The highest approval rating was not 17%. If Mr. Al Soud, who worked in that office, thinks that is such a great approval rating, well, I can say 17% is 17%. He couldn't be more out of touch if he thinks Justin Trudeau was popular in January 2025. He most certainly wasn't. It doesn't matter other than to say that there was a reason he was unpopular, and that was the corruption and the litany of conflicts and scandals surrounding his government.
For Canada's so-called new Prime Minister, new government, there was an opportunity for a reset and to do things differently, but it's been more of the same. It's more of the same when we have a Prime Minister who, two days after the federal election, met with an executive who's listed as being in one of the Brookfield companies in which the Prime Minister has a conflict of interest. It's more of the same when we have a Prime Minister who, a month later, met with the CEO of Brookfield Infrastructure in Washington. It's more of the same when we have a Prime Minister who met with those connected to Brookfield in New York City and London. It's more of the same when we have a Prime Minister who met alone with none other than the chief operating officer of Brookfield in the Prime Minister's Office.
The chief operating officer of Brookfield came before this committee and admitted and acknowledged, quite appropriately so, that, given the Prime Minister's extensive “stock options and deferred share units” with Brookfield, “As the value of Brookfield increases, the value of those instruments increase.” In other words, when Brookfield does well, Mark Carney does well.
If it is the case that when Brookfield does well, Mark Carney does well, then we sure deserve to know of those times when the Prime Minister has been involved in decisions involving Brookfield. We need to know of those times that sufficient red flags have been raised, likely about Brookfield, to warrant an analysis of whether the Prime Minister should proceed to be involved in those decisions.
I suspect that the reason the Prime Minister's Office doesn't want this committee to see when it has given the Prime Minister the green light is that it wouldn't look good for them. It would raise questions about how robustly the ethics screen is being applied and the extent to which the Prime Minister is in fact recusing himself from, is not being involved in or is being shielded from decisions related to Brookfield.
That's really what is going on here. They can come up with all kinds of excuses, but that's what's going on. They don't want Canadians to know all of the times the Prime Minister is making decisions related to Brookfield, in which he has conflicts of interest because he stands to make millions when Brookfield does well. They don't want Canadians to see that. They don't want Canadians to know about when that's happening. They want Canadians to be kept in the dark.
We need transparency. We need sunlight. We need to know. That's what the subamendment provides for. I'm hoping that Liberal MPs, upon further reflection, will maybe do something other than take the orders of the Prime Minister's Office and support Mr. Barrett's very reasonable subamendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.