Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to the committee. We’re all glad to have you back. I also want to welcome all my colleagues.
I’d like to raise a couple of points on the motion and ask for some clarifications.
We agree that the purpose of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is to study specific circumstances. My first question is this: Do these circumstances fall within the mandate of the committee?
I would, however, like to sound a note of caution.
Mr. Carney most likely has interests, but do these interests really constitute a conflict of interest? I’m not sure. It might be worth investigating that. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of asking someone to explain themselves to a parliamentary committee when that person was hired by the Liberal Party of Canada as a consultant—I will use that term—and not by the government, just like Jenni Byrne, who was a consultant for the Conservatives.
Obviously, if this person were an elected official, or even if they’d been hired by the government, I would be more comfortable. However, when it comes to someone who is a consultant, who do you even call in the first place? Many people could potentially have conflicts of interest. It seems to me that we should be a little more specific.
The member who moved the motion said that Mr. Carney has interests, that they are known, and that they are documented. Fine. However, the simple fact of having an interest is not a crime. Not every interest is a conflict of interest. In that sense, we need to avoid engaging in unnecessary witch hunts. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t shed light on all of this, but at first glance I would say that this is somewhat out of proportion. I think we’re creating a problem here, rather than trying to solve a problem. I would urge us to be cautious in this matter. Again, not every interest is a conflict of interest.
Thank you.