Regarding the subamendment, Mr. Chair, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics from the very beginning, from 2019 until 2021, and it's still a disaster.
We want to engage in prevention to avoid repeating the same mistakes. I remember very well the first motion I submitted to the ETHI committee. It was to call for the resignation of Mr. Morneau, who was then the Minister of Finance, because he did not recuse himself. Do you remember the case involving the WE Charity in 2020, and the figure of $48,000? Then, what happened next? Mr. Morneau resigned and submitted his application for a position at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. Everyone knew Prime Minister Trudeau's interests at the time. Mr. Morneau is a banker, a shareholder and a businessman.
When I talk to the voters in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle, they are more than cynical. They're even wondering how good our safeguards are against partisanship and a lack of transparency. They're really discouraged.
I'm the only one here in this room who can afford to say that, and sometimes, I have no choice but to say it. I'm not seeking power. It must not be obvious to you. If I were in your place, if I were forced to protect the Prime Minister who tells you not to worry, because there won't be a scandal…. Listen, it's written in bold letters. I want to say that people are not idiots. On the other hand, it can be overdone. For my part, I want to find the best means to ensure that breaches of the code of ethics are not overlooked. I look at the motion and I think that we really have a very prescriptive guideline. I see that there's been a major change. I need to be convinced that nothing will slip through the cracks. Honestly, where is the balance?
At this committee, we will never engage in major partisanship. Yes, we will always engage in filibustering; I experienced a 44-hour filibuster during the discussion on WE Charity. I know what it is.
We need to show our fellow citizens that we have a backbone, insofar as we want to protect their interests. We are not talking about $48,000, like when Mr. Morneau resigned. We want to prevent it and we want to make sure it doesn't happen again. When I go back home, people ask me what we are afraid of. When you're not afraid, you say, “well, yeah.”
Furthermore, organizations have told us about all the accountability they have to provide to justify a small amount like $40,000, otherwise the aid will be withdrawn and they'll have to shut down. It's insulting.
I never imagined that we wouldn't be able to, maybe, find a balance here, but there's a really significant gap. I didn't have the numbers, but when I say that among the 2,000 companies in which the Prime Minister is a shareholder, 103 are covered by the conflict of interest screen, I can't believe it.
If necessary, Mr. Chair, we can take a break to talk and make sure we're all on the same page. This is what they did at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—Mr. Cooper is a member of that committee—and also at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates—I believe Mr. Barrett was there. We've done it several times.
I have the feeling that it might end up in a filibuster. We don't have much time left, so, it's a call to conclude, to come to something.
What does the Prime Minister have to hide?
We might receive a no. And if it's a no, what's on the table doesn't work.
Thank you.