Information & Ethics Committee on April 23rd, 2026

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

I'm reading the motion once more because I want to prepare fully. A lot has happened over the past 20 minutes—I would go as far as to say over the past three hours in total. A lot has been said and I've been taking notes.

I was reading the motion once more and I don't see any reference to tax avoidance. We know that the Prime Minister's company was recognized as the largest tax dodger in the country. We know that.

However, where does the motion say that we're asking to look into his tax avoidance, the Bermudas, and so forth? That's not in here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Saini, there's nothing in the motion—Mr. Hardy is right—that refers to Brookfield being, in the words of some of our witnesses, the largest tax dodger in Canada, so if you can stick to the words of the motion, I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Chair, for the last eight or 10 months, I have heard nothing more from my opponents than talking about tax havens and everything they can justify to muddy the waters and to bring injustice to our honourable Prime Minister. I find it difficult. When other people have opinions, they don't want to listen to those arguments. They have spent the whole last 10 months talking about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're talking about the motion that's in front of us, Mr. Saini. Go ahead, please.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

The Prime Minister is travelling around the world bringing a lot of strength, a lot of business and a lot of jobs to this country. That is evident. World leaders and world economists are telling us that it is proven that his travel, which you guys wanted to restrict—or wanted to know what was going on—is a very beneficial thing to the government. He continues to serve this country, to make sure that Canadians have jobs, to make sure that Canada continues to be a country that we can be proud of and live in, and that we can continue to be part of an exciting nation.

With that, my friend, I'm going to bring my comments to a close, but I would like to put my name on the list of speakers as we go.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Even before you asked for that, I put your name on the list of speakers, Mr. Saini.

Mr. Sari, please speak to the motion.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I spoke on this motion last Friday. I tried to explain why I was objecting to the motion being tabled. I challenged the tabling of the motion by my fellow member Mr. Barrett.

I spoke to a few issues, and that gave me time to reflect over the weekend. I thought about what made the member table his motion, while respecting his initiative and his perspective. Based on his remarks when he presented his motion, he wanted to have transparency.

Once again, I would like to point out something that is of the utmost importance. I'm very proud and very glad to serve on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. However, the number of people who have no confidence in our institutions in general at the federal, provincial and municipal level is a very important factor. That's a problem. I think the same has been said on the other side of the table.

It's up to us as a committee to see how to bring transparency and instill confidence in Canadians. However, again, there's a way to do that. We should not do it in a manner that creates more doubt by presenting Canadians with hypothetical issues. I don't think that's the right way to restore Canadians' confidence. On the contrary, I think that will erode their trust.

Today, I'd like to start by pointing out something that, in my opinion, is fundamental before I get into the heart of the matter. We were selected as members of this committee to undertake serious work. The role of a parliamentary committee is to examine and inform. It is not to pile on, drown out or grandstand. That is precisely why the motion before us today must be reviewed against that objective.

I'm saying this with all due respect for my fellow member Mr. Barrett. I'm also saying this with all due respect for the work of the opposition in general. Parliamentary oversight is a pillar of our democracy. It's a right. It's a responsibility. It's something that members of the committee on this side of the table take very seriously.

However, parliamentary oversight should not be measured by the number of documents reviewed. It doesn't require obtaining all the documents, all the discussions and all the emails pertaining to that matter. In short, parliamentary oversight should not be measured by the number of documents produced. Instead, it should be measured by the calibre of the work accomplished, the relevance of the questions being asked and by rigorous analysis. As such, it's not a matter of obtaining more documents. As we say in Quebec, “enough, already”.

That's where I have a real issue with this motion. I would like to remind the committee of what we're speaking to here, because I think it's important to do so as precisely as possible. The motion moved by the hon. Mr. Barrett has two parts. I think my colleagues mentioned them in detail. The first part requires the Privy Council Office to provide the committee, on the fifteenth day of each month, with a report detailing each time an assessment was undertaken relating to the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen.

The motion is not just asking for a summary. Had that been the case, we might have understood, but that is not the case. It's asking for the outcome of each analysis. It's asking for records of internal conversations. It's asking for notes. It's asking for meeting minutes. It's asking for emails, text messages and instant messages. It's also asking for the first report to be provided by June 15, 2026 and that it should cover each assessment since the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen came into effect.

The second part of the motion is asking for the production of the Prime Minister's travel itineraries for international travel since he became Prime Minister. It's asking for a list of each meeting and every attendee, all without redaction. It's asking for all of that in both official languages, which is very reasonable—I fully agree with that—within six weeks.

I want to speak to the specifics, because I completely disagree with the second part, for a number of reasons, and mainly because we have to strike a balance. I want to speak to the issue of transparency, and the issue of security, obviously. However, before I get to that, I would like to take a moment to put what conflict of interest screens are all about into context. In my opinion, it's clear that the committee would be well advised not to lose sight of the real nature of this mechanism.

All of us here had the opportunity to hear remarkable witnesses speak to this subject. We heard from Mr. Michael Sabia, the clerk of the Privy Council. We heard from Mr. Marc‑André Blanchard, the Prime Minister's chief of staff. We also had the privilege to hear testimony from Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein, whose expertise in public law is well established. We learnt a great deal from listening to him and asking him questions. Collectively, what these three individuals told us points to the same important things, and these bear repeating today.

The conflict of interest screen was not invented by this government. It's not something that's being applied for the first time and which we want to be a first. It's not a dubious, opaque mechanism. It's a compliance tool developed under the direction of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in accordance with the requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act. The commissioner himself validated it. I want to underscore that point. I want to stress that this is a compliance tool developed under the direction of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who is independent, pertaining to how to apply the requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act. The tool was validated by the commissioner. That is important because the commissioner is an independent entity. Furthermore, the Federal Court has confirmed that the screen is a reasonable and appropriate measure.

Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein, whose neutrality and competency cannot reasonably be put into question, also explained that the screen is a proactive preventive measure. The goal is to stop conflicts of interest before they arise. The commissioner is independent and his level of expertise commands respect. He told us that the screen is a preventive measure. That is very important. The goal is to prevent conflicts of interest before they arise. That's the primary goal. To do so, the people responsible for the documents that come before the Prime Minister review them to determine if they present any potential conflict of interest situation. If such a case arises, the document is simply not brought before the Prime Minister. It is redirected, and the Prime Minister is only made aware when decisions are finalized to ensure he does not influence decisions.

I'm reiterating this for the benefit of the people who are listening to us: These determinations and these testimonies are not coming from me. They were made here, within this committee, in response to questions from members.

I've just provided an overview of the structure of the conflict of interest screen. As such, as soon as a conflict is identified, the document is withdrawn and the Prime Minister is only made aware of it once a decision has been made. That is a well-designed, rigorous and consistent institutional structure. That's what Mr. Sabia described with remarkable clarity.

On his part, Mr. Blanchard went into great detail in his testimony and explained that in practical terms, on a day-to-day basis, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office are in constant communication. When a department or agency prepares any document for the Prime Minister, that document is first assessed using the tool developed by the Privy Council with the assistance of the Ethics Commissioner.

If this tool determines that the screen may apply, due diligence is performed and a recommendation is submitted to the clerk of the Privy Council directly. The clerk reviews it and then sends it to the chief of staff. Then both administrators make a joint decision on the matter.

Again, this is not done on the fly. It's a proactive preventive approach. It's not something that's done in the dark. It's a structured, clear, documented and validated process that has passed muster with distinguished experts on the structure. Above all, it should be noted that this is an independent process.

I think that the opposition has not understood this independence. We must remember that here, we have a situation where the procedure is fully structured, clear, documented, explicit and above all, independent.

On his part, Mr. Sabia shared a very important aspect. Every time there is even a remote possibility that the screen may be needed—not that it has to be applied, just that there is some possibility that it might be—it is immediately put in place. The rule is to always err on the side of caution.

I think Mr. Barrett was in attendance when Mr. Sabia said that. The goal is to prevent conflict of interest and to err on the side of caution. That's not the rule for a system that wants to avoid accountability, but rather the rule of a system that takes its obligations very seriously.

Mr. Sabia provided tangible data on 13 situations where the issue of applying the conflict of interest screen came up. Every situation was validated by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Based on principles underlying the assessment tool, the screen did not apply to seven of the situations. It did apply to six situations. The Prime Minister was not aware of four of the six cases. Decisions on the other two cases are now public information. Everybody knows decisions have been made, including the Prime Minister, obviously.

The motion is asking for information. That's why I'm asking questions. I'm wondering where the hon. Michael Barrett is coming from with this motion even though we have all this information and we have answered all the questions.

Despite my limited experience and considering the questions that I asked in committee, I think I can say the system is working well, and that is also what the experts have said. The system, which has been described here in committee, is transparent and it has been documented and validated independently.

Again, I have the following question: Why was this motion tabled?

Aside from the language used in the motion, we need to look at what is behind it, namely, the possible outcome of the motion. The motion seeks to have the committee provided with all kinds of internal assessment processes, discussions, notes and communications each month. It proposes that nothing will be protected, screened or subject to any operational safeguards.

Let me be clear before I go any further: To begin with, I support that all information should be made public. However, at times, some information needs to be protected, but in many cases, that need must be demonstrated. That's not the issue. That is not the same thing as holding people to account.

Holding people to account is one thing. That involves asking questions, and above all, asking specific questions on decisions that have been made. The answers help us assess compliance with the law. We have to ask questions to assess whether obligations have been fulfilled and to verify whether principles have been upheld. That's what the committee does. When we hear from witnesses, we try to see whether existing procedures have been followed, whether directives were actually aligned with the obligations and whether basic principles were actually followed. That is our job.

However, the motion is asking for something else. It has espoused logic that I would never agree with. The logic involves full exposure, without any distinction, prioritization or consideration for institutional repercussions. Speaking of institutional repercussions, we have to ask the following question: Is that really what this committee wants?

The first part of the motion seeks access to internal communications, notes, meeting minutes, emails and text messages, and this is not a trivial matter. It touches on a fundamental part of our system. We have a system of governance with restricted capacity. There is the capacity for public servants to give candid advice. That principle is in place for a good reason. If every preliminary thought, every exploratory discussion and every working note can be taken out of context and made public, this would put significant pressure on the people who are responsible for analyzing complex situations because the people making things public lack context because they were not in attendance. This would make public servants censor themselves or share advice that is less incisive. They are being asked to provide less comprehensive advice. If information is incomplete or unclear, and it is disclosed, then people may be less candid precisely because they know that the opinion may end up in a committee, and then in the media and in the middle of public debate. What will they do when that happens?

Again, we are eroding Canadians' trust. That's a real problem and it's not theoretical. I'm trying to follow the logic of what is being asked for and to set that in motion. It's not theoretical. This could be an issue that is contrary to what this committee is all about.

Now, let us turn to the public servants who work in the Privy Council Office, departments and agencies. Their mandate is to provide the highest level of analysis. Their work hinges on their ability to think and to think freely.

Their work also involves testing assumptions and re-examining preliminary conclusions. If this space for thought is constantly exposed to requests for massive disclosure—and I do mean “massive”—it will shrink. If this space shrinks, the quality of public decisions will suffer. I wasn't the one who said it.

I ask you to go back, to go back to September, since the committee has been sitting. It's very significant. Moreover, I encourage you to listen carefully to what was said by the Information Commissioner. It really pushed me to review the proposed motion. If the space for thought is exposed to requests for massive disclosure, that space shrinks, which means the quality of what's given to the public will really become less interesting.

Once again, what I'm saying here is not based only on the motion but also on the testimonies of the experts who explained these factors to us. These are not assumptions; people who have worked in serious public institutions recognize this reality instantly.

I would also like to raise another point, which is systemic consistency. I disagree with Mr. Barrett, but I respect his work and what he wants to implement. The conflict of interest screen was designed to operate in a certain way. As I said earlier, it's preventive, proactive and allows for upstream action. Its mechanisms are confidential, precisely because confidentiality is a condition of its effectiveness. If the Prime Minister knows that every internal decision on whether to apply the screen will be made public in the coming weeks, including all the discussions that led to it, this will obviously change the very nature of the mechanism, especially for decisions that will take months and months to come to fruition. This is especially the case for any options that our government might be exploring.

I'm not saying that transparency is bad—far from it. Let me repeat: I am in favour of transparency. What I'm saying is that some compliance tools work precisely because they operate within a protected space. It's true in law and it's true in ethics, especially when it comes to ethics in government affairs, and it's true in federal public institutions. Mr. Blanchard explicitly told us that the system currently in place is one of the most comprehensive and rigorous.

Mr. Blanchard has had an extensive career at both the national and international levels. What he is saying is that the current system is one of the most comprehensive and rigorous he has encountered in his career. For his part, he hasn't just had a six-month career; he's had quite a substantial career. He said that he is proactive. Mr. Blanchard adds another aspect: He said he acts preventively and is extremely rigorous due to the high level of awareness within the government. This means that everyone who is either directly or indirectly involved in the procedure I spoke about earlier, which is structured, understands the sensitivity behind the screen that has been put in place. It's very important to remember that.

When I read Mr. Barrett's motion, I wondered if he was telling us that all of this is not enough, that the Ethics Commissioner, who approved this system, also found it insufficient, and that the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which recognized it as reasonable, was not enough. That said, maybe I misunderstood what he said.

If that is the reason for Mr. Barrett's opposition, I need a better explanation before proceeding. All weekend, I thought about everything I said here on Friday. We need an explanation, because this requires serious justification.

This is what I'm asking of Mr. Barrett so that we can move forward and gain a better understanding of this motion.

That was the first item of the motion. I will now move on to the second item, which concerns all of the Prime Minister's travel itineraries. It should be noted that, in Mr. Barrett's request, it's even more problematic without redaction. I'll explain why. Let's start with the practical aspect. This refers to all of the Prime Minister's travel since he took office, all meetings, all participants and all related documents in the possession of the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's Office or any federal department, in both official languages. Once again, when I say that, I'm not disagreeing. I just want to break down this part of the motion. Particularly with respect to the issue of the two official languages, I'm adamant about it. It also states that it must be sent without redaction and within a period of six weeks. Let's take a moment to gauge what this concretely represents.

Since the Prime Minister took office, the geopolitical situation has been unlike anything we've ever seen before. I think Ms. Lapointe explained it well. We're dealing with instability and with factors, constraints and contexts that are constantly changing. The Prime Minister took office during this time of great international instability. Our country is going through a significant period of geopolitical realignment. Trade relations, security alliances, and multilateral dynamics are all in motion—constant motion, total change—and the Prime Minister has by definition participated in meetings and discussions.

It should also be noted that, when you have this kind of role, meetings can often be exploratory, and other participants in the meeting may not have consented to all the discussions in the meeting potentially becoming public. As I just said, the Prime Minister has by definition participated in discussions that have been unfolding in this context of constant geopolitical change. Some of these meetings may have a delicate diplomatic aspect, some have a national security aspect, and some involve ongoing, progressive negotiations. For this reason, I wonder if it would be a good decision to disclose this information right away, to make it public. Some of these meetings involve partners who have obviously not consented to these discussions becoming public.

Let's go back a little. When we talk about transparency, can we agree that transparency can have legitimate limits? This is not a question of taking an ideological or partisan position; it's a principle recognized in all serious democratic systems. In all self-respecting countries, there are mechanisms that allow for some information to be protected while maintaining an appropriate, respectable and democratic level of parliamentary oversight. I encourage the people on the other side of the room to keep doing it because it's their role. It's the opposition's role. This mechanism exists precisely because we recognize that there can be a tension between two legitimate values.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

That's well said. We can have different values. We live in a democracy.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Absolutely, we live in a democracy. These mechanisms exist precisely because we recognize that there can be tension and that a balance must be found between two legitimate values: transparency and security; transparency and government efficiency; transparency and diplomatic effectiveness; transparency and the protection of third parties. That's important.

At no point when I read Mr. Barrett's motion do I find that he acknowledges that this kind of tension can occur. At no point do I think he's looking to strike a balance; on the contrary. Excuse me for the terms I'm going to use. It's like an open bar, but we're not at that point. We're at the point of asking questions that need answers, which will help us verify whether the mechanisms in place were followed and whether the procedures were respected. However, the motion does not acknowledge it. It assumes that full disclosure is always the right answer. It's an assumption that I cannot accept 100%, because it's at odds with the reality of the balance we want to strike, not to mention the issue of resources.

I'd like to point out that we do have plenty of time today, which I really appreciate. We have until 1:47 a.m. for me to explain what I have to explain. I think I have enough time, and I have plenty of material to present to you.

We need to talk about resources. The last time I worked until 1:47 a.m. was in the private sector. I can tell you that the income was much higher, but it doesn't matter because, as I said, I'm happy to sit on this committee. It makes me happy because one of my goals is to have more transparency and more public trust.

However, a request of this magnitude requires considerable work from the teams at the Privy Council Office. It requires considerable work from the Prime Minister's Office. Obviously, it will also require work from the offices of the ministers who are affected. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of documents to gather, verify, translate and organize. Entire teams must be mobilized to accomplish these tasks. Meanwhile, these teams are not available to do the work for which they were mandated, namely serving Canadians, advising the government, and implementing public policies. That is important because we shouldn't forget that in Mr. Barrett's motion, it's recurring. It's the 15th day of each month, if I'm not mistaken. That means these documents, these resources, these thousands of hours will be an ongoing matter.

I'm not saying that just to dodge the question of oversight—far from it. I say this because we have a responsibility to Canadian taxpayers who fund these institutions and because it involves using government resources to produce a massive volume of documents, much of which will never be analyzed. Seriously, it's not transparency that I'm talking about here; it's about performance. It's efficiency and effectiveness. It would take hours to prepare all the documents requested in this motion. Moreover, it would take hours for us to read, analyze and really scrutinize them. We're not going to send that off to artificial intelligence, are we? It still requires some upfront work and, afterward, work to go through them in detail. That said, I don't mean to avoid the question of oversight at any time—far from it. Obviously, when it comes to using resources to produce a massive volume of documents, I will never agree with it. I am and always will be for performance, effectiveness and efficiency.

Mr. Chair, I will now broaden my thoughts. I talked, earlier, about the two items of the motion, but I will now broaden the matter.

The fundamental question I want to ask, and that we all need to ask ourselves, is the following: What is the objective of this motion? Mr. Barrett took the time to draft this motion. Knowing Mr. Barrett—I have been sitting on the committee with him since September 27—I found that these questions required thorough analysis. However, this motion is quite long, and I wonder what its objectives are. Are they related to the conflict of interest screen? Did he read the testimonies of Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard? No, I don't think so.

Here is the fundamental question I ask myself: What is the objective of this motion? If it's to ensure that the conflict of interest screen is applied correctly, we already have the answer: the Ethics Commissioner has validated the system. Then what is the objective? Mr. Sabia testified before this committee with exemplary transparency. We had time to ask him all our questions, and he answered each one of them. He didn't dodge any questions. He was there and answered the Bloc Québécois questions that were asked byLuc Thériault. He also answered questions from the Conservatives, of course, as well as questions from the Liberals. He responded to all the parties. Mr. Sabia demonstrated exemplary transparency, Mr. Blanchard answered the questions of all committee members, and the data was provided afterward.

Now, if the objective of Mr. Barrett's motion is to ensure that the Prime Minister is not in a conflict of interest situation, we also have clear, precise and definite answers. The Ethics Commissioner confirmed that the Prime Minister divested himself of all his interests by placing them in a blind trust. The screen is in place and it is working. I repeat: The Prime Minister divested himself of all his interests by placing them in a blind trust. The screen is in place and it is working. The question that may be asked is legitimate, but we have the answer.

What would this motion accomplish that the existing mechanisms—and I've mentioned plenty—do not already do? This is the question I'm asking Mr. Barrett. When a motion is submitted, there may be things that we haven't seen, haven't read, or have ignored. It's very important that I understand exactly what the objective behind this motion is. If the answer is honest, if there's nothing substantially different in substance, then we need to ask what the motion seeks to accomplish on another level. Could it be a political objective? If that's the case, it's not aligned with the objectives I have, personally, on this committee.

I now want to address an aspect that I consider quite important, namely the issue of procedural fairness. The committee on which I serve—I'm proud of it and I can't say it often enough—has significant and real powers, and they must be exercised in a serious manner. We were able to hear from quality witnesses, whether in person or by video conference, and I found the discussions quite interesting. However, at the same time, what was being asked, whether or not in public, was something very serious, and it must always be done within the institutional framework that Ms. Lapointe clearly explained and which is based on principles. One of these principles is that the committee's requests must be proportionate to the legitimate objectives it pursues.

I will repeat it, then I will explain it: One of the principles of the institutional framework is that the committee's requests be proportionate to the legitimate objectives it pursues. The motion proposes that the committee make certain requests, but are they proportionate to the legitimate objectives it pursues?

I have understood the objectives. I wondered if this was related to the conflict of interest screen and its effectiveness. We already have the answers. We are being asked to provide all internal communications related to a compliance process that has been validated by an independent person, as well as all travel itineraries of a head of government, without possible protection. This is not proportionate to the objective of targeted and effective oversight. In my view, this is a motion that encompasses everything, protects nothing and is based on the presumption that something is wrong—which brings us back to the first point I mentioned in my introduction, before delving into my in-depth analysis—without any specific, verifiable facts serving as a basis for this presumption.

Reading the motion, we wonder if Mr. Barrett knows something that we don't. That's the question. This way of working doesn't properly serve Parliament, the House of Commons or the people who elected us, namely, Canadians. When making such a request to a committee like this, we must consider the precedent it is likely to set. This motion calls for full, unfiltered and unprotected disclosure on a recurring basis and within extremely tight timelines. It would establish a standard requiring disclosure of information on the fifteenth day of each month. This standard would need to be applied consistently. If we apply it here, it must be applied elsewhere. Are opposition members prepared to apply this same standard to all past governments? Would it have been applicable? Will it always be applicable in the future?

Now, here is the real question: Is it truly applicable today, in this context of geopolitical uncertainty? That is the question we must ask ourselves. Would my colleagues be comfortable seeing this level of scrutiny applied to their own work as opposition members? Of course, that is what democracy is all about. Perhaps they will return to power one day. I ask this seriously, because I believe integrity demands consistency. If we truly want to talk about integrity, we must be consistent. If the answer is that this type of request would only be acceptable for our government, then we must be honest about what this motion is all about. Does it have a political dimension?

I was very impressed by one point in Mr. Sabia's testimony that deserves to be highlighted. He spoke to us about the culture of integrity and how strong democracies function. He reminded us that all Canadian public servants are subject to a rigorous code of values and ethics. This applies to the government and to all public servants. He then told us that the Conflict of Interest Act plays an important part in reinforcing this culture of integrity. I fully share this view. It is precisely for this reason that I am concerned about a motion that suggests the existing compliance framework is insufficient, flawed, ineffective and questionable, without providing concrete evidence that this framework has been violated, circumvented or disregarded—which is not the case. That is not what we have heard here.

A culture of integrity is not just a set of rules, Mr. Chair. It's also a way of working, of interacting with institutions and of trusting one another on both sides of the room when it comes to our respective roles. As I said earlier, I have great respect for the role of the opposition. Similarly, we must respect the role of the government, which is currently dealing with geopolitical uncertainty. That trust is built or destroyed by the way we, as members of Parliament, treat one another.

Now, I will move on to my personal analysis. That was just an introduction and now I'll get into the substance. I will begin analyzing the elements I want to focus on. My analysis will be a bit more structural because I think we don't talk enough about structural elements.

The motion calls for monthly reports to be provided to the committee from the fifteenth day of each month and that each report include the assessments undertaken the previous month. It also calls for the first report to be provided by June 15, 2026 and for the report to include all assessments since the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen came into effect. Let's think about what this means in practical terms for the Privy Council Office. If we make this request, what will actually happen?

The process would require assembling all records, starting from the beginning. Then all the related documents, including memos, minutes, emails and messages must be gathered and reviewed, organized and put into context. Then, they must be translated into both official languages, and I fully agree on this point. All of this must be done by June 15. That's about six weeks from today. I'm not saying the Privy Council Office can't do this or that it can't do an excellent job under pressure. Far from it. I have great respect for the work of the Privy Council Office. I have no doubt that it can work under pressure. However, what I'm saying is that putting entire teams under this pressure to produce documents whose necessity we have not established based on specific, concrete facts is misuse, inefficient use of our government's resources.

After that, what will happen? Every month, the same process will start over. It's a permanent, recurring, open-ended, unlimited obligation that will continuously tie up resources. The recurring nature of this means it's not really a project. It's something that will require person-years and will force the government to hire people solely to do this work.

Now, let's talk about the second part of Mr. Barrett's request, which concerns the Prime Minister's travel itineraries, in a bit more detail. The Prime Minister meets with foreign counterparts, heads of international organizations and representatives of governments with which Canada maintains diplomatic, economic and security relations that are sometimes complex. These meetings take place within a diplomatic context and are governed by diplomatic rules, such as conventions and, at times, expectations regarding confidentiality. When a prime minister meets with a counterpart, both parties implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, expect that their discussions will remain confidential until both parties decide to make them public and until the public interest becomes sufficient to justify disclosure.

Mr. Barrett's motion requires all these documents to be provided to the committee without redactions. This means that Canada's partners could see their discussions with the Canadian Prime Minister made public.

Have we considered the consequences of such a requirement? I am asking Mr. Barrett this question. Perhaps he knows more about it.

This is a serious question because I believe that Canada's foreign policy is not a subject that should be handled in a willy-nilly fashion. I can understand that Mr. Barrett wants to know who the Prime Minister has spoken with, and so on. That is legitimate. However, have we also considered Canada's foreign policy? This is not a subject that should be handled in a willy-nilly fashion in the context of a motion proposed in a committee. I have said this before, and I will say it again.

That said, we must be transparent. However, let's find a balance. That is important.

I will now address the overall logic of the entire motion. In certain parliamentary traditions, there is a practice of making broad, sometimes very broad, requests in the hope that something in the documents produced will feed into a political narrative and generate a clip for social media.

I don't believe this practice serves the House of Commons well. The practice does not serve taxpayers well, and it does not strengthen public confidence in our institutions. That is my view. I don't think this practice, if that is indeed Mr. Barrett's objective, is going to really help us.

I'm not imputing motives to my colleague Mr. Barrett, far from it. However, I must say that the wording of this motion, its scope and the timeline imposed for the first report give the impression of a request designed for effect rather than to enhance understanding. That is all. That is my view. I hope Mr. Barrett will take the floor to explain that I am wrong. However, that's my understanding from reading the motion. With the limited knowledge I have and the limited experience I have on this committee, that is what I have understood. That concerns me, because our role here is not for effect. Our role here is to do serious work. Our role here is not to generate sensational stories. Our role is much more important, more serious and, I would say, more interesting.

I'd like to get back to Mr. von Finckenstein's point. His competence, expertise and experience in this area were evident when he appeared before the committee. He raised a point that is central to my current thinking regarding the objective of Mr. Barrett's motion. He reminded us that the Federal Court of Appeal had confirmed that the conflict of interest screen is a reasonable compliance mechanism for public office holders.

The court stated—I am paraphrasing from memory—that the practice of publicly disclosing potential conflicts of interest before any problematic situation has occurred is an eminently reasonable way to ensure the furtherance of the act's purpose. In other words, the preventive logic of the screen—the idea of managing potential conflicts before they arise—has been validated at the highest level of Canadian administrative law below the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, here is a motion calling for the documentation and public disclosure of every instance in which this mechanism has been applied, including all internal conversations, discussions and communications. In doing so, we risk turning a preventive tool into a tool for retrospective oversight. In my remarks today, I spoke at length about being proactive. However, what we are seeking here is much more of a retroactive mechanism. We are going backwards. What is being asked for is retrospective oversight.

What we know at this point is that experts say we are exercising proactive oversight.

What the motion is asking us to do is to review what has been done on the fifteenth day of each month. Is it better to have a system that sets limits and ensures oversight in a proactive manner, from the outset and which everyone in an independent position deems truly effective, functional, structured and transparent? However, what those of the old school of thought want is for us to have a “rearview mirror” perspective and always keep looking back. That is what has been done. Excuse me for saying so, but I don't subscribe to this model of governance either. I disagree with it.

As I said, we're in the process of changing a preventive oversight tool, which, paradoxically, could make the system less efficient and less effective. If the people responsible for applying the screen know that each of their analyses will be made public in the coming weeks, they might be inclined to document things differently, communicate differently and work differently. This question was raised here in the committee.

It's not because they have anything to hide—far from it—but because public exposure of each step in a compliance process changes the very nature of that process. If we have confidence in the procedures and processes in place, I don't think we will question each of the steps. We're not in an operational workflow or on a production line, but rather within the public system. Responsible officials have demonstrated that this procedure was followed. They asked whether the screen should be applied to 13 situations, and it did not apply to seven of the cases, and we have seen results for six cases.

Allow me now to discuss what the committee could do differently. I'm not claiming the status quo is perfect—far from it. When we asked questions, whether at the international or provincial level, everyone clearly told us we have one of the best systems in the world. That said, is the status quo what we want? Is it perfect? The answer is no. I agree that nothing is perfect. Should we keep things as they are or improve them? The answer is yes. In fact, that is why we're here. I am not claiming that the committee should not be interested in how the conflict of interest screen works—on the contrary.

We agreed that Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard should come to testify before the committee. We all asked them questions. One way to make improvements is by asking questions about the conflict of interest screen. In fact, there were questions that Mr. Sabia was unable to answer, but he sent us a response afterward. There are ways to carry out this work that are both rigorous and respectful of the institutional framework. I have questions that have not yet been addressed. So far, Mr. Barrett has not given me a clear answer regarding the intended objective, the objective behind the motion.

However, he may still have questions to ask. In that case, we could invite the Ethics Commissioner back to provide regular updates on how the system is functioning. For example, he could testify every six or twelve months, or at any other interval deemed appropriate. We could periodically review how the system is functioning.

I repeat: Nothing is perfect, and there is always room for improvement. We could request an anonymous statistical report on the number and nature of the assessments conducted. We have already received a response on this matter; I believe you have received it, Mr. Chair.

We know the number and nature of the assessments conducted. We could ask specific questions about cases that were not assessed and inquire why they were not assessed. We have the right to ask these questions.

However, they are asking that the reports, documents and correspondence be provided to us every month. There is a Quebec expression I love: Enough, already. Mr. Barrett's motion in its current form is not a proposal for targeted oversight of an element we have contested and wish to correct—far from it. Rather, it's a request for mass disclosure.

Requests for mass disclosure are generally triggered by something factual, such as, for example, where someone is found to have failed to comply with procedures. In this case, we are far from that.

The request from Mr. Barrett is indiscriminate and lacks prioritization. His request—and I think I've explained this clearly—also shows no regard for the consequences it may have on the workload of public servants, on transparency, or even on Canadians' trust in institutions.

I'll begin to wrap up my remarks. After presenting my perspective and that of the experts, I'll now conclude my thoughts—not my intervention.

I agree with Mr. Hardy when he says that we live in an era when trust in institutions is fragile. On that point, I agree with him. It's a reality we see in many democracies. I have also observed it among young people. This phenomenon is sometimes self-evident regarding institutions, municipalities, boroughs, police services and tax authorities.

Canadians are increasingly skeptical of many institutions, political parties and sometimes even governments. Part of this skepticism is fuelled by the feeling—and I do mean the feeling, the perception—that the rules of the game are not applied fairly, that institutions serve certain interests and so forth.

Is it up to us to sow the seeds of this kind of thinking, by questioning things without factual evidence, without facts on which to base our arguments? I don't think that's the best idea.

There are two ways of looking at things. Canadians listening to us see it that way too. We have two options and I think that, time and again, Canadians have seen these two options. In fact, the last three by-elections have shown what Canadians prefer.

The first option is to work in earnest to strengthen transparency mechanisms. As I said, even though they are considered excellent by external people and international organizations, they are not perfect. There's no such thing as perfection. We must strengthen existing transparency mechanisms, ensure they work and ensure we have the mechanisms to improve them. There are, of course, gaps. Admittedly, this work may seem thankless and time-consuming, but it produces lasting results.

The second option involves clips, sensationalism and the need to seek the limelight by making multiple demands for mass disclosure as if there were some underlying doubt. It involves creating processes that give the impression of transparency without actual substance. It involves using the work of parliamentary committees as a tool for pressure—political pressure—rather than as a tool for governance.

I strongly believe in the first option—and that is why I stand with the government—even if it may seem thankless, difficult and slow. I strongly believe that the first option serves Canadians. That is why I cannot support the motion in its current form.

I would also like to highlight a paradox that I find striking. This motion has been introduced by colleagues who, at other times and in other contexts, have defended the importance of safeguarding the government's internal decision-making process. They have rightly argued that certain information must remain confidential to protect the integrity of the political process.

However, today, they are calling for full disclosure of internal communications related to an independently validated compliance process. There is a tension here that I find difficult to reconcile. I believe we must all be prepared to apply these principles consistently, regardless of the political stripes of the government in power.

I can see that I've taken a lot of time to make my statement. In fact, I don't know exactly how much time. That said, I want to give the floor to my colleagues so they can continue to respond.

I'm making a point. I took a lot of time, but I had concerns. I spent the entire weekend reflecting. I tried to understand, because I know that Mr. Barrett is, after all, one of the most experienced members in this room and that he is a conscientious person. I asked him questions. In my remarks, I've not claimed to be better than Mr. Barrett. On the contrary, I disagree with Mr. Barrett. I have outlined my concerns. I believe the motion before us warrants I raise these concerns. It demands much more serious consideration, given all its implications regarding efficiency, workload and so on.

I want to be clear about what I'm advocating here. I'm advocating for a system of accountability that is both rigorous and smart. Rigorous because it asks real questions about real issues, and smart because it complies with the mechanisms that have been put in place to safeguard the integrity of the government process.

I'm not advocating for opacity—far from it. I always for advocate transparency. I support transparency, but I appreciate clarity. I want clarity in requests—not massive requests or vague ones. This is not a rejection of oversight, but a rejection of oversight that lacks clarity and will drown us in volume, rather than focusing on what matters.

Deep down, I think Canadians understand this distinction. They are not asking us to accumulate thousands and thousands of pages and documents. They are asking us to ask the right questions. As a wise person once so aptly put it, if you want the right answer, ask the right question. We must ask the right questions to get the right answers.

In closing, for all the reasons I have outlined, the scope of this motion is disproportionate to the request. The risks it poses to the quality of internal advice, its implications for Canadian diplomacy, its impact on institutional resources and its risk of undermining a compliance system that works and has been independently validated make it very difficult for me to support the motion by my colleague Mr. Barrett, even though, I reiterate, he is an experienced, respectful and respected member of Parliament. I'm open to discussion. I'm open to hearing his responses on how we can improve oversight of the conflict of interest screen. I remain open to more targeted, better managed and proportionate proposals that allow the committee to carry out its mandate without creating the risks I have described in my remarks today. However, Mr. Barrett's motion goes too far. It was rushed through. There are no factual justifications to explain it. In other words, the justifications are far from sufficient.

Thank you very much for your attention.

I've asked the opposition a great deal of questions. I also gave my colleagues a short break. I've also asked Mr. Barrett many questions and repeatedly expressed my respect for him.

I'm raising my hand now to indicate that I would like another opportunity to make another statement in which I hope to receive some good answers from a good member of Parliament such as Mr. Barrett.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

I'm next to a man who needs no introduction because his name has been said 1,000 times in the last hour.

Mr. Barrett, you have the floor. Go ahead, please.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'd like some order in the room, please.

Mr. Barrett, you have the floor. Go ahead.

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

We have less than two hours to go before the Liberals do the thing they have spent the last 20 hours saying that they weren't going to do: obstruct accountability in parliamentary committees. The reason they're talking out the clock is that they'll be able to kill this motion and kill accountability. The thing about fishing—they said that this is a fishing expedition—is that you catch fish. This isn't a fishing expedition. I would point to the record of the official opposition in terms of doing the thing we're supposed to do: bring accountability to bear.

If you follow the government's own logic.... If the Prime Minister needs a conflict screen, Parliament has a responsibility to know when that screen is triggered, when it isn't and why. Canadians shouldn't take the government's word for it. They cannot take a Liberal government's word for it. They can't take this Liberal government's word for it. The committee should see the records, analysis and travel details to verify that the Prime Minister is not participating in decisions or discussions that could benefit companies tied to his private interests.

I'm going to briefly explain why—and virtually any intervention, after the last 20 hours, will be brief. The context is really important because we've heard about what a bang-up job they've been doing for the last year. The results speak for themselves. One in four Canadians is suffering from food insecurity. That's not me saying it. That's from the people in lineups at food banks in my community, in Mr. Sari's community, Mr. Sari's community and Mr. Sari's.... I'm going to try to use his name as many times as he did mine in the last round. We're talking about the relentless suffering of Canadians. That's one of the results.

We heard about job numbers from one of the others in their filibuster—about what a great job they've done on jobs. Canada is down 95,000 jobs this year. That's not great for the people who've lost them. It's not great for the people in my community who've lost their jobs. They want to tell us, “Well, these international bodies say that Canada's doing the best.” Do you know what? For the people in my community, those empty words don't fill their empty bellies. They want to see results from the government, and they're not seeing that.

We heard about the wasted time that would come from looking at some of these things. We've had 20 hours of filibusters over two weeks from these Liberals. You cannot take them seriously. It's very much a “let them eat cake” attitude. That's demonstrated by the Prime Minister's in-flight catering. He's taking all these trips. That's great, but he's certainly not packing a lunch. There is an expectation of some belt-tightening done by government when Canadians are tightening their own belts because they're malnourished, suffering and hungry. We're looking at tens of thousands of dollars in in-flight catering costs on single trips. That's shocking.

Why do we need to see this? Why can't we take their word for it? I would look to every other time in the last three years when we've said that a committee should take a look at these things.

Now, Liberal members have said that we can't have opposition motions passed at committee because legislation wouldn't get passed. Well, this motion is not going to take up further committee time. That's number one. Number two, this committee, like the government operations committee and the public accounts committee, is not a committee to which legislation is typically referred. Look at the WE Charity scandal. That would have seen $912 million going to an organization that paid almost half a million dollars to the former prime minister's family members. Look at the $4.6 billion in COVID overpayments that were uncovered through opposition pressure for Auditor General reports and for committee studies, and the $27.4 billion that the Auditor General said should be investigated.

On ArriveCAN, I sat in this very committee room and had Liberal members say across the table that the app was perfect, that it saved tens of thousands of lives, that they got great value for money and that it was a waste of committee time to study it. Well, all of that was demonstrated to be false. The government has failed to demonstrate a single incidence of it saving any lives. We've heard from Canada's frontline border services officers that it made their job more difficult. Also, of $60 million, we saw that, at a minimum, $20 million was just pure grift, just theft from taxpayers. The Liberal members told us that there was nothing to see here. They said, “There's no here, here, so we can't take a look at this.”

The same is true for Sustainable Development Technology, for which we know that nearly $60 million went to 10 ineligible projects—fully ineligible projects—but that was at the same time as they said, “You cannot take a look at this.” When we referred it to the Ethics Commissioner after the Liberal members said there was nothing to see here, we found that the Liberal-appointed chair had broken the very law that we're talking about today: the Conflict of Interest Act.

We have demonstrated time and time again that there is a benefit to this for Canadians. When we find that there's a problem, when we find that there's been a contravention of the rule under the Liberals—we have seen 10 instances in which this Liberal government has broken Canada's ethics laws—what we can do is change the rules, do better and give Canadians confidence in their democratic institutions and their elected officials.

That's the job of all members who aren't part of the executive. You often hear people say, “Well, I'm part of the government.” You may be part of the governing party, but unless the Prime Minister has elevated you to the Privy Council or you're warming the bench as a parliamentary secretary, you're not in government. You're a backbencher, and you need to hold the government accountable. That's the job of all of us. It doesn't just fall on the Conservatives. It doesn't just fall on the Bloc. It's a responsibility that we have to Canadians.

On asking for basic details about when the screen has been invoked and why it has or has not been invoked, I didn't hear any amendments. I heard the bell get clanged about 1,000 times with my name, and I heard the phone book get read in by someone else, but what I didn't hear was any thoughtful amendment.

Is it the contention of Liberal members that there's absolutely no value whatsoever in any further scrutiny of the head of government? Heaven forbid that it become a precedent and that, going forward, we hold everyone in that office to that standard, wherein we have an understanding of that and there is public reporting. I can think of an awful lot of things that are worse than that, such as what we've seen over the last 10 years. Let's not get to the point that people come to expect—Canadians come to expect—that the laws will just be broken. The rules will be broken. That's a legacy of the last 10 years, and it doesn't need to be one of the next 10 years.

We saw in committee when we had a representative from Brookfield here that the system as it's currently designed doesn't do what it's supposed to do. How can a senior executive at Brookfield just text the Prime Minister back and forth? If the Prime Minister doesn't know when the screen is being used, should he be concerned about any text he's getting from Brookfield? He doesn't know that there's something before cabinet. He doesn't know what's being shared. Are Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard reading his texts first? That's not the indication we've received.

Is the communication being screened? That's a big question, and that's certainly not one that's been answered.

If there was a timeline and if the complaints were actually being raised in good faith and not just simply as a filibuster, we would hear reasonable amendments, and we would support reasonable amendments. Is there a particular piece...? Would we agree to pass this right now if we said, “Let's remove something. Let's remove the need to produce emails. Oh, yes, that was it”?

However, that's not it. It's about having any further scrutiny. They know that at 8:15, or whenever bells ring, that will be the last time they're going to need to talk the clock to stop accountability at this committee. They'll be co-conspirators any time, then, that the rules or laws are broken in the future because they would have had the opportunity to do the right thing and to help strengthen the system. They'll have actively made a choice not only to not do that but also to have prevented it from happening.

I know that my conscience will be clean because I will have worked with other members of the opposition and other parties who understand what our responsibilities are. We'll continue to do that; we will keep doing that. It is, mildly put, unfortunate that that's the position Liberal members have chosen to take and that those are the instructions they've accepted and have deployed—a filibuster to stop that. However, those are decisions for them to reconcile. We're going to continue to do the right thing.

I hope that contrast is very clear, though—what happens when one more member from the governing party gets dropped onto the committee. It won't be a question of thoughtful consideration. It will be shutting the lights off.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

On that note, I'm going to take what could potentially be the last break before accountability, transparency and oversight ends at this committee tonight. We are suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're back after a brief suspension.

We're on the motion presented by Mr. Barrett.

I have Ms. Church next on the list.

Go ahead, Ms. Church, on the motion.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

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).

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just for clarity, from my standpoint, you're amending it to remove part (b) of the motion. Is that correct?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have an amendment on the floor.

I have Mr. Hardy first.

Go ahead on the amendment, Mr. Hardy.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're off for another round.

I've heard a lot of things and I'm taking a lot of notes, because it's important to keep up and make sure we don't forget anything, because there are many things being said here, and the Liberals are convinced that their point of view is the right one. Unfortunately, we disagree.

The first thing is that the Liberals say that this is a debate, but they are very much mistaken: It's a monologue. It's Monday evening. We started the meeting at 3:30 p.m., but when I say “we” I mean “them” because we're not saying much. It's now 7:30 p.m. We're beginning our fifth hour. The last time, the meeting lasted 17 hours and 30 minutes. Now, we're starting the fifth hour of Liberal monologue, whose purpose once again is to take as much time as possible.

Mrs. Church, you just spoke for about 15 minutes. Congratulations! That was actually quite short. Your colleague was quite intense, speaking for more than an hour. I guess you won't win the person who talks the longest. Last week, Mr. Sari recited a 25-minute monologue, and he recited another 60-minute monologue this time. Ms. Lapointe gave a 30-minute one. I congratulate her on her 30 minutes. I might have missed a bit of it, but it must have been super interesting. Mr. Saini recited a 25-minute one. I congratulate him. Mrs. Church, you recited a 15-minute one, so things are progressing well.

Once again, I find it very disrespectful to Canadians to take all this time, notably an hour. We don't come here to attend talks, we come here to work for the people so what we're experiencing here is a bit peculiar. The Liberals obviously find themselves very interesting. They applaud one another and smile from ear to ear, looking to see who is doing the most.

They tell us that the motion isn't necessary, because what we're asking for in the motion has apparently already been provided. If it's already been provided, why are they opposing it? Is it only just because we didn't write the motion the right way and they don't like that? They kept asking why we're asking for this information non-stop and said it was already available and easily accessible. If the information is so easily accessible, they should just let the motion carry. Then we can move on and stop wasting our time here. We've spent 20 hours over two weeks listening to monologues.

The Liberal government says that it will build things at a pace that has never been seen before. Honestly, if I look at the way the Liberals use time, I can understand why it's costing the government a fortune, because it's not very efficient.

I will continue reading my notes. I'll try to do it quickly, and not take too much time.

The Liberals say that the Conservatives are trying to prove things that aren't true. The last time we heard that was during the ArriveCAN scandal. We were told it wasn't true. I gave a speech in the House about that today. It appears to have cost taxpayers quite a few million dollars to hire a four-person company operating out of a basement here in Ottawa.

We were told that it wasn't true for the green climate fund either, and yet, it was a scandal.

We were told to stop talking about foreign interference, because it was conspiratorial. However, it was uncovered in a committee like this one.

We were told to stop asking questions about Brookfield and yet people seem to be worried. I guess this is also the kind of thing that should not be revealed to a committee like this, even though it's extremely important for Canadians to know.

The Liberals say that we are there to oppose. In effect, the role of the opposition, which is extremely important and involves being loyal to Canadians, is to ask questions and to make sure that the people who disagree with the Liberals have a voice, can ask questions or at least be able to hear those questions being asked. I can guarantee one thing: When I walk around my riding, people talk to me and tell me that they are very happy to have MPs who come out to meet them, listen to their needs and bring their questions here. That's what I hear.

Obviously, the Liberals don't want to hear that, because it doesn't suit them. We saw it last week, when Mr. Cooper was cut off six times in six minutes because he wasn't saying what the Liberals wanted to hear. That's not the democracy Liberals say they defend so valiantly.

Mrs. Church, you said earlier that Mr. Poilievre had mentioned that Brookfield was engaged in tax avoidance; you presented that as a propaganda tool. However, a witness came here to say that when Brookfield was run by the Prime Minister, it was the largest tax dodger in the country. We're not inventing this. You can check what witnesses have said before the committee. It's all on video. You can go and watch it. However, these are not good witnesses, because they're not Liberal witnesses. They don't like it when witnesses don't say the same things Liberals do. That's the problem we're facing right now and that we see each week.

I enjoyed writing the following note, because it's really what I've noticed since being here, for a year now. Since the Prime Minister came down to earth, he appears to be the great Liberal saviour come to earth to erase the sins committed by the Liberals in the last 10 years. He came down, and now that's all gone away. We have to trust the Liberals, because they're here for the right reasons, and because we're not here for the right reasons. However, these are the same Liberals who were protecting a Prime Minister who said that the budget would balance itself. They're the same, but we have to trust them today, because their leader has changed.

It's strange, because we ask questions, and we rarely get answers. We're told that it's normal not to get the answers, because these are not the right questions.

Today, I gave a speech on the Liberals' motion to bring committees under the Liberals, so that we no longer have a majority and so that we can no longer ask the government questions. What surprised me is that when the government proposed this motion, Radio-Canada, which usually strongly supports the Liberals, described the Prime Minister's government as an authoritarian government, and this action as an abuse of power. It's very odd. It will be my pleasure to share this clip, because apparently we love clips, and I have it at my disposal. However, again, I guess it's not right, because it doesn't reflect what the Liberals think.

I'm glad Mr. Saini mentioned last year's election. We mentioned last year's election. As it happens, the result led to the formation of a minority government. That's what Canadians decided. After that, we know that some cozy little deals were made behind the curtain. However, a minority government is what the Liberals were given. The mandate given by Canadians is to ensure that the parties work together and that neither the Liberals nor the Bloc and the Conservatives follow their plan 100%. We need to work together to move forward for the good of Canadians. Again, the Liberals called this obstruction, because, when we don't say exactly what they want to hear and we ask questions, we are obstructing.

I'll repeat the words of someone who I think the Liberals will recognize. This person said that a healthy parliamentary system relies on the opposition's right to oppose, attack and criticize. Lester B. Pearson, the 14th prime minister of Canada, said that. A Liberal. It's not a Conservative position, but a democratic position to support the right to ask questions. It's not about asking the right questions or the questions that suit Liberals; it's about asking questions. It's a democratic right, and I think it should be a foundation.

The Liberals don't like us asking questions, questioning them or contradicting them. We even heard that contradicting them was bullying, which I don't believe is true at all. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean that it's bullying.

We heard the commissioner, witnesses and experts say that we need more transparency, whether as part of the study on ethics or the study on lobbying. Everyone agrees with the witnesses on this, but when we ask questions for more transparency, it's not okay.

I'm sorry, but when I meet Canadians, they tell me they want transparency. They have questions and they want us to ask them. Often, they ask me why we always intervene after the fact and why the millions of dollars they pay in taxes and income tax came out of their bank accounts to be spent any which way.

A scandal occurs, and then we ask questions. However, Canadians ask us why we always intervene after the fact. The answer is simple: Just look at what is happening here. When we ask questions before a scandal breaks, we're told that it's not right, that they're not the right questions, that we shouldn't ask them, that we're inventing things and opposing for nothing. Then, when the scandal is uncovered, we get an explanation, but not always. It seems to be a Liberal specialty to still avoid disclosing the facts.

Here, we are told to be serious. The Liberals have been monologuing for 20 hours, but we are told that we are the ones with a problem. That's serious. We're talking about clips. I hope that after 20 hours of monologues, they will have a few, because that's clearly what they're looking for. We're not making any, because we're not the ones talking. They are the ones who spoke for 20 hours. I guess they like it.

We are told that oversight is the foundation of democracy, but, if we don't ask the right question, it's not a good foundation. It's the foundation only when it suits them.

I'll give you another very clear example. We submitted a report with 23 recommendations after 10 months of work. During a press conference, the Liberals said they would reject all of them.

You could say things are going well. We want transparency, we want to work, and it's said that the opposition's work is important. Mr. Sari said it earlier: For the Liberals, what we do as the opposition is very important and honourable. We can go back and reread the notes, that's what he said earlier. However, when we say we won't support 20 out of the 23 recommendations, or even all of the recommendations in a committee report, that shows that the opposition is only good in theory, because in practice, it seems the Liberals don't like that at all.

One of the Liberals quotes the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as if he'd said that he fully endorses what they're doing. He himself referred to the appearance of a conflict of interest and said that it should be there. The appearance comes before the conflict itself. In our motion, we're asking for information, but it shouldn't be provided, because transparency isn't acceptable. So once again, we've got a problem. We need to work upstream, not always downstream.

The motion calls for two things, one of which the Liberals want to remove with their amendment. First, the motion calls for the publication of the report on conflict of interest filters, the assessment, the minutes and so on. Second, it calls for the publication of travel itineraries. We want to understand where the Prime Minister is travelling and exactly what he's doing. We need to know and understand.

In the past, we didn't ask about food, but new information has emerged. So we're going to look into that, because I think it's important for people to be aware of government spending. We must trust our Prime Minister. He's transparent, and he's there for the right reasons. However, when he went to London, meals on the plane cost $52,000. That's fine. The two-hour trip to Washington cost $21,000. That's fine. The trip to Rome cost $93,780 on food alone; the one to Brussels, $49,000; the one to Mexico, $33,000; and the one to the United Arab Emirates, $159,000. When we table a motion to find out where the Prime Minister is travelling and what's happening, we're told to stop and that we're exaggerating. However, there were total expenditures of $524,000 in less than a year. That's just for meals during the trips. That's fine. Everything is in order. Is it cost-effective? I think people have a right to know. Is it in Canadians' best interests to pay $159,000 for food during the United Arab Emirates trip? I can only imagine the gold-leaf steaks must have been very good for Canadians. That's quite a show of respect. All this is at the taxpayers' expense. By the way, everything is public and can be found on websites. I'm reading from my notes, but these are facts. Unfortunately, the Liberals don't seem to like facts, but these are indeed facts.

So, today, we're once again witnessing the Liberal theatrics aimed at wasting as much time as possible in an attempt to gain I don't know what. Last time, they wasted 17 hours, when in the end, we'll still be able to welcome the minister and ask him questions. It took 17 hours to get there.

We're told that it makes no sense to hold a public debate on this, and that it's irresponsible. Yet spending 20 hours and counting here—and we're sure to continue—is a very responsible way to spend taxpayers' money. We're all here, at the table, with our staff behind us, the chair and the interpreters. That's money well spent, because the Liberals want to tell us their view of how Canada should be run and that the nasty opposition parties don't agree with them and are calling for transparency.

I've been wondering for some time now when transparency became an issue. It struck me earlier, because we heard why we shouldn't be transparent. Transparency is essential at all costs, but sometimes being transparent isn't the right thing to do. So, we heard a justification. A member came here to tell us just how not being transparent is sometimes the right thing to do. Ultimately, for the Liberals, it really does seem to be the right thing to do all too often. We can imagine that, if they justify a lack of transparency as the right thing to do, we won't really be out of the woods for the next three years. Not only do they want to take control of committees, but they're also justifying in front of the cameras that a lack of transparency is the right thing to do. It's understandable why they might not want us asking these questions, and how we might then uncover conflicts of interest.

I'll conclude my remarks, and I hope I haven't gone on too long. I'm on my last page. We've been told here that everything we're asking for will take too many resources, and that meeting our demands would be irresponsible. This coming from the mouths of those who have hired 100,000 public servants and who spend over $20 billion a year on consultants. They're the ones doing this. Not us.

We definitely shouldn't be hiring anyone to make sure there's transparency, because that would be money poorly spent. This is serious. We've often heard “in my opinion”, and I'll get back to that, because that's what I keep saying: Your opinion isn't important. It's the opinion of taxpayers that's important. It's the opinion of citizens, Quebeckers, Canadians; it's the opinion of people who pay taxes that's important. That's who we represent, we're here to serve them.

So your perception isn't what's important. Democracy is what's important. We'll be able to get to a vote, but you won't like the decision. You know that the opposition leads on this committee, but you don't want to. So you're wasting time. That's what's terrible: wasting everyone's time.

I'll end on this, because I think it's very relevant. Earlier, you referred to a well-known line from a speech by the Prime Minister, that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.

Today, we're all at the table. How many hours will it take for transparency to appear on the menu? That's what I'm asking you. Everyone is seated at the table. How many hours do you need for transparency to show up on the menu? I'm looking forward to your answer. By that, I mean less time and more clarity. We have to make progress.

Oh! I have a blank page. I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy. I've been making notes too. If you want to borrow some of mine, I'd be glad to give them to you.

We have a list that includes Ms. Kronis next, followed by Mr. Hogan and Mr. Sari. I'm sorry. It's Leslie Church and then Mr. Sari.

Do any Liberal staff members want to speak on this? I'll gladly put your name down now, if you like. No?

Ms. Kronis, go ahead.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague for his remarks. He really spoke to the question in an incredible way.

When I think about this place—and we're currently in the basement of the West Block—I think about the chamber upstairs as being the heart not only of this building but also of our democracy. Every committee in this place has a function that surrounds the room. If that's the case, then the ethics committee might very well be the soul of this place, its conscience.

This is my first time coming here to the ethics committee, and I would observe that what we are seeing here today—this evening now—with this amendment to our motion is a deliberate, concerted effort by Liberal members to prevent Canadians from seeing who is influencing our Prime Minister. While I admire their tenacity and, judging by the length of some of their interventions, their lung capacity, that should truly trouble every single one of us in this place regardless of party.

This is the second time today that I have had reason to look at a Liberal bench and say that just because you can do something, that does not mean you should. I've reviewed the motion put forward by my colleague, and while it is long, it doesn't ask for anything that should attract this level of defensiveness from the Liberals. We are not asking for something exotic. We're asking for some pretty basic stuff: itineraries, travel records, meetings and who was in the room.

As some of my colleagues have made clear, if we were asking for the good stuff, we'd be asking for the menus to find out why we're paying through the nose for airplane food. It is not unreasonable to want to understand whether decisions are, in fact, being made in the public interest or whether access is being shaped by privilege, proximity or power. These are pretty basic, fundamental questions that are asked by ethics committees in parliaments like ours around the world.

The reason it matters so much in this case is quite simple. As with any prime minister, the Prime Minister did not come into office as a blank slate. He came with a vast network of global relationships, with deep ties across finance, investment and policy circles and with a very long list of former colleagues, partners and associates who might want something from him. That in itself is not disqualifying, and every prime minister has to navigate this, but it does raise the bar for transparency; it does not lower it. When someone brings that kind of network into public office, Canadians are entitled to know who still has access, who's getting meetings and who is shaping the conversations that happen behind closed doors.

Instead, what we're seeing in this committee is delay and obstruction, and that sends a message whether you intend it to or not. What it tells Canadians is that there is something about these meetings that cannot withstand public scrutiny. It tells them that the government would rather run out the clock, as we've seen you do today, than simply address the facts. If everything is above board, there should be no fear in disclosure. If decisions are being made impartially, then transparency should be your strongest ally.

Where am I in my notes? There are notes, and the notes have notes, and those notes have notes.

If there is transparency here, then transparency should be your strongest ally, but when the response to a straightforward request is to block, to stall and then to talk it out until the clock runs down, people will draw their own conclusions, and those conclusions may not be kind.

The ethics committee exists for a reason. We are here to protect the integrity of public office. We are here to ensure that power is not used to favour insiders, whether intentionally or through the quiet pull of relationships and familiarity. We're here to give Canadians confidence that their government works for them, not for a well-connected few. You just can't do that in the dark. You can't ask Canadians to trust the system while refusing to show them how it operates, and you can't claim to be upholding ethical standards by actively preventing this committee from examining the facts.

This is not about partisanship, as my colleagues have said over and over again. It's about whether we believe Canadians deserve to see who has the ear of their Prime Minister.

They're going to look at the transcripts, information and videos from today, and they're going to make their own judgments. Blocking that information is not a neutral act. It's a choice to shield power from scrutiny and a choice to put political convenience ahead of public accountability. Frankly, I think we should all treat that as unconscionable. If the government has confidence in its conduct, prove it. Let the record speak. Let Canadians see for themselves.

For everyone watching at home, I want to be clear about what's going to happen tonight. We're going to sit in this committee until we go upstairs to vote in just a few minutes. What that vote is going to do is add another Liberal to this committee. We are then going to come back down here so the Liberals can stop filibustering and just defeat this motion outright with the majority they've given themselves in this room.

Today is a bit of a milestone for me and my colleagues. Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of my being elected to represent the wonderful people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. While I haven't always agreed with my Liberal colleagues, today is the very first day they have truly and deeply disappointed me. In choosing to stack this committee—of all committees—and to make this motion the first one they block with their new Liberal government's new majority, they really do look like “just another Liberal”. The more they engage in keeping information from the opposition's scrutiny, the more it looks, genuinely, as if the real goal is not to protect any legitimate interest but to protect access that cannot be defended in the light.

With that, Mr. Chair, I am going to stop. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Kronis.

I will just remind you, before we go to Mr. Hogan, that we are expecting bells at eight o'clock, which is roughly six minutes from now. When the bells start, I will need unanimous consent from committee members to continue.

I don't know why I'm laughing. I know why I'm laughing, and it's not funny.

Go ahead, Mr. Hogan.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a great pleasure to be here.

You may be wondering why I am here visiting your fine committee. I am normally on RNNR and BCAN, but for an order like this, in a conversation like this, I believe I have some insight that might be useful to this committee. I'm very happy to speak in favour of removing the overly broad production order component of this motion, although I do not personally believe such an amendment goes far enough.

Let me talk a bit about the insight that I bring to committee.

Ms. Kronis is right that we all come with a past. One of the pasts that I bring—my history—is that I was a senior official in the Government of Alberta. I was a DM-level official in that government. I sat as a member of the deputy ministers' council. I was on the receiving end of things like this—of production orders and of the various actions of committees. I oversaw Communications and Public Engagement for the Government of Alberta, a cross-government department that was responsible for, as the name suggests, those activities.

I was appointed by order in council. I attended meetings of cabinet, and I was a member of the executive council's executive team. Alberta's executive council is the provincial equivalent of the PCO, so I believe I have some insight into this. I fully appreciate that it is not entirely transferable to the level of government that we're at here.

I also want to let the committee know that I did this under two very different premiers. I did this under Premier Notley from 2016 to 2019, and I did this under Premier Kenney from 2019 to 2020. I served both of them, and they both trusted me to do that role.

I hope you'll accept this as a non-partisan observation, having done it for two very different premiers with very different world views, and what I'm about to say was true in both administrations. It's frankly not a political observation; it's an observation I make on behalf of people who cannot make the observation themselves because of reasons of decorum and deference.

Communications and Public Engagement, CPE, was the Government of Alberta's cross-government department responsible for a variety of activities. However, because it was communications, there were very few files in government that my team did not touch, and there were very few production orders and access to information requests that did not involve my department.

As deputy head, it was my responsibility to oversee these activities, to sign off on these activities and to ensure that everything that was provided was accurate. That perch also gave me a very good view as to what that looks like once a committee like this sends an order like this and the consequences of that. I was also responsible for interacting with Alberta's ethics and privacy commissioners on these matters, so I would regularly engage on the pith of this.

As I said, let me speak on behalf of senior officials, most of whom will not be given the opportunity to speak on their own or are fettered in what they're able to say.

To a committee like this, this is a motion. Maybe it's about social media clips; maybe it's not. I'm not looking into your hearts on this one today. Mr. Hardy talks about 20 hours and the cost of 20 hours. Well, colleagues, when such a motion flies, 20 hours is nothing. Think of the hours it will burn in our professional public service. The amount of activity it is to gather, organize and translate into English across government is absolutely extraordinary. Such extraordinary efforts cannot be for nothing. Certainly, there are times when extraordinary efforts need to be taken by government, but they certainly cannot be done for no reason.

The power of this committee is to compel documents, to give a production order. That's what we're talking about, and that's what we're talking about removing. Mr. Hardy talks about his constituents, saying that they want him to hold government to account. Well, I'm sure they're not asking him to abuse the tools of Parliament. I'm sure they're assuming he will use these tools judiciously, not indiscriminately.

Let's be clear. These are very powerful tools. These are very important tools. This is why we cannot weaponize them. We cannot use them to try to jam people. We cannot use them for fishing expeditions. We cannot use them to create clips. I truly wonder if we would even have this motion if there were no cameras. I truly wonder that.

Ms. Kronis is right. Just because you can do something, that does not mean you should. Production orders should not be weaponized. Every time they are, they are weakened. They encourage the public to want to fetter the tool. They encourage people to disregard the tool. You are breaking the “in case of emergency break glass” glass, and for what? It's for something you've already been told you will get, just not on the timeline and not in the breadth that allows the fishing that you seek. There is a consequence to these actions, and it's a consequence, again, that cannot often be spoken of by the officials who deal with it.

I ask my colleagues this: What is your intent? Does your intent align with the actions you would ask us to do or this committee to do? I am, of course, a guest at this committee.

Senior officials are some of the busiest people in government. I think of my own calendar in those times, and it certainly rivalled my calendar as an MP. I know that as members of Parliament, we all have very busy calendars, but I would increment my time in 15-minute blocks. I would go from meeting to meeting. I had three assistants who assisted to make sure that I was on time with the right documents doing these activities. That is because that time was considered to be some of the most valuable time in the Alberta government.

You now fetter that time. That is the right of this committee to do, but you have to ask what the benefit of that is, because it is not just their time; it is Canadians' time. Government is not a remote force. Government is all of us employing people like the professional public service to do things on our behalf. You are taking the time of the public, as you have the right to do as a committee—again, I'm not a member—and you are asking them to apply themselves differently. That is fair, but you must use this power discriminately. If you do not, there are consequences.

Let's dig into marginal benefit and marginal cost. I have an M.B.A., so I like to think of these things. On the benefit, I don't personally see benefit, but let's be charitable. Let's talk about the purpose of the conflict of interest legislation. Let's talk about the stated purpose of this production order, as we've heard. Hopefully, it goes well beyond what was on the menu on the Prime Minister's plane.

What is the purpose of these tools? First and foremost, it is to protect the public interest. I feel this risks the public interest in multiple ways. I'll get into them in a minute here.

Second, it's to ensure the integrity of decision-making. We've already heard from multiple people that this very act risks exposing matters to the Prime Minister, when the Prime Minister should not know them. That would actually damage the integrity of decision-making.

The third reason, which we've also heard a bit about but I want to underline, is that these tools are not punitive. They're designed to allow people to manage messy realities. They allow government to attract people with diverse backgrounds to engage in diverse, thoughtful ways.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Hogan, before we go upstairs to neuter the ability of Canadians and committees, I'm going to need unanimous consent to continue.

Do I have unanimous consent to continue?