We've heard a lot of testimony from a lot of experts who said that the best system in the world to look after ethics is in Canada. This was not only heard from Canadians. We also heard witnesses from overseas who said that Canadian ethics are the best in the world. However, we still continue ignoring those things.
We also heard from Ms. Turnbull, who said that you cannot create ethics laws based on one person. However, it seems to me that my friends opposite have only one person in mind: the Prime Minister of Canada. It's sad that we are working under these circumstances.
I want to find out what we are trying to address here. Regarding the proposal Mr. Barrett put out, most of the information is already there, and it's very effectively done. All the systems are in place and functioning as intended. The Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen is an effective preventive tool. Its purpose is to stop conflicts before they arise. By all accounts, it is doing what its purpose is. We also heard directly that the Prime Minister, before he became Prime Minister, put everything in a blind trust. Those blind trusts are not something the Prime Minister started. They've been going on for years. Every Prime Minister, whether they were Conservative or Liberal, has used them effectively. Therefore, we already have the required transparency in place.
What is being proposed today is further monthly reporting on external and internal records—broad categories of communication—along with detailed travel information. My colleague Ms. Lapointe went through the places the Prime Minister has gone to, and the purposes for that. His travel has been very successful. If you look, we have the best economy, and it is doing what it is supposed to be doing. We have created more jobs than our friends in the United States are telling us. They lost 6,000 jobs, whereas we gained 80,000 jobs in Canada. That is from the work the Prime Minister is doing, and it's working.
We also heard from the Ethics Commissioner that the essential safeguards are there. This is to ensure that the Prime Minister is not aware of the screening applied until decisions are finalized and made public. The protection exists to preserve the integrity and independence of that process.
There is also a practical side to this. Public servants are already meeting the current reporting requirements. Adding a much more frequent and detailed reporting structure would require a significant amount of time and resources, which quite inevitably means less capacity for other important work that concerns the role of this committee. We have before us important studies and responsibilities, including work related to the Lobbying Act and other reports, that require careful attention.
These are issues that have a direct impact on Canadians and their lives, issues on which our efforts can make a meaningful difference. Transparency is essential, and accountability matters. At the same time, it is worth considering whether increasing the volume and frequency of reporting necessarily leads to better oversight, especially when systems have already been validated and reporting is already under way.
The question becomes this: How do we ensure that we maintain strong accountability while also being mindful of the effectiveness, proportionality and priorities that matter most to Canadians in these times?
I'm going to talk about conflict of interest—