madame Lapointe, Mr. Saini and Mr. Hogan, who's not here. I am going to start with Ms. Church.

I will advise the committee that I do have resources until 1:45 in the morning to discuss this. I want this finalized.

Ms. Church, go ahead. You have the floor.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak for the first time on this motion that was brought forward last week.

I think, like so many Canadians right now, we would share a commitment to accountability. We would share a commitment to ensuring that conflicts of interest, when they arise, are managed prudently and seriously. Over the course of this committee's work in past months in exploring how we might recommend improvements and changes to the Conflict of Interest Act and the Ethics Commissioner's ambit, that's one of the reasons we've approached this issue with the seriousness and good faith that this topic requires.

However, when we're faced with a motion like this—a motion that has brought before this committee an issue that has been a subject of concern for my colleagues across the table for many months now and has been infused into many of our discussions along the way since our committee was first formed—I think it's fair for us to ask about the intentions of the members opposite in bringing forward such a motion. Their intention is, perhaps, to tie up the government by conducting yet another fishing expedition into an area of governance that has been settled.

Mr. Chair, it was months ago that we had the Ethics Commissioner himself, as well as both the Clerk of the Privy Council and the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, before this committee for hours to answer questions about the conflict of interest regime and how it's applied. As a result of the meetings that we dedicated to this pursuit, I think all committee members were afforded a great deal of clarity about how this regime operates in terms of the resources dedicated to the Privy Council and to the Prime Minister and his staff as well. Not only that, I think this committee received at the time a very good-faith commitment—a commitment that has subsequently been delivered on—to continue to apprise this committee on the operation of the conflict of interest screen in particular.

However, what we've seen here is a far more searching effort to go hunting through not only the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office, but any department across government for any correspondence and all emails, text messages, instant messages and other records of conversation to provide a level of reporting to this committee that is truly unprecedented and raises the question of why my colleagues opposite choose to bring this motion forward now. I say that with great respect for my colleagues and for this regime, but also with a desire to point them back to some of the testimony this committee heard about the operation of the screen from the witnesses this committee opted to call.

We heard from the commissioner himself about the operation of the conflict of interest screen and how this is a method that's been approved by the Federal Court of Appeal and is a helpful measure in administering the Conflict of Interest Act. We heard from him that this is a useful tool in ensuring that the people responsible for the day-to-day work around the Prime Minister—the people responsible for the documents that would land on his desk—review them to see if they contain anything that would require the Prime Minister to recuse himself.

“It's a preventive measure” is what the commissioner said. Not only has this preventive measure been applied in numerous examples across the government, dating back decades, but it's also one that works.

The designated operators of the conflict of interest screen—in this case, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council—are precisely the people who are responsible for the documents that come before the Prime Minister on both the public service side and the political side of that office. The commissioner said, “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.” At the time when the commissioner appeared, he said, “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.”

Mr. Chair, this is important, because this isn't coming from Liberal benches or Conservative benches. This is coming from an independent agent of Parliament, an agent of Parliament who is hired specifically to be non-partisan, to be able to preside over sensitive personal information of every parliamentarian under the code or the act, and to adjudicate fairly, without the added burden of partisanship that has a tendency—fairly or unfairly—to colour these inquiries when they're raised in a committee such as this or by my colleagues across the way.

We have an independent agent of Parliament who is saying, “Based on their testimony, I believe that it's a measure that works well.” He is a commissioner who has the authority to put in place conflict of interest screens wherever they're required, for every parliamentarian. He is entrusted with that responsibility by parliamentarians, by Parliament itself, and is attesting to the fact that this is a set-up that works.

Mr. Chair, I think that this testimony from the commissioner should be given a great deal of weight, because the moment we depart from looking at his advice, his testimony, his commentary on a matter like this, we are chipping away at the integrity and independence of the very office that Parliament struck to deal with these issues.

We heard from experts throughout our study of the Conflict of Interest Act that it is entirely appropriate that we have an independent agent looking at these matters precisely to avoid the potential for abuse, the potential to weaponize concerns about conflicts of interest, at a time when we know, through our own experience as parliamentarians, that in fact this can occur and does occur. We heard that from experts in our study as well.

When the commissioner comes forward and says that what has been set up works and that there is an appropriate system in place for engaging a screen, reporting on a screen and establishing a screen and for all the different phases of the mechanism of setting up a conflict of interest screen and applying it, that should be taken very seriously by all of us. It was Parliament's decision to entrust him with the authority to manage this regime on behalf of all of us because, as we have also heard, you cannot build a regime based on a single person. You have to build a regime that applies fairly, transparently and equally across all parliamentarians.

When I consider how the Ethics Commissioner looked at this and then I look at the motion before us today, it makes me wonder why my friends opposite would rather have a committee dive into this across government, as opposed to taking the Ethics Commissioner at his word as the one who is most entrusted to deal with this matter.

Mr. Chair, I think one of the reasons the Ethics Commissioner would have come to this conclusion in the first place is the quality of the arrangement that is in place, which this committee heard about both from the clerk and from the chief of staff to the Prime Minister. When the clerk was before this committee answering our questions, he reminded us that, “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.”

That is why the Prime Minister, working with the Ethics Commissioner, agreed to and published a public declaration on agreed compliance measures, including a conflict of interest screen and the blind trust. These promote transparency and public confidence in decision-making. When the clerk was here, he said, “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.”

While my colleagues opposite have continued to come back to this issue at every possible occasion over the past 10 months that we've had this committee in operation, I question why they have focused so much on this when all of the testimony that we've heard is that the Prime Minister has gone above and beyond his ethics requirements. He has done so in collaboration with the Ethics Commissioner. He has set up one of the most stringent screens that we've heard of, according to testimony from some of our witnesses, such that the Ethics Commissioner himself believes that this is a measure that works well.

If we're thinking about this, it's important for us to think about how this actually works, to understand fully why this conflict of interest screen is as effective as it is.

Mr. Sabia described this as a “rigorous process” of implementing the screen “that has been fully validated by the Ethics Commissioner.” He said:

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.

Then he went on to describe a comprehensive assessment tool that he later, at our request, tabled to this committee to demonstrate just how serious this government and this Prime Minister are about applying the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen and establishing a serious process to ensure that no conflict arises. That assessment tool broadly covers key areas that warrant specific attention. It covers guidance to public servants on how to conduct an analysis of what could create a conflict. It creates a standardized process to undertake this type of assessment. This might very well be the most comprehensive set of instructions and the first tool put in place by the Privy Council to give effect to a conflict of interest screen.

Conflict of interest screens happen across government. They can happen across cabinet. This is not an unusual circumstance for a member of cabinet to find themselves in. It is not unusual for ministerial offices, for the Prime Minister's Office and even for senior offices in the civil service to have to constantly be alert to, be aware of and deal with conflicts of interest, because they can arise in a wide variety of places from person to person. You may not even have a screen, but you can still find yourself in a conflict of interest because parliamentarians come with families and friends. Even if you don't have a formal screen in place, each one of us has a responsibility to always be alert to the potential for a conflict of interest to arise. That responsibility, that obligation, exists for every member of Parliament.

This assessment tool further institutionalizes and provides further guidance to a much broader group of public servants, in particular, who need to know how and when to apply a conflict of interest lens and how a screen would operate. In that sense, it's very useful. It no doubt will be a useful assessment tool, not only for other ministers but also for the hundreds of other senior public servants who find themselves among the designated public office holders who may be likely to have a conflict of interest screen.

The conflict of interest assessment tool in use now—just to give you a sense of how it works—first sets out whom it's administered by. This follows the same language disclosed on the Ethics Commissioner's website:

This screen is administered by my Chief of Staff and by the Clerk of the Privy Council to ensure that I am neither made aware of nor participate in any official matters or decision-making processes involving the Companies' interests. I may, however, participate in a discussion or decision on a matter that is of general application or that affects the Companies' interests as a member of a broad class of persons unless those interests are disproportionate to the other members of the class.

The screen is operative to try to meet that objective. The tool then goes into “How to conduct the analysis”:

To conduct the analysis, contextual information related to the companies that are subject to the screen and the sectors of the Canadian economy that warrant specific attention is set out...followed by a list of questions to guide the analysis as to whether the screen should be applied.

The assessment tool talks about “Matters that must be included in the screen”. It talks about “Matters requiring assessment” and areas where “specific attention” is warranted. Then it offers a questionnaire designed to guide an individual on how to conduct the analysis required, which is then “documented in the template” associated with the tool and “developed [expressly] for this purpose.”

That questionnaire is seven questions long. It involves examples, and it involves a lot of guidance that's available to anyone who is considering whether or not the conflict of interest screen should be invoked. It also goes on to define what is a matter of general application and what is a broad class. I think that's important, Mr. Chair, because I know that's been a source of some discussion here within the committee.

In terms of how the assessment tool works to help answer questions on whether a decision or discussion is one of general application, an individual needs to think about the following:

If the decision or discussion applies to an undetermined group of people or companies, then the matter is of general application.

If the decision or discussion applies to a regulated activity and to an identifiable group, then the matter is not of general application.

If the decision or discussion applies to a particular entity, person or group of entities or persons, or to a particular situation, then the matter is not of general application.

It sets a pretty clear scope for what constitutes general application.

For a broad class, similarly:

If the decision or discussion applies to a large number of entities or people, who may have different characteristics, but share at least one important characteristic...then the matter applies to a broad class.

If the decision or discussion applies to a small group, then the matter does not apply to a broad class.

The assessment tool even goes so far as to provide an example:

The mortgage insurance sector in Canada is comprised of two main players, one of which is subject to the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen.... As it is not possible to conclude that a matter involving mortgage insurance relates to a broad class of persons, such matters will trigger the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen, in accordance with the Clerk's decision as administrator of the screen.

Mr. Chair, we have a very thorough.... There are 10 pages of guidance on the assessment tool that Mr. Sabia and PCO tabled for our committee and for all members here to review, to have a look at and to have comfort with the seriousness with which PCO and PMO are looking at this issue—that's 10 pages' worth of guidance. Serious thought has gone into creating this tool.

I believe that Mr. Sabia, when he was here, called this one of the most “robust” conflict of interest screens he's seen throughout the public and private sectors in his long career. I take that advice and that commentary, along with the commissioner's, who said that this is “a measure that works well”.

Again, I come back to my colleague Mr. Barrett's motion. As I read it, Mr. Chair, it continues to be along the lines of the same type of fishing expedition and the same type of soliloquy that we have heard at this committee: trying to find smoke where there is no fire, to make an issue where the independent commissioner of ethics and the non-partisan Clerk of the Privy Council have both stood behind what the Prime Minister's Office, the Ethics Commissioner and the PCO have put in place to manage effectively a situation that has arisen many times in government, facing members of the executive, with a screen in place on how to manage that effectively without compromising the day-to-day work and functioning of the government.

Mr. Chair, my opposition to this motion is rooted not in opposition to a regime that I believe works well and effectively, but in how motions like this one are repetitive and redundant. They are motions that take up the time of committees, the House, the government, the Prime Minister and the hundreds of public servants whose time and energy are used to fulfill motions like the one before us today. Those are precious resources.

At a moment in time when Canadians want us to be focused on them, building this country, making it more resilient, making it more sovereign, ensuring that we are building Canadian prosperity for the future, ensuring that we have a Prime Minister who is focused on the economic turbulence that we've been thrown into as a country, which Canadians across the country are experiencing, we know this is exactly the type of motion that Canadians would see as distracting a government. They would see it as redundant and unnecessary, particularly when they know that, as ethics committee members, we are already in receipt of information on a continuing basis from the Privy Council on the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen. That was an ask by this committee and committee members, which Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard, without hesitation, agreed to deliver on when they appeared before us last fall—without hesitation.

Here we are, many months later, debating a motion from Mr. Barrett that goes into this level of detail to try to surface every manner of correspondence and digital record, essentially, across the whole of government. I think Canadians would see this for what it is. It is an attempt to derail a government, a Prime Minister and a public service that are working hard right now for Canadians on the issues that matter most to them and that are going to serve our country going forward. These issues require all of us, as parliamentarians, to be as focused as we can be on ensuring that we come out of this current challenge that we have globally, on account of our neighbours to the south. It's a difficult but important time for our country.

I look forward to hearing some of my other colleagues on this motion as well, including my colleagues across the way, to understand why the information we've had to date has been insufficient, why the opinion of our independent and distinguished Ethics Commissioner is, for them, somehow insufficient and why the reporting we receive as committee members is insufficient in their minds. As we hear more, both from my colleagues and from members opposite, I hope we will all take a step back and think carefully about how we are spending our time while we are here representing Canadians, as parliamentarians.

Let's do the best work that we possibly can to ensure that we are building Canada and that we are focused on the issues that are going to make a difference in the day-to-day lives of Canadians, as opposed to treasure hunts and fishing expeditions like this one.

With that, I'd like to turn this to one of my colleagues, but I ask that you please put me at the bottom of the speaking list.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Church.

Madame Lapointe, you're up next.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I listened attentively to my colleague. I even learned a new expression: fishing expedition.

[An hon. member]

Unbelievable.

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

Yes, it's incredible, isn't it?

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor].

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

Yes, it should have been translated, but I completely agree.

I want to come back to the motion Mr. Barrett moved on April 21 and to what my colleague said:

…require the Privy Council Office (PCO) to provide the committee, on the fifteenth 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; that these reports include: (i) a summary of each instance where an assessment was triggered—

[Some hon. members]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

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—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Ms. Lapointe, but I have to cut you off.

I want to ask all the MPs around the table, and staffers as well, to make sure their phones are on silent. There's an Outlook sound the interpreters are picking up that's having an impact on their ability to do their work.

Go on, Ms. Lapointe.

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

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—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

I'm still talking about the Prime Minister's travel. It's referenced in the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have the floor, Mr. Hardy.

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

I've just come in and just want to make sure that we're not taking a geography class. I'd like to know whether we will deal with the motion, with what we're asking for and what we've required in the motion, instead of talking about the fact that people maintain relations.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I've listened to Ms. Lapointe closely and I think she's talking about the motion.

Carry on, Ms. Lapointe.

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

Mr. Hardy, would you like me to recap what I've said since the beginning? I can start over.

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

I know you have no problem going on and on and on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Let's have some order here, please.

We're going to continue with Madame Lapointe.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Hardy, for you to understand why I was talking about various countries, I'll read out what Mr. Barrett's motion says, seeing as you've probably forgotten. The motion calls on 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—

Excuse me, my phone is ringing.

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

I have a point of order.