Evidence of meeting #131 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was liberal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
I want to quickly go back to something.
You strongly indicated that we should understand, if we're submitting names of witnesses.... We only received a response from Madam Clerk yesterday, but the witness I submitted—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm sorry, Mr. Bains. What was it in response to? I need to be clear on that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
You just said that you got a response from the clerk. What was the response from the clerk?
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
She acknowledged that she received the witness yesterday, but it was submitted on September 24 at 5:17 p.m. That's 216 hours ago. In fact—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It's not going to make a difference today. We are where we are.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
You strongly indicated to me that 24 hours is not acceptable. I understand that. I appreciate that. I just want to ensure that you know, and that Madam Clerk knows, that 216 hours ago, I submitted—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
What I'll do is go back to the clerk. We'll have a discussion after the meeting is over. I'll get an answer for you, Mr. Bains.
Thank you.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
In fact, the witness was number one on the list. I want to point that out for the record.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Does every member have the subamendment to the amendment?
I have a list. I have Mr. Barrett and Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Villemure will be next, then Mr. Berthold.
Mr. Barrett, go ahead on the subamendment to the amendment, please.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Chair, it was said that it's a question about fairness.
This subamendment deals with the primary issue, which is to have carbon tax Carney come before the committee.
It also addresses the desire of Liberal members. They wanted to have Jenni Byrne come to committee. I suppose that's their purview. Ms. Byrne has a business under her name and it does zero federal lobbying. None. Ms. Byrne is also not a federal lobbyist, but they want her to come to committee.
Okay. We agree to invite Ms. Byrne to come to committee and talk about how she doesn't have any involvement in federal lobbying. If we're doing that—and it's a question about fairness that was raised by the Liberal members—then we need to have Don Guy come to committee. I want to tell you why.
The St. Albert Gazette published a Canadian Press article on September 10, 2024. The title is, “Carney interested in 'doing something, not being something,' he says of adviser role”. That's the adviser role he has with the Liberal Party.
The Canadian Press story states, “The Liberals called in veteran strategist Don Guy to give his insights on how to mount a comeback and go up against Poilievre as they prepare for the election year.”
Don Guy is a founding partner of a company called GT and Co, which, unlike Ms. Byrne's business, has a significant federal lobbying practice. Notable clients include Loblaws—perhaps that's how it got that fridge money from the Liberals, and Loblaws of course owns Shoppers Drug Mart—and the Canada Bread company, which, as we know, did plead guilty to price-fixing during a food price inflation and cost of living crisis.
With CN Rail, we know the concerns there caused a fracture in the confidence and supply agreement, which was the coalition with the NDP. The government seemed to have received a real nudge to get to binding arbitration. One might wonder if that came from Mr. Guy, who is a federal lobbyist for CN Rail and also Airbnb, which the Liberals and the NDP have both accused of making the housing crisis worse.
These are the clients of the individual, Mr. Guy, who is a federal lobbyist and who was speaking at the taxpayer-funded Liberal caucus retreat. Let's get real here. Let's talk about fairness. Let's have Mr. Guy come before committee. He can sit next to Ms. Byrne, who the Liberals want to have come to committee.
Mr. Guy employs the former director of caucus services and operations for the Liberal research bureau—Ms. DeWolfe had a five-year tenure—as well as other well-connected Liberals. Mr. Guy, as the owner of Pollara, employs Dan Arnold, who is also a fixture at taxpayer-funded Liberal caucus retreats.
This is Don Guy, the federal lobbyist, who sits in the room with the Prime Minister, his cabinet, his caucus and these Liberal members, behind closed doors, advising them and representing his clients simultaneously. His clients are Airbnb, which the Liberals have said made the housing crisis worse; CN Rail; the Canada Bread company, which pleaded guilty to price-fixing; and Loblaws. If we're getting fair, let's get fair, and let's have him come before the committee.
Now, along with Mr. Guy, we should include Brian Topp. He is the co-founding partner of GT and Co. Let's talk again about all of those examples that I gave, about federal lobbying that's done by that company—companies that have pleaded guilty of price-fixing, companies the Liberals have accused of exacerbating the housing crisis in our country and companies they've accused of gouging consumers.
Who is Mr. Topp? Mr. Topp is a noted New Democrat, the former chief of staff to Rachel Notley. He has these connections. He is the employer of that same former Liberal research bureau director responsible for caucus services and operations.
Topp and Guy should be sitting in seats 15 and 16, and we can save seat 17 for Ms. Byrne. Then, in seat 18, we should have Gurratan Singh, because we know that the NDP leader has said that he has him on his arm for media scrums and for advice, and that he's a lobbyist for Metro. Metro barely gets a mention from the NDP leader when he's talking about grocery giants. It's funny. I wonder why we don't hear much mention of Metro. It's highly suspicious indeed, some might say.
We want to see Topp, Guy, Singh and Ms. Byrne.
The difference, of course, with Ms. Byrne, is that she's the only one who's not a federal lobbyist. However, they want to have her, and they want it to be fair, so let's be fair. Let's have them come here, and they can all appear on a panel together.
There are a couple of important points in this motion. These individuals don't come before the committee, the invitations are not to be furnished to them, until we've had Mr. Carney appear, because Mr. Carney's ducked committees before. It's not acceptable that we don't have him come first.
If we're going to have the conversation about federal lobbying, we can deal with the many issues and the many conflicts of interest with carbon tax Carney—questionable practices with respect to lobbying. How did Brookfield get in the mix for what's going to be a very lucrative time? How is it that their stock price hit six-month highs, when one of their subsidiaries, the largest private mortgage insurer in Canada, is going to benefit from a Liberal government announcement.
All of these things happen. His buddy at Telesat is getting a $2-billion loan for satellite Internet service that doesn't have any satellites and isn't providing any Internet service. How did all of that good fortune land on all of these people who just happen to be connected to Mr. Carney in the hours that the ink's just drying on his agreement to become the de facto finance minister after Justin Trudeau's PMO said they didn't have confidence in Chrystia Freeland, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister? How did that all come to happen?
What did Mr. Carney have to give up for that? Well, we've seen that he's now sending out fundraising letters for the Liberals.
We hope to have support from other members. We wanted to talk about fairness. This is fair. We're saying that the Conservative who has been suggested ought to appear, alongside the federal Liberal lobbyists who've been in the halls of power, who've been in the rooms behind closed doors when decisions are getting made, when strategy's being charted for the government and for their coalition partner. That's incredibly important.
When we have someone like the chair of Brookfield Global, this trillion-dollar, arch-capitalist everything company, we hope that we can do whatever it takes. We hope we can count on the NDP to do what it takes to bring Mr. Carney here to answer questions and answer for how he's enriching his friends in exchange for raising money for the Liberals. We hope the issue of fairness that was raised by the Liberal members has been addressed here.
Let's see Topp, Guy and Singh, and we can have Ms. Byrne alongside them, although she's not a federal lobbyist and they do federal lobbying. Is that okay? I think there was a concern that they were going to appear for less time than Mr. Carney, and I think that's been addressed as well. We'll have that panel for two hours. Those invitations will be sent out after Mr. Carney comes.
The most important thing isn't protecting people who share the party affiliation. It's accountability and transparency. It's about restoring Canadians' confidence.
Let's put it plainly. We want carbon tax Carney here. The poison pill the Liberals think they've put forward in having Ms. Byrne come.... We'll make sure that the invitation is hand delivered. Will they do the same with their strategists? Will the NDP do the same with their strategists? Let's see.
Let's see who's interested in fairness and accountability for Canadians and who's actually looking to circle the wagons and protect their insiders, who have had that privileged access behind closed doors while lobbying for their federal clients.
Let's see. The opportunity's here for everyone. They just need to reach out and take it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Cooper now has the floor.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Picking up where Mr. Barrett left off with respect to the subamendment, it is important that we hear from Don Guy and Brian Topp for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Barrett.
However, I think it's important to reflect on how we got here in the first place and why the need to bring forward this subamendment came about. It came about because every single day there seems to be more corruption, more conflict and more scandal from arguably the most rotten and corrupt government in modern Canadian history, if not Canadian history.
We have a prime minister who, unlike any prime minister in Canadian history, has been found guilty not once but twice of breaking Canada's ethics laws. He was found guilty of being in conflicts of interest. Given that leadership starts at the top and the culture of a government starts at the top, it's no wonder that we have seen the kind of rot and corruption that has permeated this entire Liberal government.
We now know that carbon tax Carney became “conflict Carney” when the Prime Minister shamelessly appointed his rich pal, Carney, to serve as the so-called chair of the Liberal Party's task force on economic growth. It was very convenient for the Prime Minister to appoint Mr. Carney chair of the Liberal Party's task force when in fact he is essentially advising the Prime Minister on matters of economic policy, and that was to avoid Mr. Carney being subject to the Conflict of Interest Act and to avoid having to make disclosures pursuant to that act with respect to his many conflicts.
What are some of those conflicts? Every day we seem to learn of new conflicts.
By the way, about the title as chair of the Liberal Party's task force, guess what? We found out that it is a one-person task force, namely carbon tax Carney, also known as conflict Carney.
Speaking of those conflicts, almost immediately following his appointment as the Prime Minister's adviser—evidently the Prime Minister has lost confidence in his utterly incompetent finance minister, Chrystia Freeland—we find out that the government raises the threshold for insured mortgages from $1 million to $1.5 million.
What is the significance of that? It just so happens that carbon tax Carney, also known as conflict of interest Carney, is the chair of none other than Brookfield. Now, what is Brookfield? It is a multinational investment management company that owns Sagen, the second-largest mortgage insurer.
Think about that. You have an adviser to the Prime Minister on economic policy, and then upon his appointment the government, just out of coincidence, raises the threshold for insured mortgages. That adviser just happens to be the chair of Brookfield, the owner of the second-largest mortgage insurer, and, of course, it resulted in Brookfield benefiting richly from that decision. In fact, their stock hit a six-month high. How convenient.
However, that's just scratching the surface of the conflicts, because shortly after that, carbon tax Carney and conflict of interest Carney's close friend, who serves as CEO of Telesat, received $2.14 billion in taxpayer-funded loans. That's interesting.
We find out that carbon tax Carney, also known as conflict of interest Carney, is negotiating with the very government he is supposedly advising. Well, according to the Prime Minister, he is not advising the government. He is not advising the Prime Minister. He is somehow just advising the Liberal Party.
Everyone knows he is advising the government. He is advising the Prime Minister, and he is the de facto finance minister.
We find out that he is negotiating with the very same government—to do what? To shake down taxpayers, asking for $10 billion in funds for Brookfield. There is conflict after conflict after conflict.
What is as bad is how arrogant this Prime Minister—along with carbon tax Carney and conflict of interest Carney—has been, trying to masquerade him as an adviser to the Liberal Party, thinking that Canadians would be fooled by that. Of course, Canadians aren't fooled by that. It is very plain for the eye to see. It is brazen, blatant corruption and conflict. Conflict and corruption are out in the open.
After nine years of this rotten and corrupt Prime Minister, the government doesn't even try to hide the conflicts and corruption. It can't; they're in plain sight. On that basis, we moved a motion to hear from carbon tax Carney and conflict of interest Carney before this committee. It's an appropriate committee; it's the ethics committee. It is a committee that deals with matters of conflicts of interest to provide oversight and to see that the Conflict of Interest Act is being enforced. It is to hold to account those public office holders, ministers or other officials in this government who have breached the act or have engaged in otherwise unethical activities. I tell you, this committee is very busy because of all the work that this government has given it.
I would like to hear—and it's important for this committee to scrutinize Mr. Carney—how it is that the threshold for insured mortgages was raised almost immediately after he was appointed adviser to the Liberal Party. It was not when he was chair of Brookfield. He could answer to the fact that his close friend just happened to get $2 billion from the same government, again just after he was appointed as economic adviser. He could explain how on the one hand he is advising the Prime Minister, while on the other hand he is negotiating $10 billion in taxpayers' funds for none other than Brookfield. It is about as rotten as it gets. It's out in the open and totally shameless.
What do the Liberals do when we bring forward a motion? It's what they always do: They scramble. They huddle. They wait for their talking points from the Prime Minister's Office. They come in and they do everything they can to shield the Prime Minister and his friends, including Mr. Carney, from accountability and scrutiny.
They bring forward an amendment that they thought was rather clever to try to divert attention. They said, “Let's bring in Jenni Byrne.” Well, why bring in Jenni Byrne? She's not a federal lobbyist. Her firm doesn't do any federal lobbying, but they want to hear from Ms. Byrne.
I don't have a problem. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Caputo don't have a problem. I don't think Ms. Byrne has a problem. I think the Liberals will run out of questions very quickly, but maybe not. We'll hear from her if that's what they want to do.
If Ms. Byrne is going to be called to appear, it is appropriate that we hear from Gurratan Singh, given the fact that he is the brother of the NDP leader, an adviser to the NDP leader, a former MPP and a lobbyist for none other than Metro. The Liberals like to talk about Loblaws. Well, that's fine, but we can also hear from a lobbyist for Metro who just happens to be the adviser and brother to the leader of the NDP.
Then there is Don Guy. Don Guy, just weeks ago, was meeting behind closed doors at the Liberals' Nanaimo caucus retreat, standing in the same room with the captain of the Titanic himself, the Prime Minister. He was, as The Canadian Press reported, called in “to give his insights on how to mount a comeback”.
Boy, do they have a lot of work to do. I can't imagine what the advice would be, other than to tell the Prime Minister to take a hike.
In any event, Don Guy is someone who happens to be an adviser to the Liberals and the Prime Minister. He was there behind closed doors. He also happens to be the founding partner of GT, which, unlike Ms. Byrne's firm, does extensive federal lobbying. It doesn't do extensive federal lobbying for just anything: It lobbies for Loblaws and the Canada Bread Company, which, as Mr. Barrett noted, has pleaded guilty to price-fixing.
That's Don Guy. That's the Liberal Party adviser who employs Julie DeWolfe, the former director of caucus services and operations at the Liberal research bureau. It's the same Don Guy who is the owner of and chief strategist at Pollara, which employs Dan Arnold, the Liberals' pollster. I think that's another interesting connection.
Don Guy was also there advising the Prime Minister's ski buddy and fake rapporteur David Johnston in his sham investigation into foreign interference and the Prime Minister's efforts to cover up Beijing's attack on our democracy in the 2019 and 2021 elections, which benefited the Liberal Party.
It's not just me saying this: Madam Justice Hogue concluded that Beijing's interference may have materially impacted the results in certain ridings, including Steveston—Richmond East, where my colleague Kenny Chiu was defeated as a consequence of disinformation spread by Beijing and amplified by the Liberal Party and Justin Trudeau.
In short, Mr. Chair, this is a very reasonable amendment. We're happy to hear from Ms. Byrne, but if Ms. Byrne is going to be invited, there are far stronger and more compelling grounds to invite other witnesses, such as Mr. Singh, Mr. Guy and Mr. Guy's business partner, former NDP chief of staff Brian Topp. Let's hear from all of them. Let's have them for two hours. There was an objection about having one hour for Mr. Singh and one hour for Ms. Byrne, so let's have them here for two hours.
However, really, the most important person we need to hear from is Mr. Carney. He needs to come to committee to answer for all of his conflicts. He needs to answer questions about exactly what his role is within this government and why he is seeking to shield himself from scrutiny and from having to disclose his many conflicts.
I may have more to say, but I will leave it at that for now, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I had Monsieur Berthold.
He was supposed to speak next, but he's not here right now.
I'm going to Mr. Caputo, and then Mr. Cooper has his hand up again.
Mr. Caputo, you have the floor.
