Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to follow up on what was said here recently.
I believe that the role of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is to ensure that ethics are always respected. We were told that a sufficiently informed person who wants to learn about issues that could raise the appearance of conflict of interest could come to us and suggest that we conduct studies on the subject. So I think that is what we are doing here.
On Monday of this week, we were told that we should fine members for asking questions. I think that is bad politics. We are here to ask questions that people pass on to us. Our role is to represent them.
When my constituents come to see me to report a situation that they think creates an appearance of conflict of interest and ask me to dig into the matter to see what it is, it is my role to ask questions. I am sorry if it implicates the Prime Minister, but it does. Right now, we have to make sure there is no conflict of interest.
The letter from Brookfield says, “A fund's performance depends solely on performance of portfolio companies, not on the identity of investors.” I would say that performance also depends on the markets in which those funds are invested. If the Prime Minister improves those markets to benefit himself or potentially benefit himself, that has implications.
It is important for the public to know what is going on. The goal is not to attack an individual, but to ensure that an individual is not taking advantage of the system or that no ill-intentioned person can take advantage of the system. That is our role.
Here is another sentence from Brookfield's letter that I find interesting: “On an individual basis these investments are each de minimis to Brookfield’s trillion dollars in assets under management….”
Brookfield is answering for the committee by telling it that it does not need to worry, that it should not take an interest in the situation. It is not up to that company to decide for Canadians whether a situation needs our attention or not. We are all here to play that role and make sure that mistakes are not made.
For my part, I find two things interesting in the Brookfield letter.
The first is that it is the Prime Minister who is putting Canada in this situation. He was the one who decided not to sell his shares, not us. So if Brookfield wants to decide for Canadians what should be reviewed and what should not be reviewed, I think that is a mistake.
I am going to end on the second thing that I find interesting.
The letter goes on to say, “This disclosure framework, which is consistent with standard practice for companies of comparable scale….” Unfortunately, there are no comparable-sized companies in Canada at present. No company of that size has interests directly linked to the Prime Minister, such interests cannot be treated the same as other companies of a similar size would do.
I think this entire letter clearly shows that Brookfield is trying to avoid being involved and wants to tell us that we are not to investigate them, that everything is fine and that we should not ask any questions.
I think that is a big mistake. We have to continue our process.
Thank you.