Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank my colleagues for the discussion we've had thus far. I welcome the presence of my colleague from the Calgary Confederation riding, who has joined us this evening to debate this important matter.
We have raised serious objections to the motion before us, but I want to make it clear that transparency and accountability are vital in our democratic system. In reality, there are many ways to ensure transparency in how the government operates. This motion isn't the only option.
I want to explore the idea of transparency that my colleagues and Mr. Barrett raised. It's important, in this context, to think about the many ways we continue to support and develop transparency across our parliamentary and government functions.
I had a quick look at the Prime Minister's website tonight. For his plans tomorrow, he already has a media advisory out. This is a practice that has continued for some time, certainly dating back to the previous government as well. It's a way of ensuring that Canadians and the media have transparency about the Prime Minister, his schedules, his events and his functions. It's a way of determining his priorities and following his travels. It's an important part of the transparency that is offered by the office.
When it comes to ethics, all of us as parliamentarians—all Canadians, in fact—have notice of any conflict of interest screens when they are set up. In the current case, we have notice not only of the screen but also of the companies involved. We also have knowledge of the initial assets that are divested in any blind trust formed under the Conflict of Interest Act. It's available on a website for all to see. When a screen is invoked, recusals are also made public on the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's website.
Outside the realm of the CIEC, we have tools. We have access to information. We have the scrutiny of committees like this one. We have oversight bodies through public accounts and our parliamentary watchdogs, like the PBO and the Auditor General. We have financial transparency through items like the budget, the estimates, the departmental spending plans and tomorrow's spring economic statement. We have these methods for transparency so there can be scrutiny of the types of issues Mr. Barrett raised.
Let's pull on that thread a bit more, because, Mr. Chair, you are hearing concern from that side of the room. I want to pull back and challenge Mr. Barrett and my colleagues across the way on some of what Mr. Barrett suggested is motivating a motion like this.
I want to take you back as far as last summer, when media outlets.... I pulled up an example of this from the CBC, with the headline “Ethics commissioner publishes list of PM Carney's investments”. The story I'm looking at talks about how the investments the Prime Minister made and held before handing them over to a blind trust were publicly disclosed by the Ethics Commissioner. It says:
During the election campaign, opposition parties accused Carney of trying to take advantage of an ethics loophole and hiding his financial assets.
According to the Conflict of Interest Act, Carney didn't have had to divest his assets until 120 days after becoming prime minister. The rules are meant to prevent office holders from making decisions that might benefit themselves.
Carney put his assets into a blind trust shortly after winning the Liberal leadership but before being sworn in as prime minister. A blind trust means those assets are handled by a trustee who has the legal authority to manage them but who is barred from seeking input from Carney.
Opposition parties still demanded that Carney disclose what assets he held before divesting. On Thursday—
This story is from July 2025.
—the ethics commissioner posted a summary of Carney's financial assets that were placed into the blind trust—but it is unknown if those assets have changed since then.
According to the filing, Carney held assets in Brookfield Asset Management and Stripe, Inc.—he previously sat on the board of directors for both companies.
The piece goes on to say:
In addition, Carney held assets in an advisory firm and two environmental companies. He also had a self-administered RRSP and a wide variety of shares in an investment fund managed by a third party.
The prime minister has said that the only assets he's kept out of the blind trust are some cash, a cottage and the family home.
Notably, CBC goes on to report:
Under the Conflict of Interest Act, the prime minister, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries are not allowed to own controlled assets.
But backbenchers and opposition MPs fall under a different set of rules—
We all appreciate these.
—known as the Conflict of Interest Code. While they must recuse themselves from debates and votes on questions where they have a private interest, they can continue to directly own stocks, bonds and other controlled assets.
The bar for the Prime Minister, from the outset, is higher. Dating back to last summer, we know full well where and what assets have been disclosed by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It was reported publicly and confirmed by the Prime Minister's Office.
Let me take you back further. In March 2025, at the change in government, CBC reported, with another headline, “Poilievre says Carney's taking advantage of an ethics loophole. Is he right?” This story goes on to note:
Prime minister-designate Mark Carney has responded to Conservative attacks over his financial holdings by taking steps to meet the conflict-of-interest rules for elected public office holders four months before he was required....
A spokesperson for [the Prime Minister] told CBC News in an email that the new Liberal leader “will also be filing all of the reports required by the ethics commissioner well in advance of what the act requires.”
The story then gives details, and I'm coming to the point, the nub of this:
Carney made the move after Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre accused Carney of putting himself in a position to hide and hold “millions of dollars in interests that go against” Canada and Canadians.
Poilievre said Carney is in a position to do that because he had found a “loophole” in the Conflict of Interest Act that allows him to hold off on divesting his assets until 120 days after becoming prime minister.
In fact, anyone could find the same 120 day “loophole” Poilievre is referring to by simply reading the Conflict of Interest Act Stephen Harper's Conservative government wrote and passed into law in 2006.
Notably, Mr. Poilievre, would have been part of that same Conservative government that passed the act, including the loophole Mr. Poilievre referred to.
The article goes on:
[The act] states that people assuming public office have to submit a “confidential report” to the ethics commissioner detailing their financial holdings within 60 days of taking public office.
Then the act says that within 120 days after a person has assumed public office they have to divest themselves of their controlled assets.
Where am I going with this? I'm showing you, and I'm showing the committee, that this debate has been torqued from the outset.
The regime that has been put in place by Parliament, a regime that the opposition was actually a part of when the act was first created, has been followed to the letter of the law and beyond, yet we still continue to hear about it from the Leader of the Opposition, who issued a press release on the Conservative website saying, “Canadians deserve a Prime Minister who is free to act in the public interest—not someone blinded by personal gain”. On April 23, the Leader of the Opposition said, “We've never seen a prime minister so conflicted as Mark Carney.” Finally, this past week on CTV, the Leader of the Opposition said, “I find it interesting. Mark Carney's company, which he still owns, Brookfield, has been called the biggest tax dodger in Canada.”
This is setting a tone, and is evidence of a repeated tone, that members, particularly those holding opposition critic portfolios, are clearly emulating. Today, the member for Calgary East on X stated, “The only surplus Mark Carney knows are in his offshore tax havens.”
It's transparent. It is patently transparent what's going on here. Certain members like to quote Marcus Aurelius. Well, Marcus Aurelius said that if it is not right, do not do it; if it is not true, do not say it.
This motion is the product of an attitude and approach that seek to undermine not just Parliament, its traditions and an independent office like the Ethics Commissioner, but also fellow parliamentarians, the Prime Minister and members of the House, who all operate with the best interests of Canada at heart. We may disagree on many things, but we are all here because we believe in building a better country. Where we can disagree is on how we achieve that.
I think these examples expose the reality of this motion, if we're going to be crystal clear. As my colleague Mr. Sari stated, the motion suggests that one would suspect the information gathered here would be twisted and distorted, filled with allegations and insinuations. I think the word that may be most apt to describe this is “spurious”.
Mr. Barrett, just before me, talked about theft, grift and corruption. Those are powerful words, and it is reckless to throw them around so lightly when in fact this is not about theft, grift or corruption, as Mr. Barrett would perhaps want viewers or social media followers to believe. This is about polarization. This is about rage-baiting, and this is about clickbaiting. That is what this is about.
Is this motion really about the cost of travel? When Mr. Barrett raises the cost of the Prime Minister's travel, does he factor in all those who travel with him—the other members and ministers, the staff, the security, the press corps?
This is a government that, in less than 12 months, has delivered 20 new economic and defence partnerships and has achieved $97 billion in foreign investment commitments. This is a government that is squarely focused on turning the Canadian economy around to build an economy that is sovereign and resilient, that buys Canadian and builds Canadian and that will ensure our prosperity for the generation to come amid the biggest trade war this country has faced and some of the biggest economic shocks we've seen in our history.
When Mr. Barrett, the Leader of the Opposition, his finance critic or anyone else wants to raise the spectre of parliamentarians doing their work here with insinuations of theft, grift, corruption or whatever else, that is precisely the type of approach that my colleagues and I will stand firmly against. It's not just about being on the opposing or the governing side of the House. It's actually about standing up for Canadians, who expect better in our politics and who want us to stay focused on what matters. It's about respecting Parliament and Parliament's decision to have an independent ethics office that does this work for us so that we don't have to go down the dark tunnel of having information weaponized and misinformation spread.
They say that a lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still lacing up its boots. I do not like that this is the reality of our digital world now more than ever, but it is a reality. It's why, more than ever, the independence of the Ethics Commissioner and the oversight they provide are so vital to our functioning. I think about Mr. Sabia, the Clerk of the Privy Council, in his testimony to us as a committee, when he said:
Parliamentary oversight of issues like conflict and accountability and other things is fundamental to how our democratic system works. Having the Ethics Commissioner involved in structuring these for the Prime Minister, for other ministers and for other public office holders, as the Ethics Commissioner does, is the right thing to do, because, as an officer of Parliament, he is accountable to Parliament and accountable to the judgment of all of you as elected parliamentarians. That is, in terms of accountability and transparency, the right thing to do.
I believe that is correct, and I believe that when we approach these matters, we can't approach them from the perspective of one individual or another.
In the two decades that we've had this act in operation, we've had examples on all sides of the House of the use of screens, divestments and blind trusts. We've heard testimony to that effect regarding a former chief of staff to a former Conservative prime minister, with the blind trusts and screens that were in place—40 companies in that context. This regime is meant to take the politics, the partisanship, the rage and the clicks out of the vital work of maintaining our ethics and accountability.
I'm going to come to my conclusion, because I really want to ensure that other members of the committee have a chance to weigh in and because I think our arguments are important to lay out at this time. However, having heard Mr. Barrett and his call for us to put our amendments on the table, I would like to amend the motion by striking the second paragraph of the motion, in large part because of the arguments I've made about transparency, as it's available now. Just for clarity, it's part (b).