Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendment put forward by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, which I proudly seconded, calling on the CEO of Brookfield, as well as the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's chief of staff, to come before the ethics committee and answer questions as we undertake our review of the Conflict of Interest Act.
Frankly, the Liberals have a lot to answer for with respect to the Prime Minister's multitude of conflicts of interest, which he continues to hide from Canadians, such as his use of offshore tax havens while he was the chair of Brookfield to avoid paying taxes in Canada. So much for Mr. Captain Canada, Mr. Elbows Up. They also have a lot to answer for about the completely inadequate so-called ethics screen that has been set up to supposedly keep the Prime Minister from being involved in making decisions on matters in which he has conflicts of interest.
Let me say that when it comes to the Prime Minister's conflicts of interest, it is official: He is the most-conflicted Prime Minister in Canadian history. Never have we had a Prime Minister with so many conflicts of interest: more than 500 conflicts of interest and an ethics screen comprising 103 conflicts.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.
Despite 500 conflicts and the vast and unprecedented nature of the situation, this merely scratches the surface of what the Prime Minister's potential conflicts of interest are. That is because we learned from his ethics disclosure that he is entitled to receive carried interest payments worth tens of millions of dollars in respect of the performance of three major clean-tech funds he set up while he was the chair of Brookfield.
The Prime Minister set up the $15-billion global transition fund; the second global transition fund, at $10 billion; and the catalytic transition fund. He co-led efforts to draw investments into those funds; he picked the companies. He knows what the holdings of those funds are. Why is that relevant? It is because he knows specific public policy decisions that may impact the performance of those funds, which in turn directly relates to his future bonus pay worth potentially tens of millions of dollars.
Canadians deserve to know what the holdings of these funds are. They deserve to know what companies the Prime Minister hand-picked. They deserve to know that he is not involved in making decisions that would impact these funds, which in turn would determine the amount he reaps in the way of future bonus pay.
The Prime Minister has had an opportunity to come clean and tell us what is in the funds, but he has refused to do so. As a consequence, we have a Prime Minister who, to put it generously, may be complying with the letter of the Conflict of Interest Act but is certainly not complying with the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act, in the face of these many potential hidden conflicts of interest.
Frankly, the Prime Minister has a lot to answer for based upon his activities at Brookfield. I alluded to the three clean-energy funds that the Prime Minister set up. Where did he set up the global transition fund? Oh, it was not in Canada but in Bermuda. How about the second global transition fund? It was not in Canada; the Prime Minister registered it in Bermuda. The catalytic transition fund is not in Canada. How about the Cayman Islands? All are in offshore tax haven jurisdictions.
Last week at committee, we learned about the extent of Brookfield's use of offshore tax havens. In fact, analysis done by Canadians for Tax Fairness revealed that of Canada's 123 largest corporations, Brookfield is the largest tax dodger; there was the largest tax gap by Brookfield, based upon what Brookfield actually paid in taxes versus what Brookfield should have paid had the statutory tax rate been applied, because of Brookfield's use of offshore tax havens that the Prime Minister actively used and took advantage of while he was chair of Brookfield.
How much was it in the way of tax avoidance that Brookfield, I guess to some degree, succeeded in taking of advantage of? It was $6.5 billion of tax dodging in just five years.
The Prime Minister said he was coming to stand up and rescue this country at a time of crisis, but when we look at the actions of the Prime Minister, we see time and again that his words do not match his deeds. He was very happy to set up major funds, some of the world's largest clean-energy funds, in offshore tax havens. He was very content to hide behind loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act to not disclose his hidden conflicts. Of course, we know that he was also very happy to move Brookfield out of Canada to New York City months before he ran for leadership of the Liberal Party.
Then there is the so-called ethics screen. Who administers the ethics screen? It is none other than the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, both of whom answer to the Prime Minister. They are arguably in a blatant conflict of interest in overseeing that screen. Not only that, but there are no checks and balances to see that the screen is being used as intended to keep the Prime Minister away from making decisions in which he would have a conflict of interest. There is no reporting mechanism, for example.
We are really left to having to trust the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council who, by the way, even if they were doing their best, which they may be, to shield the Prime Minister from these types of decisions, are subject to an ambiguous proportionality standard that raises other questions about the effectiveness of the ethics screen.
For all of these reasons, this amendment could not be more timely. We need to hear from the Prime Minister's chief of staff and from the clerk with respect to the ethics screen, and we need to hear from the CEO of Brookfield about the many serious ethical questions surrounding the—