I would again like to come back to the case of Timothy Hodgson. In his response, the governor told us about a blind trust for Mr. Hodgson's assets. He told us about the Bank of Canada's own conflict of interest and ethics rules.
Mr. Chair, the word “trust” in English also means “confidence.” I believe that Mr. Carney is quite able to understand, as we all are, that the confidence of Canadians in the institution he so effectively represents—as I have always said and since I have had the pleasure of working with him following his appointment—is of utmost importance.
That said, the appearance of a conflict of interest is also a serious matter. Earlier, Mr. Carney gave us an irrelevant response when he told us we should not be concerned and that his advise or would be governed by all the ethics rules in the course of his mandate. At the end of his response, he even said that he had no idea what Mr. Hodgson would be doing afterward.
With regard to the appearance of conflict of interest, there are no provisions for a cooling-off period. Would the Governor of the Bank of Canada not agree that it is in the interest of the bank, of Canadians and of their confidence in that institution that we implement rules concerning a cooling-off period for Mr. Hodgson and others. Such rules would avoid the use of revolving doors with regard to such positions, in which people are briefed on highly privileged and confidential information, and then immediately return to the private sector. That is the question I am asking him.
I recognize that Mr. Hodgson is one of his former colleagues at Goldman Sachs—he was even the CEO of Goldman Sachs in Canada. He is no doubt extremely qualified, since he was appointed to such a key position. Nevertheless, this raises concerns.
Would it not be in his interest, in the interest of the institution he represents and in the interest of Canadians' confidence in that institution that there be rules governing such matters? If so, what is he waiting for to request them?