Information & Ethics Committee on May 4th, 2026

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Yes.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Do you believe the screen functions effectively? The former chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper recognized that it is a good regime. Do you believe it continues to function?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I think it does.

Why do we have the screen? The screen is there so the Prime Minister can function and doesn't have to constantly think, “Can I do this or not? Do I have to recuse myself?” In effect, it's to allow him...so things don't come to his desk that he can't handle. They're handled beforehand. They're being kept away from him so he can freely make his decisions. When there's something that causes a conflict, somebody else makes the decision.

Who administers it? It's the chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council. Both of their jobs are to protect the Prime Minister. If they don't protect him and they let something through that causes a conflict of interest, their jobs are on the line. It's in their own self-interest to make sure the screen works and is as tight as possible.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Ms. Chagger, for being here with us today.

We're now going to move to committee business on the motion moved by Mr. Barrett on April 23, 2026.

Mr. Barrett, you have the floor.

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

Chair, on the motion, which I believe is “as amended”, the request is a simple transparency measure, and it speaks to the subject matter of the meeting that we just—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Mr. Barrett. Just to remind you, we're on the amendment. I didn't make that clear when we started.

Do you want to start from the top? Go ahead, please.

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

Could you or the clerk restate where we are with respect to the motion for the purposes of our being in public?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I can do that.

The motion you moved on April 23, 2026 was to:

(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 related 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; (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 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.

The amendment that was moved by Ms. Church under debate was that paragraph (b) be deleted, which refers to:

(b) order the production of the Prime Minister's travel itineraries and related records for all international travel he has taken since he became 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

I'm sorry for repeating that, but that was what the amendment proposed by Ms. Church had removed from the motion. We're on that amendment.

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

On the amendment by Ms. Church, I want to make two important points about good faith and the opportunity we have to proceed with the consideration of the amendment. Should the amendment pass, the motion as amended does two things.

First of all, if I were to presuppose that Ms. Church's amendment were to pass with a view to having this motion adopted by the committee, that would demonstrate a level of transparency that shows, after last week when we saw a series of committees move in camera, that everyone takes seriously the opportunity we have to provide ongoing transparency for Canadians.

We had a change a week ago—it seems longer than a week ago—with the makeup of committees. We have new regular members on this standing committee. Welcome, all. That changes the dynamics, including on accountability committees, of which this is one. This is why the chair is selected from the official opposition for this committee, for the government operations committee and for public accounts as well.

What I'd say is that the substance of the motion as amended does allow for a level of information or an amount of information that satisfies ongoing concerns that we've seen raised. We get submissions from members of the public about information they want us to receive. We see the public discourse. We read the news and there are questions about the use of this conflict of interest screen in the Prime Minister's Office. Providing that detail to a standing committee allows us to serve the function that we're supposed to serve. It's not simply by adding a couple of members from the governing party to committee that we're going to lose the opportunity for that accountability.

I won't seek to impugn the motives for why committees were moved in camera last week. It happened at multiple committees. Instead, I would offer publicly to all of my colleagues that if the amendment were made to this motion to strike (b) because it was too much information—the volume of information and the work that it would generate would be too much, and it would slow down the Prime Minister's department in being able to deliver on its mandate—and that's the reason it's being deleted and it's with a view to pass the main motion, then I would concede that I wouldn't impede the amendment from moving forward. Section (b) could be struck and we could proceed with passing the main motion, which consumed many hours—more than a dozen hours—of public debate last week.

I think we have that opportunity. The government House leader spoke last week on television about how it was merely a coincidence that committees had been moved in camera.

We have that opportunity in public today to pass this motion and provide that ongoing transparency in a rolling way. I think the Privy Council Office has demonstrated that it has the capacity to furnish us with the information already. It would just be having that occur on an ongoing basis. Let's see that. Let's get that accountability. Let's do what we can collectively, as members, to bolster public confidence, because I fear that if we do not simply enact this transparency mechanism, we would see ourselves potentially undermining what is a fragile thing, which is the confidence that has been entrusted to us by Canadians.

At the same time, by passing the amendment, we would be achieving what had been suggested to be too onerous an ask for the department. I disagree, but I've never worked in PCO. Perhaps it is too onerous for them.

Let's assume that it is. Let's move past that, adopt the main motion and provide that transparency for Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I have Ms. Church on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a question for you, first of all, if you could just indulge me for a moment, and that was just about the timing of this meeting. We're past our allocated amount of time. What is your forward plan for the committee?

I don't have a problem debating this or this motion, but I would appreciate, given that we're all parliamentarians and we all have commitments outside our allotted committee times, knowing what your approach is going to be on handling the committee's time and the debate on motions like this. Is this something we could schedule during our regularly allocated committee time? Can you describe to us what you see as the committee's forward scheduling for the next few meetings?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I can't commit to anything from a forward-scheduling standpoint. I felt that this motion was important to dispose of, so I asked for additional resources to deal with it. I think we can deal with it relatively quickly, and this is why I've scheduled it for tonight.

We're on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On this amendment, we do absolutely operate in good faith. I think we just had a very good session with the Ethics Commissioner on the main estimates. We heard some of his testimony again relating back to the origins of Mr. Barrett's motion and inquiry. We heard from the Ethics Commissioner about the operation of the Prime Minister's screen and set-up.

Again, I think one of our primary objections to this has been that the independent agent of Parliament, the Ethics Commissioner, who has been charged with oversight for compliance with this act and for providing advice to every parliamentarian and every member of the executive on their personal affairs and how to arrange those affairs in a way that meets the standard or the test of avoiding a conflict of interest under the act, has come forward, yet again tonight, in front of this committee to tell us that in his estimation, on the arrangements pertaining to the Prime Minister's screen and the assets he held prior to assuming office, the current situation is working well.

We have an agreement in place with the Prime Minister's Office, via Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard, who appeared here a number of months ago, to provide us, on a continuing basis, with information pertaining to the Prime Minister's screen. That information has been forthcoming to the committee. The committee has that in their possession.

Additionally, we know that under the conflict of interest regime, if the Prime Minister is ever in a situation where he must recuse himself, that is also transparently disclosed on the conflict of interest website. That's in addition to the transparency surrounding all his assets and all his compliance measures, as it is with every other designated public office holder, member of the government executive and the hundreds of other senior public servants to whom this act applies.

Mr. Chair, in looking at this motion, we understand that our primary objection to the way it was structured, and our objection to paragraph b) in particular, has been that time remains one of the most precious resources we have as a committee, as a Parliament and as a government. I think we've approached this and other motions like it in a very similar fashion, suggesting that it is within the committee's ambit to discuss every motion that's brought forward by a member of the committee, to consider it on its merits and to consider how useful and productive it will be. However, we also have to understand that all of us here could bring forward motions at any given point in time. They're not all going to pass unamended. They're not all going to pass and become business for the committee to study. We have studies that are already awaiting scheduling, and we are two months before the end of our parliamentary term. We will certainly not get through all the business this committee has already set out to dive into over the last number of months.

That is one of the reasons that for a motion like this, we do scrutinize it. We are conscious of the fact that members of the opposition are seeking records, some of which have already been provided and will continue to be provided, and some of which go far beyond the scope of what is reasonable.

Mr. Chair, I propose that we move to a vote on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Church.

You're ceding your time on the floor. You've asked for a vote. I still have a speaking list, and that includes Mr. Hardy. Until I have exhausted the speaking list, we will not have a vote.

Go ahead, Mr. Hardy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, we're addressing something that I find truly essential, when all is said and done. We also just wrapped up a discussion with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. He told us how much we needed to provide the crucial element of transparency in order to build public trust in our institutions.

Let's talk about the motion. I know that I'll be asked to quickly get back to it.

Last time, I said that transparency regarding the Prime Minister's travels was extremely important. He's a globe-trotting prime minister who travels all over the world for a number of reasons. Sometimes, we wonder about these trips. Other times, we think that he's trying to negotiate something.

However, we did note, for example, expenses for meals on the plane and expenses that prompted questions from the public. Section (b) of Mr. Barrett's motion makes many references to travel and to attendees at the Prime Minister's meetings in particular. We simply want more transparency so that the public knows how the decision‑makers, the people whom they may or may not have voted for, are spending their money.

I believe that the motion was nevertheless appropriate. My colleague, Michael Barrett, is proposing—as we often do here—that we work together. We're told that we're the opposition party and that we oppose everything. We discussed this matter. Our role is to ensure that we improve the processes so that the public remains the focus of decisions.

Last week, after the vote in the House of Commons when the Liberals took control of parliamentary committees, we heard cheers in the House. Fifteen minutes later, the Liberal members of the committee all came down here and moved the meeting in camera.

People who keep up with our work might wonder what “in camera” means. It means that, for 30 years, we won't be allowed to talk about the discussions that took place. We'll be required to keep them secret. Yet secrecy is the opposite of transparency. So we need to clarify this.

Moreover, this didn't just happen here. This scenario played out in a number of committees, including oversight committees tasked with ensuring transparency and public awareness of government decisions.

Remember that two commissioners came to the committee today and talked about transparency. Yet the first step taken by the new majority government—and I must say that the public didn't vote for this majority, because the Liberals already held the three constituencies affected by the by‑elections, so the majority came about as a result of backroom deals—was to take control of parliamentary committees. I understand that the legislation normally allows a majority government to control the committees. However, this should happen when the public has voted for the game plan, not when agreements take place after the fact, which prevents people from asking questions. The Liberals did this last week when they regained control and moved the meeting in camera.

We were told that we had to watch out for red tape and that the amendment didn't make sense because it would create too much red tape. We believe that having access to documents is important. It helps us to carry out analyses and ask the right questions.

The Liberals tell us that the committee's time is exceedingly important. That's quite something coming from people who spent 24 hours giving monologues. One of their colleagues spoke for 70 minutes before the committee. He's just arrived and he's proud of himself too. So we attended the lecture given by my colleague, who spoke for 70 minutes. After that, they tell us that we need to be careful with the committee's time.

I gather that the Liberals are becoming more arrogant by the week. However, I think that we can work together. We're ready today to proceed if you guarantee that we'll vote and that the issue will be resolved afterwards. We'll do as Ms. Church suggests. We'll withdraw section (b) of the motion, but keep section (a), which is extremely important. If we can obtain transparency and accountability from the government, we'll be the first to support this.

Our role is to monitor. The opposition must ensure that the government remains accountable for its decisions and provides as much transparency as possible.

The motion before you was simple and effective. It called for transparency. Your first instinct was to move in camera to avoid transparency. This is happening again today. We're asking you the following question. Are you really in favour of transparency? If the answer is yes, we'll see it right away. This will be resolved. We'll move forward together and work collaboratively for the good of the people of Quebec and Canada.

If the answer is no, I think that people will understand your intentions. You made them clear last week and you will surely continue to do so here, week after week.

That's what I wanted to say, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

I don't have anybody else on my list.

We're on the amendment. Because there are no speakers, I will go to the vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 1)

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're on the main motion as amended now.

Ms. Church, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to vote on that.

Thank you to my colleagues across the way for supporting that amendment. I think we are making some progress here in terms of our desire to get to a place where we're more comfortable.

Mr. Chair, there's one thing that we need to do. We would like to take a look at this motion and reflect some of what the arrangement is that we have with Privy Council to provide certain amounts of information on this topic. On our side of things, as was our view when Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard were here and my colleagues across the way were asking for some of this information, we found that there is some useful information that we can ensure that we receive from PCO on an ongoing basis.

I'd like to take the first part of the remaining part of this motion, and I'd like to move an amendment. I'd like to, in the first section, section (a), replace, “the fifteenth day of each month”, with “a quarterly basis”.

Second, I'd like to propose to delete from “pursuant to the Assessment Tool” to “came into effect”. I would like to add a subsection (b) that says, “post the reports publicly on the committee's website”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just so I'm clear, Ms. Church, this is a new section (b) that you're proposing then.

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

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's not a subsection. It's a new section. Is that right?

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

Yes, they are sections (a), (b) and (c).

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Go ahead on section (b).

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

Section (b) was “post the reports publicly on the committee's website”.

Section (c) is “invite the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner every quarter, to discuss the contents of the most recent quarterly report from PCO.”

If my colleagues are interested, I think this would be a motion that reflects getting the information we want, on a timeline that is useful and appropriate. It involves the transparency of posting the reports that we receive publicly on our website as a committee. Should we have questions or concerns about what is posted, we're providing an invitation to the commissioner every quarter to discuss the contents of that quarterly report with us as well.