Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always a pleasure to speak, both in the House of Commons and at committee. Before I came to Parliament, I didn't realize how important these committee meetings can be, so it is appreciated.

I want to pick up on what Mr. Cooper had to say.

So much of this is intertwined relationships. There are Liberals who have relationships with other Liberals. There's one common denominator. Do you know what that is? It's people getting rich off the government. It's true.

Mr. Chair, when we think about this, you have somebody who is already insanely wealthy. I'm not sure if anybody here knows Mark Carney's net worth. I certainly don't, but I can guarantee it's probably a lot higher than mine and probably higher than that of every single person in this room combined.

Here he is, advising the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, which is a party entitled to its entitlements and really defining the hubris that goes along with that.

People just don't have enough. People are lining up at food banks in my riding. They're having trouble paying their bills, yet we have Liberals getting richer and richer. I know it's not in the motion, so I won't speak to it for long, but I will be heading to the House of Commons shortly today on the green slush fund. What is that about? It's about Liberals helping Liberals get richer.

We need to get to the bottom of the conflicts of interest. It's bad enough that it's got this far.

Frankly, I would love to hear from Mr. Carney about what he's thinking, just from an interest point of view. This is somebody who wants to be the Prime Minister—he's made no secret of that—yet here he is, advising the government. He not only has a material interest....

Typically, the appearance of an interest is enough. I think most people would know that. Especially as lawyers, we have it drilled into us. I think every parliamentarian is taught, or should be taught, that where there is an appearance of a conflict, you have a de facto conflict. By that, I mean you proceed as though there's a conflict even if there isn't one, but there could be one. Just the appearance is enough to say, “Okay. That's too much. That's enough.”

As Mr. Barrett and Mr. Cooper so eloquently laid out, you have not only the appearance of a conflict but also what appears to be fairly tangible evidence of a conflict, in that somebody is advising the government at the same time they're negotiating contracts that would personally benefit them. That is the very definition of a conflict of interest. It's somebody who could benefit based on their relationships. That in itself is inherently problematic.

This is Canada. Our leader, Pierre Poilievre, often talks about the have-nots versus the have-yachts. I know where the have-yachts are. They seem to be at the Liberal convention. They seem to be at the green slush fund, where they're talking about, “How do we get more? Who's going to get more? Do you want more? How much more? A million? Two million? Five million?”

People are lined up at food banks. People can't afford their rent and there aren't enough houses for people to buy, yet we have Liberals lining up to line their own pockets. If there is one place where we are to address it, it should be here at the ethics committee.

That is why I am puzzled about why the Liberals here do not want Mr. Carney in that chair. What are they so afraid of? The conflict of interest is so clear. I'm sure he's very bright. I'm sure he will tell us all about it, if the Liberals agree to have him come, or perhaps if this committee overrules them and decides that it is the right thing.

If I were the Liberals, I would be saying, “I want this. Why do I want it? Because I want to show that there might be smoke, but there's no fire,” even though we know there is, because there are, at the very least, the optics of a conflict.

When we have friends of rich Liberals who are now advising the Prime Minister while negotiating and getting $2.5-billion contracts, this is so obviously a conflict of interest. I don't know what could be more the case. What do we need? We need Mr. Carney there sitting in that seat.

It sure is lonely right now. It's an empty seat. Let's have him there for a couple of hours, and he can tell us about this.

These are the other people that Mr. Barrett mentioned: Mr. Topp, Mr. Guy and Ms. Byrne. None of them wants to be prime minister. None of them are negotiating contracts with the Liberal government. None of their friends, as far as we know, stand to get rich from the government or are in the process of getting rich from the government.

This is a government that promised to be open by default, which is kind of ironic, because right now it is fighting a Speaker's ruling about openness in Parliament. Why would we assume that it is doing anything but that here? This isn't transparency; it's opacity. This government is opaque. Let's shed some light on it. Let's bring Mr. Carney here.

We've agreed that Ms. Byrne should attend. I'm not sure that they're going to hear very much. After all, she doesn't want to be prime minister. She's not advising us as a special adviser to skirt conflict of interest rules with the Liberal Party.

The Liberals could probably avoid this whole thing at the ethics committee just by having Mr. Carney made subject to conflict of interest rules or telling us—because they would not tell us during question period, and this was asked multiple times—if his involvement with the Liberal Party was cleared with the Commissioner of Lobbying. That's pretty simple.

Again, this is the open-by-default government, transparent by default: “Everything you want, we will get for you.” They won't even answer a question about lobbying, a yes-or-no question. “No, we dropped the ball, but we're doing it.” That's what they should say if they haven't cleared it, and if they have, then tell us. If they had, they would say yes, it was cleared by the Commissioner of Lobbying. Sometimes they don't like the answer, so they don't answer the question.

The government certainly didn't like the Speaker's ruling on the SDTC. I don't think that they're going to like the answer that they would get from the Commissioner of Lobbying, but who knows? I'm sure they'd be more than willing to give up all of the information, but there are so many questions to be answered and so many things to be dealt with at this committee, yet here we are struggling to get the transparency that we need by getting Mr. Carney right there in seat 17.

I would welcome him, shake his hand and pour him a glass of water, and then I and my Conservative colleagues would be happy to ask a number of tough questions on behalf of Canadians, not for political gain but because people have the right to know.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

I have Mr. Cooper next on the list, and then Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Let me just say that I find it very interesting that every time the question has been posed in the House—I believe Mr. Barrett posed it more than once—as to whether the Prime Minister ran his appointment of Mr. Carney, supposedly as an adviser to the Liberal party, past the Lobbying Commissioner....

The refusal of the Prime Minister and ministers in his government to answer such a straightforward question provides the answer to that question, which is that the Prime Minister didn't run Mr. Carney by the Commissioner of Lobbying, presumably because he would not have liked the answer from the lobbying commissioner. It is almost a certainty that the appointment would not have been given the green light. It wouldn't have been given the green light because what the Prime Minister and Mark Carney—carbon tax Carney, conflict of interest Carney—have done is set up an arrangement that, at the end of the day, is the antithesis of open and accountable government, which is what the Prime Minister touted himself as championing upon being elected Prime Minister. It is the antithesis of, I think, the standard that Canadians would expect.

It's not just anyone. We're talking about the former governor of the Bank of Canada. We're talking about the former governor of the Bank of England. Someone advising the Prime Minister on economic policy and other matters ought to be subject to the Conflict of Interest Act and ought to have their conflicts disclosed. The fact that the Prime Minister has very conveniently shielded carbon tax Carney, conflict of interest Carney, from that is problematic. That's why we do need to hear from him.

I guess I understand why the Liberals are blocking our efforts and why they want to change the channel. It's because they want to talk about anything other than the conflicts of interest and corruption that surround Mr. Carney. However, as Mr. Caputo noted, the entire agenda of the House of Commons has been sidelined because of all of the corruption and scandals involving this government, not only in relation to Mr. Carney but also in relation to their obstruction of a clear and unambiguous order of the House to turn over all documents relating to the billion-dollar green slush fund, a scandal that occurred under the watch of the Minister of Industry, a scandal that the assistant deputy minister described in a secret audio recording as the largest scandal since the sponsorship scandal.

Now there's another scandal, another finding of a prima facie question of privilege involving the shady business partner, the Minister of Employment, Randy Boissonnault, and his business partner coming to committee and telling the committee that the Randy in the text messages implicated in a half-million-dollar shakedown was some other Randy, but very conveniently, when he was ordered by this committee to identify that Randy, he refused to do so because everyone knows the Randy in the text messages, the Randy involved in the half-million-dollar shakedown, the Randy involved—

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I feel like I've seen this movie before. I don't think it's on the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to move back to the subamendment if we can, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

My point, Mr. Chair, is that it provides some context to the fact that it's not just Mr. Carney, as serious as that is. We're dealing with a government that, as I said in my earlier submissions, is arguably the most corrupt government in modern Canadian history, if not in all Canadian history. I will leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Barrett, you are next, on your subamendment.

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

I'll yield my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

I don't have anybody else on the list, so we're going to go to the vote on the—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'm sorry, Chair, I just stepped out.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. I'm calling the vote.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Okay. I—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No, I called the vote, Mrs. Shanahan. I'm sorry.

We're going to call the roll. Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

The vote is on the subamendment moved by Mr. Barrett to the amendment moved by Mr. Caputo.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Chair, I have a point of order.

Can we just read out the subamendment, please?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're on a vote, Mrs. Shanahan. I'm sorry.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

If you could do so, that would be much appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I called the vote. The vote is ongoing.

Go ahead, Clerk.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We're now on the amendment by Mr. Caputo.

Do we have anybody on the amendment?

Monsieur Berthold, go ahead.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm here today because I think it's extremely important to get to the bottom of the relationship between Mr. Mark Carney and the Liberal Party of Canada, particularly the relationship between Mr. Carney, the Prime Minister, and several ministers in the Liberal government.

At the moment, the House of Commons is completely paralyzed. In fact, two questions of privilege have been referred to the House, because the government refuses to submit to the orders of the House. One of the questions of privilege relates to the tabling of documents, again—it seems to me we've been through this before.

If I talk about the famous National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, it will remind my colleagues of a few things. At the time, the government refused to comply with an order of the House. The president of the agency was summoned to the House, and they refused to hand over the documents to the House. All this led to an election.

The Liberal government was so afraid to reveal what might have been in the documents we could have had in our hands that it preferred to call an election and spend tens of millions of Canadian dollars rather than comply with a House order and turn these documents over to the House, which would have been simple.

What's going on right now in the House of Commons is very reminiscent of the same thing. We're trying to shed light on the Liberal Green Fund, the Liberals' green slush fund.

Let me remind you that, in this green slush fund affair, tens or hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars were paid to Liberal insiders. These people profited from this money because they were well-connected with the managers of the green fund, who were appointed by the Prime Minister and his government.

We're talking about 186 green fund conflicts of interest and $330 million paid to people who knew the right people. It turns out that these good people knew other good people, appointed by the Liberals. An amount of $330 million was paid although there was a conflict of interest, and $50 million, or a little more, was paid to companies that did not meet the basic criteria of the Green Fund program. That's a lot of money. We're talking about nearly $400 million, which is eight times more than the sponsorship scandal. It's easy to see why, when it comes to ethics and conflicts of interest, the official opposition is not only cautious, but must also do its job and hold the corrupt Liberal government to account.

If we're here, it's because we want Mr. Mark Carney to testify before the committee. He's not a household name in Quebec, although he's a household name elsewhere. Mr. Carney is a man who is very involved in international finance and has held very important positions. However, when I talk about Mr. Carney with the average citizen, I don't usually get a big reaction, to be honest. And that's what's most dangerous, not being interested in someone who holds such an important position in a company. Mr. Carney is the president of a company that manages billions of dollars—I don't mean millions of dollars, I mean billions of dollars—and has investments in just about everything. Basically, he's the president of a multitasking company with ramifications all over the place.

The Prime Minister has therefore appointed this person as chair of his personal task force on the country's economic growth.

If he's managing billions of dollars, maybe he's been successful in business. I have no idea. However, what I do know is that he has a personal interest in billions of dollars.

Let me report what the Prime Minister said about Mark Carney. He said that, as chair of the Leader's Task Force on Economic Growth, “Mark's”—please note that he only used his first name—unique ideas and perspectives would play a vital role in defining the next steps in the Liberal Party's plan to continue growing our economy and strengthening the middle class, as well as urgently seizing new opportunities for Canadian jobs and prosperity in a rapidly changing world.

That's quite a task. We know that the Liberal government has hired 100,000 more public servants since 2015. Of those 100,000 public servants, it would appear that no one had the skills to advise the Prime Minister on a plan to continue growing our economy. This seems a little implausible to me. I can't believe that there was no one, among all the senior civil servants and mandarins of the state, capable of playing this role.

Prime Minister Trudeau chose instead to go external. He called his good friend Mark Carney to come and tell him what to do with Canadians' money, because he was out of ideas. He didn't know what to do. After nine years, he was drained. He had no capacity to go any further. Above all, he wanted help from someone who wasn't tied to the state.

Why? Why take on someone who has to submit to all the rules of the state when you can choose someone who is completely free to do what he wants? Mark Carney, the man who will be advising the Prime Minister and, it seems, the entire Liberal government on the future of the country, doesn't have to answer to anyone. He doesn't have to abide by the rules on conflict of interest or lobbying.

This means he can continue to do business. What's more, if he happens to give the Prime Minister advice that might benefit one of his companies, why not? It could pay off.

Rules had been put in place after the government of former Prime Minister Trudeau had been through this to avoid, precisely, such conflicts of interest and people taking advantage of their office and their special relationship with elected officials or ministers. However, Mr. Carney will not have to abide by the rules of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. He can therefore continue to make a host of good suggestions to Mr. Trudeau without being accountable to anyone and, above all, without anyone being able to know whether his advice will benefit him personally.

We're talking about a person who holds several offices and has interests amounting to billions of dollars. I can guarantee you that if this person continues to have both hands in the private and public sectors, it will be extremely difficult to get to the bottom of what he has done. That's why we put rules in place. That's why the lobbying commissioner exists.

They'll tell us he's not a lobbyist. However, when you have direct access to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Industry, my goodness, why spend a dime on a lobbyist? The advice goes straight to the ears of the person who's going to make the decision, based on the advice that person is going to give.

Can't you see the magnitude of the situation?

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want that. I don't understand why members of Parliament would vote against asking Mr. Carney these kinds of questions. I'm not talking through my hat, because, as luck would have it, on the very day Mr. Trudeau decided to appoint Mr. Carney to head his personal task force on economic prosperity, what did we learn? We learned that Mr. Carney's company was working to secure not $50,000, not $50 million, but $50 billion in public money for one of his companies. That's $50 billion. The very day he was appointed, we learned that his company was lobbying to be able to manage $50 billion of Canadians' savings. Wow!

Was anyone looking for proof? Was anyone looking to find out why we should be asking questions? We have an obvious answer. It all happened on the same day.

It seems that the share value of Mr. Carney's company, since his appointment as Mr. Trudeau's personal adviser, has grown by leaps and bounds. I don't have the figures, but my colleagues talked about it today.

This is huge. It makes no sense. It's so big it's overflowing. I'm sure our Bloc colleagues will understand how huge it is and will support us so we can hear what Mr. Carney has to say. I'm sure they will.

I'm a little surprised by the NDP's position on this. I wish we could have had a clear vote from the NDP. Okay, they want to broaden the debate, they want a lot of people to appear, when the target, the objective we need to have is Mr. Carney, who is the front-runner to succeed the Prime Minister right now.

Imagine what that means. He's the first in line. He's just waiting for this corrupt Liberal government to fall so he can take the Prime Minister's place. Are we going to replace a prime minister who has twice been convicted of ethical breaches, who has contravened the rules of ethics, who refuses to respond positively to the orders of Parliament, with someone who, for the moment, has not broken any rules of ethics, but who, at first glance and on the very day of his appointment, seems to have taken exactly the same path? That's what his company's investments and demands have shown us.

How come this isn't in the media more? Could someone please explain to me why we're not all rending our garments, right now?

This is so big. In fact, maybe it's too big. When your nose is glued to the window, you can only see a small corner. I think I'll invite everyone to take a step back and look at what's happening right now on Mark Carney's side. I'm not going to stop at Mr. Carney's positions on political issues, like the carbon tax. I won't dwell on it, but I'll say a few words anyway.

There are vested interests. Mark Carney has an interest in seeing the government's carbon tax policy continue and expand. Mr. Carney is in favour of making it more expensive for all Canadians. He has both hands in the pot. He doesn't have to answer to anyone. It's unbelievable.

Today my colleague Mr. Barrett wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Lobbying. Indeed, we have many questions to ask. Since we have so many, we can ask them in several places. We don't have to wait as we move from one stage to another, and so on.

The Commissioner of Lobbying must quickly look into Mark Carney's activities to see if there have been any breaches of the Lobbying Act, any breaches of the Conflict of Interest Act.

We have some questions. To what extent is Brookfield, Mr. Carney's company, and all its subsidiaries aware of these possible breaches of the Lobbying Act? This is a question we need to ask the Commissioner of Lobbying. In fact, she's probably asking herself the same questions right now.

Mr. Chair, Mark Carney speaks regularly to the Prime Minister. He's the godfather of someone in the immediate family of another Liberal minister. He's very close to cabinet right now. I'm not making this up. He can talk to the Prime Minister and all those people any time he wants. He doesn't have to account for his meetings with ministers or the Prime Minister.

When we meet lobbyists, each of us has to declare that they met us, why and in what context it was done. But that's not the case with Mark Carney. Why isn't it? I can't understand why the head of such a large company, a company with so many tentacles, isn't held to account.

What role does Mr. Carney currently play? He's literally taking on the role of political adviser, but not just any political adviser; it's more like the role of a senior political adviser. I say this because Justin Trudeau himself has said that Mr. Carney's ideas and views will play an essential role in defining the next steps. You don't give such a role to a political attaché or an inexperienced political adviser. It's the role of a senior adviser to the Prime Minister's Office.

Mr. Chair, I'm sure that if you look in the Prime Minister's Office staff directory, you won't find Mark Carney's name there. You could even extend your search by looking into the personnel of the Minister of Finance. You can look anywhere, Mr. Chair, and I'm sure you'll never find Mark Carney's name, because he simply doesn't want to be accountable to Canadians. He doesn't want to hurt his companies, and he wants to take advantage of the special relationship he currently has with the Prime Minister. It could end there. But it doesn't. Not only does Mr. Carney advise the Prime Minister, he also raises money for him. It's true. Mark Carney is a fundraiser for the Liberal Party of Canada. Surely he's not saying this Liberal government is corrupt when he speaks at these events.

He has sent a letter to Canadians, more specifically to Liberal Party supporters, I hope. Because if he doesn't, he won't have much success. In the letter, he said that this work is not possible without a strong team and the support of Canadians, and that Justin Trudeau and the team hope that, if they can, Canadians will help the Liberal Party of Canada reach its $350,000 goal by midnight on September 29. Mr. Carney is a business leader, special adviser to the Prime Minister and senior adviser to the Prime Minister. He does political work. An ethicist could work for three years on this file alone to try to untangle all this and try to understand it. So you can understand why we're skeptical when it comes to Liberals and ethics.

I spoke earlier about the many scandals. Now I'll tell you about one. This committee may have a unique opportunity to defuse a scandal before it's too late and too costly for Canadians. But how? First, we must hope that the Commissioner of Lobbying will listen to the recommendations of my colleague Mr. Barrett, open an inquiry and ask Mr. Carney some questions. We also have a role to play, and we must play it. We need to ask Mr. Carney these questions. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has a very important role to play. Since the arrival of this Liberal government, the members of the committee have been working very hard, for many hours.

Mr. Chair, I don't think you'll be able to study and bring to light all the Liberal government scandals before the end of the session.

It's part of the committee's role to welcome Mr. Carney, and we should focus our efforts on that.

Like us, the NDP has a vested interest in shedding light on the links between Justin Trudeau and Mr. Carney, who acts as a volunteer, financier, business leader and senior adviser to Justin Trudeau.

Mr. Chair, I wanted to make this point today, because, as I said, if we don't pay attention to Mr. Carney, he's going to rake it in. What's more, he's going to do it unsupervised, unaccountable to anyone, including commissioners, lobbyists and Parliament.

This committee has a unique opportunity to hold Mr. Carney to account. For this reason, I implore all parties, even the Liberal Party, to do so. Don't you want to get to know your next leader better?

I think that's the best way to go. Invite him to appear before this committee for two hours. Ask him all the questions you want. Then you'll be able to determine whether or not the Liberals will continue on.

As Mr. Trudeau says so often these days, they're going to keep acting the same way, unless we want something else. This is your chance to ask Mr. Carney some questions. Use them wisely to get to know your next leader.

The same thing goes for the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. You have to ask this person questions. God knows where he'll be tomorrow, and God knows we have to stop this apparent conflict of interest before it costs Canadians too much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

I cancelled my French lesson this morning, and it's good for me to listen to French.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I can continue, if you like.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No, that's fine. Thank you.

Mr. Barrett, you have the floor.

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

Chair, I mentioned earlier today that I had taken to writing to the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada because of the state of the government with the new de facto finance minister. What we're seeing unfold is a cause for concern for us as His Majesty's loyal opposition with what we believe is an avoidance of oversight through the Prime Minister's decision to exempt Mr. Carney from the obligations of a designated public office holder, but also for the many examples that we've raised, and I'm going to get into them. For instance, there's the blatant advantage that the company of which he is the chair of suddenly received in the hours after Mr. Carney was appointed.

The subamendment that I moved to have Mr. Guy, Mr. Topp and Mr. Singh appear as witnesses as well was born out of the question of fairness that was raised by the Liberals, so—

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I have a point of order, Chair. Are we still on the subamendment or have we moved to the amendment? Just to clarify.