I am always very astonished to hear such criticism from my colleague across the way, who has been sitting on this committee for a month. As a good Liberal, he seems to have forgotten what has happened recently—in the past year, in the past decade. He speaks with a lot of emotion about being disgusted that time is being wasted, with a well-prepared text that he is forced to read on his tablet, forgetting that the Liberals spoke for 24 hours to become the majority, then to end the committee meeting. That's crazy.
Today, he is completely stunned by the fact that we are trying to understand why they don't want to give us information, and he talks to us about a waste of time. The ones currently in the worst position are my colleagues across the way. We listened to one hour—73 minutes—of monologue, which no one here paid to hear. I didn't buy a ticket for this, but we have to be here and listen to them for an hour. A member of parliament spoke to us for 73 minutes about how he views life. Please, refrain from making comments like that and putting people in their place when you have trouble controlling yourself.
I really want people to understand what's happening here. I think it's important. I won't read the entire document on the conflict of interest screen, but it is incredible. I will read some excerpts and make comments, Mr. Chair, if you'll allow me, because I want people to understand what we are talking about and what information we want. We want to understand why they don't want to give it to us.
As I said earlier, I started from the fact that the Prime Minister said, “The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and I”—as Prime Minister, he speaks to us like that—“have agreed that a conflict of interest screen is an appropriate compliance measure.” They think it's fine. Our opinion is not important because they possess the absolute truth. When he says “to prevent any opportunity”, we here believe that this isn't the case. When we do the analysis, we ask ourselves what's happening. The public doesn't think that's the case.
He then says, “to further my interests or to improperly further those of Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Corporation, and Stripe Inc., and any company owned or controlled by them […] of which I am aware […]”. What I find interesting here is that we're starting to hear “yes, but”, “maybe”, and expressions like “of which I am aware”. However, we know that by placing his shares in a blind trust, the Prime Minister theoretically is no longer aware of what will happen after that.
Right there, he just gave himself a little loophole by saying, “on the date that my blind trust was established”. He's talking about Appendix A, which we don't have access to because it's confidential. He adds: “This screen will prevent me from giving preferential treatment to any of the companies while I exercise my official powers, duties, and functions as a principal public office holder.”
That's the end. It won't be very long, because I hate wasting time in life. It's really serious how much I hate that. The Liberals made me realize even more how much I hate wasting my time and wasting other people's time. Listen to this carefully: “This screen is administered by my chief of staff and by the Clerk of the Privy Council […]”. The chief of staff is an employee of the prime minister, and the Clerk of the Privy Council is an employee of the prime minister, so, a second loophole. The first loophole is the phrase “of which I am aware” and the second is that two employees who report directly to him will administer it. He then says that the screen is “to ensure that I am neither made aware of nor participate in any official matters or decision-making processes involving the companies' interests.”
He adds: “I may, however, participate in a discussion or decision on a matter that is of general application […]”. This is a third loophole. When you are prime minister, everything is of general application. You are making decisions for the entire country. Right there, there is a hole as big as a 20-wheel truck in the applied conflict of interest screen: “[…] or that affects the companies' interests as a member of a broad class of persons […]”.
The Prime Minister is once again giving himself a loophole by talking about a “broad class of persons”. Brookfield is one of the Canadian companies known for engaging in the most tax avoidance. It's tangled up in initiatives that the Liberal government is currently involved in, under the pretext that these are decisions of general application. Next, we're being told how to conduct the analysis. It's important, because we've been given the document to reassure us. However, when I read it, I'm far from reassured. I actually find it really unusual that it was accepted.
The document states, “To conduct the analysis, contextual information related to the companies that are subject to the screen […]”. There are 103 companies subject to the screen out of the 2,000 in which he is a shareholder. Wow! It can't be said that this is a very robust screen if 95% of the companies are not subject to it.
When he says, “[…] and the sectors of the Canadian economy that warrant specific attention […]”, once again, this is a fourth or fifth loophole—there are so many loopholes that I no longer know which one I'm at—to say that we will only focus on the sectors that warrant specific attention. It goes on.
I turn the page and keep going. Part A discusses the matters that must be included in the screen. It states, “Any direct engagement by Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Corporation, or Stripe Inc. and the companies listed in Appendix A”—which we do not have—“of the Prime Minister's Conflict of Interest Screen […] will routinely and automatically be included in the screen and not discussed with or provided to the public office holder.” That's the first step, which is supposed to have been implemented.
However, the director of Brookfield told us that he spent a day in the Prime Minister's office when he was appointed. We read this document and we tell ourselves that the Prime Minister is not supposed to have discussions, meetings—it's stated at item (i)—“with known subsidiaries of the companies”. But it's not a subsidiary, it was a representative of Brookfield itself who came to his office for a day. We look at that and say to ourselves that something happened in the first paragraph. They forgot to continue reading the document.
Next, it states, “[…] decisions regarding a financial grant or contribution to known subsidiaries of the companies”. The lobbying commissioner came to tell us that if a person requests grants, then that is considered lobbying, but requesting “contracts with known subsidiaries” is not necessarily lobbying. Once again, there's another step. We can go directly to it. No problem. In Part A, there are already problems because the instructions were not followed at all, right from the first week.
Let's go to Part B, under the heading “Matters requiring assessment”, that is, when the two employees of the Prime Minister will analyze a situation, particularly when “the private interests of the companies captured by the Prime Minister's Conflict of Interest screen are largely concentrated in a small number of sectors.” Here, we come back to the issue of “general application”. Brookfield is focused on several major sectors that decision-makers in Canada currently seem to have a lot of interest in. It therefore seems that, if Brookfield is everywhere, it won't be affected by any analysis of this screen.
I won't read the entire document to you, because there are items that are just empty words, but I'll continue my reading. “Conversely, such an assessment is not required if decisions are taken solely under the authority of a given minister […]”. I remind the committee that there was a minister who initially recused himself, then decided not to recuse himself, and ultimately voted directly on the matter he was supposed to have recused himself from. This minister, whom we will be receiving here soon, may have encountered a conflict of interest. We had given him the definition. When people recuse themselves, it is either because of a conflict of interest or because they are incompetent. The minister has not yet come to explain to us why he recused himself, but he did indeed recuse himself, and then he defended the Alto high-speed train project, debated it and voted in favour of it, even though his wife is vice-president of the company.
According to this screen—and it doesn't protect Canadians much—decisions are made under the direct authority of a minister, and we are not required to activate the screen. That doesn't make me feel confident. Imagine, a minister can recuse himself or herself, for example a finance minister, the number two in the country, and then withdraw that recusal. However, this document says not to worry, there's no problem, we're protected if the decision is made directly under a minister. Anyone listening to us might say that, yes, I might be somewhat right.
Next, it talks about the sectors that warrant specific attention. It's funny because we're being told to be careful with certain sectors, like real estate. Of course, Brookfield is directly involved in real estate, and the screen does not change anything. We make announcements every week about investing billions of dollars in it. There's also mortgage insurance, the airline industry and the expansion of the nuclear industry. Once again, Brookfield is active in these sectors, but apparently there's no problem, because the screen wasn't triggered.
We don't know what's happening, yet announcements are being made. There's the expansion in the renewable energy sector: solar, wind, hydroelectric. That's exactly what was announced in the major projects initiative. It's timely, because I sit on the committee that met with the representatives from the Major Projects Office. I know because we analyze those projects.
It can be done. That's not a problem.
If there had been many obstacles to these projects and they had not progressed, we could have said that they were blocked by the conflict of interest screen because they would have too broadly favoured the interests of the Prime Minister. However, that's not what happened at all. Every week, billions of dollars in spending are announced in sectors directly affected by Brookfield that are supposed to be covered by the conflict of interest screen, including industries and the credit card sector.
I'll read one last passage from the document, then I'll stop, because after that, it's about the questions that need to be asked and how they should be asked.
Changes to tax policy are generally understood to be of a general application and/or benefitting a class of persons. The majority of potential tax changes are not expected to be the subject to the screen […]
I have an example. I went to get an analysis of that famous tax policy. The Liberal government implemented tax policies that are supposed to have a broad and general application and therefore should not be subject to the conflict of interest screen. Now, through a bill, it has established and expanded generous refundable investment tax credits for clean electricity technologies, clean technology manufacturing and carbon capture projects. What's happening is that these measures directly subsidize Brookfield's vast portfolio of renewable energy assets and its green transition funds. If the tax policies are general, I should be entitled to benefit from them. On the other hand, we realize that what is described as “general” benefits the Prime Minister's company in particular.
Let's go further. Accelerated capital depreciation is subject to a different tax policy. In fact, the same bill provided a productivity super-deduction by offering deductions for accelerated depreciation and the immediate deduction of new capital expenditures. This significantly reduces the taxable income related to large real estate infrastructure projects. There you go, once again, a nice advantage for our colleagues and friends across the way, who seem to have an exceptional appreciation for Brookfield.
I'll finish my reading here so as not to waste time. My colleague seems very interested in what I'm saying.
What we're asking for is not complicated. We just want to have access to the document. It's supposed to be a two-page document. We know that we'll already have access to one of the requests because, when the screen is activated, the committee is supposed to be aware of it. What we're asking for is to also know the instances where an assessment concluded with the decision not to apply the conflict of interest screen. It's not complicated, because there are two possibilities.
The first is that you don't have any documents when you do analyses because they were done on a napkin. It happened recently. In fact, the Minister of Finance said that he had planned a major project worth billions of dollars on a napkin. If that's the case, we have a serious problem right now. If you're doing analyses on a napkin to address ethical issues, I think it would be good for us to know.
The second is that you do not have them, those famous analyses, which would lead us to think that things are being hidden.
If the two employees reporting directly to the Prime Minister conduct analyses, and they do not do them on a napkin, you should have the documents. Why not give them to us? We're supposed to be neutral. Let's analyze them here, as a team, together. Next, as Mr. Al Soud just said, we'll get to work. Working is all we want. Provide us with the documents so that we can work.
However, in the end, they refuse to do it. They're asking us to stop requesting the documents because they're doing the assessments on napkins. Otherwise, it's because they want to hide the information. Why refuse to provide it to us?
What I find funny is that people here keep accusing me of wanting to make clips. It's funny, since I've been doing it, people are more informed, they seek out information more, and they are more interested in politics. The fact that there is laughter at the back of the room, I find that really interesting, because what is happening here interests me a lot. I'm not being partisan. It disgusts me that taxpayer money is being spent and they don't want to tell them why or how. I find it sad that people act like that in a democracy.
We're told that all is well. I don't agree with that. Every weekend, people come to see me to tell me that they can no longer make ends meet and that they are no longer able to pay their rent, their food or their gas. It's too expensive. On the other hand, we learn that the Prime Minister spent $520,000 to travel by plane, eat hearty meals and drink fine wine. Meanwhile, people are skipping meals. Then, we are laughed at because we ask questions. It's serious. What's happening here is really serious.
All we want are documents. We don't want partisan documents. We just want to be able to analyze them as a team and make clips to inform people.
That's what we want to do. We want to inform people so that everyone can form their own opinion. I'll say here what I said in the interview and in several other places. I had a job before becoming an MP, so the day it no longer works and the people from my community tell me that I don't represent them, I'll go do something else with my life. It's up to these people to make their decision based on the information we provide them.
The Liberals are laughing at us. They keep telling us that we're dragging out the meetings, while they have been giving non-stop monologues and we've listened to them for 24 hours. It was sad to hear.
When we ask for something that should exist, they tell us we are asking for too much. Why do they refuse to answer our questions? If an assessment was done, it means someone thought it needed to be done. There's a human being who looked into it and thought that maybe we should do an analysis, just to see if there's a conflict of interest. Then, it was decided that there wasn't one. If the analysis was started, it means there was reasoning and a potential conflict of interest. We're not crazy, extremists or conspiracy theorists. If there's a process under way, it means that someone on the Liberal side thought it'd probably be a good idea to analyze it. Can we know? That's exactly what we are asking for.
We ask the Liberals to be humble when they come here, and to provide information to Canadians. That's all I have to say.