I speak in opposition to the amendment, because quite frankly, what it does is gut accountability and transparency. We have the most conflicted Prime Minister in Canadian history. There have been more than 500 conflicts, with 103 conflicts related to Brookfield, in which the Prime Minister has stock options. He stands to make tens of millions of dollars from these options, and from future bonus pay, he stands, again, to make tens of millions of dollars.
We had, in the fall, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's chief of staff come before this committee when we had questions about how the so-called ethics screen would hold up. The Prime Minister holds this up as the gold standard to say that with this ethics screen in place, in the face of 500 conflicts of interest, including 103 related to Brookfield, all is well. Decisions that relate to Brookfield are not being put in front of him, on his desk, and he is recusing himself, because of this so-called robust screen.
The Clerk of the Privy Council, in order to demonstrate the supposed robustness and, frankly, to suggest that there was some level of transparency involving how the screen was applied in terms of documentation, came to us and said they have an assessment tool. Any time there's something flagged wherein the Prime Minister might have a potential conflict of interest, there's an assessment process. Very specific questions are considered.
Once the process is triggered, there is a maximum two-page analysis that documents the issue that had been flagged and the analysis that had been undertaken in respect of the flag in relation to a potential conflict involving the Prime Minister. Then there's a final sign-off by the two persons responsible for administering the ethics screen—the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council. They tick off “yes” to say the screen should be applied; “no” to say the screen shouldn't be applied; or the third option, which is that they need more information and need to go back to the drawing board. That is what the clerk and the Prime Minister's chief of staff have told us is being documented every time a potential issue or conflict is flagged.
With this amendment, which I said guts transparency and accountability, we will only learn of the times that the screen has been invoked. As Mr. Barrett said, that's better than nothing; we'd like to know when the ethics screen has been invoked, but equally relevant is to know the times in which that screen has not been invoked when a question of a potential conflict of interest involving the Prime Minister has been flagged. That is critical in order to understand if the screen is working as it should be, and if in fact decisions involving potential conflicts of interest are being properly captured so that they are not put on the Prime Minister's desk. He's not privy to them.
From the standpoint of transparency, when the Prime Minister's Office says, “Rest assured that we're documenting these instances; there are records”, what good are records if no one can see them? What is being offered with this amendment is that we only see some of the records. We don't see other records that arguably are as material if not more material.
Any time that an issue has been flagged—therefore invoking the process—I'd like to know why ultimately the decision was made as to the screen not being invoked. We need to see both. With this amendment, we only see the positive decisions, not the decisions where the green light is actually given to the Prime Minister to be involved on matters that could relate to Brookfield or could relate to other interests that he has. On that basis, this amendment is problematic.
At the very least, I'd like some better understanding as to what the basis is, what the rationale is, for not including records when a potential conflict has been flagged but a decision has been made to not invoke the screen. What is problematic about presenting that information to this committee? Why is the Prime Minister's Office hiding those outcomes from Canadians? What is it they don't want to show? At the very least, I'd like some explanation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.