John Brassard
Barrie South—Innisfil, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what I thought was a very thoughtful speech on a very concerning bill. It is not just the NDP or Conservatives who are concerned, but civil liberty organizations and other stakeholders. The Privacy Commissioner himself has significant concerns about the privacy aspects of this legislation.”
“Madam Speaker, the way the Liberals are acting tonight, it is almost like the arsonist who sets a house on fire and then we expect him to put the fire out. It is almost the same thing. I want to go back to the issue of the Privacy Commissioner.”
“Mr. Speaker, this goes back to April 2025, when Canadians elected a minority government to provide oversight, accountability and transparency so that the opposition parties could hold them to account and provide that oversight.”
“Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa does not even know this yet, but there is breaking news that the Liberal government is actually standing down on some of the contentious parts of the bill, namely the retention of records. They are talking about reducing it from one year to six months now.”
“Madam Speaker, I was at the committee meeting the day the Privacy Commissioner was there, along with other witnesses representing social media platforms. Before the meeting, all the witnesses indicated that they had submitted their briefs to the committee. However, members were not able to see them because they had not received them.”
“Mr. Speaker, if we talk to anyone on the street or to businesses suffering from 11 years of failed Liberal policies, they will tell us that Canada is in a recession, no matter how the Liberals or the media try to spin it, and that things are not getting any better.”
The complete record
Every one of 225 lines we hold for John Brassard, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, I do have the utmost respect for the hon. member as his party's whip. If the member recalls, last fall this place was seized because the government refused to provide the documents regarding the sustainable development technology fund to a committee of Parliament. It refused. There were 11,000 documents counted last fall that were not being given to a parliamentary committee, despite the fact that the parliamentary committee had demanded that those documents be turned over. I think it is a pattern of these Liberals. I once heard a very smart person say that the Liberals want an audience. They do not want an opposition. They do not want us to fulfill our constitutional obligation to hold them to account, and that is precisely what is happening in our committees right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member spends all of his time in the House. He should be out watching the committees, as I am, to see the level of obstruction that is going on by the Liberal Party in almost every committee. The challenge right now is that the Liberals know they do not have the majority on every committee, so their only process in not allowing the opposition members, whether they are the Conservatives or the Bloc Québécois, to deal with important committee business is to take their ball, go home, and have their Liberal chairs cancel the meetings, or worse yet, call for a suspension and then never come back, as they did in one of the committees, despite the fact that they had seven hours of additional resources available to them. The Liberals are obstructing democracy in this place, not the opposition parties.”
“In conclusion, we demand, on behalf of Canadians, that the Liberals end their obstruction and start being accountable for every dollar they spend, law they propose and incursion of freedom they attempt to do.”
“The Minister of Jobs and Families , the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure , the Minister of Health , the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement , the Minister of Public Safety , the Minister of Transport , the Minister of Industry , the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance have all failed to appear before committees on the supplementary estimates. Billions of tax dollars are going unscrutinized before they go out the door. The list goes on. There is a lot more to say on the Liberal attack on and decline in our democracy, and the attack on committees, but I am short on time.”
“The Minister of Artificial Intelligence has failed to appear at the ethics committee, despite 11 requests to do so, or the status of women committee as it conducts studies on the various impacts of AI on Canadian life. The Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature has ignored three invitations from the environment committee related to the industrial carbon tax, the global carbon tax on marine transport and the EV mandate. The Minister of Indigenous Services has failed to appear at the indigenous affairs committee to respond to the Auditor General's report on progress for indigenous communities.”
“The finance minister refused the request of the industry committee to appear with respect to the Stellantis contract, despite the fact that he was the minister who signed the deal and the contract in the first place, which has yet to demonstrate any form of job guarantee for Canadian workers. The public safety minister refused to appear at the transport committee as part of its investigation into security concerns around the decision of the Infrastructure Bank to fund the purchase of new vessels from China for BC Ferries. The Liberals have run interference to prevent the Minister of Industry from appearing at the public safety committee on Bill C-8 , even though their proposed law would give her sweeping powers to remove the Internet from citizens.”
“The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety were also invited to participate as witnesses in the justice committee study on the bail system. Both ministers declined to participate. This dynamic duo was repeatedly invited to the status of women committee to participate in its study of section 810 of the Criminal Code and women's safety. Again, they have ignored that invitation. The Minister of Justice was also invited to the national defence committee as part of its study on Bill C-11 , the military justice system modernization act, given that he would be responsible for the civilian process to deal with sexual harassment in the military. Again, he obstructed the work of the committee and refused to appear.”
“We are seeing similar obstruction tactics by chairs at other committees, such as at the finance, science and research, health, and human resources committees, and more. I am pleased to begin this important debate to allow members of the House to air the grievances they have with the conduct of the chairs of these committees. It is a committee Festivus, if one will. Unfortunately, Liberal chairs are not the only ones obstructing committee work. Ministers of the Crown are also direct participants in this obstruction. We have seen multiple absent ministers. The justice committee invited the Minister of Justice to appear in relation to his mandate and priorities on September 23. He has yet to appear.”
“If members consult the parliamentary website, they will see that the meeting that began on November 25 is still ongoing. As of now, this is a 13-day meeting. The Liberals began by filibustering for hours, which was followed by a multi-day suspension, another Standing Order 106(4) letter to force the recall of the committee, another four-hour filibuster by the Liberals and another multi-day suspension. At one point, the chair attempted to mislead committee members that a suspension would last 30 minutes, but then he exited out the back door and allowed the suspension to last for days. Rather than get answers for victims or prepare recommendations for expanded road safety, the Liberals are obstructing the work of the transport committee.”
“One might think this would have created some goodwill among parties at the committee table. It did not. (1535) [ Translation ] The committee conducted a study on the Driver Inc. issue and examined ways to improve highway safety. Opposition members proposed extending the study by two sessions in order to hear from victims of trucking accidents and obtain related documents from the government. The Liberals are determined not to show Canadians that the government is unable to keep them safe, so they have launched a procedural war against this motion. [ English ] To prevent debate, the Liberal chair cancelled meetings scheduled for November 18 and 20. The members of the opposition used an extraordinary tool to force an emergency meeting through Standing Order 106(4), which began on November 25.”
“While the Liberals obstruct their own agenda, the victims of crime are the ones who suffer. I will reiterate our offer: Conservatives would be pleased to set aside other work before the committee to see that Bill C-14 becomes law. Liberal obstruction goes far beyond just the justice committee. At the transport committee, the Conservative Party worked constructively and efficiently on Bill C-5 , the so-called Building Canada Act. I note that, since its passage, not one project has been listed in the national interest, and the promise the Liberals made to approve projects and build Canada remains unfulfilled. Conservatives secured several amendments to that bill, which included protections for indigenous people, as well as ethics and oversight provisions.”
“What did the Liberals do with our offer to work quickly on Bill C-14? They voted to adjourn debate. Instead, the Minister of Justice went rogue and made a deal with the Bloc to remove religious protections built into the Criminal Code as part of the hate speech bill, leading to division in their own caucus and a stalled agenda at the committee. Nevertheless, Conservatives agreed to work constructively through the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The Liberals secured committee resources through to midnight on December 2, but after passing just one clause that day, they quickly adjourned the meeting, preventing the committee from dealing with the amendment on the religious exemption. Since then, the chair refused to schedule a meeting on December 4 and has yet to put out a meeting notice for this week.”
“Rather than prioritize legislation on hate crimes or bail, the Liberals ran cover for an egregious court decision that eases sentences for perverts in possession of child pornography. They filibustered three meetings: November 6, November 18 and November 20. Following a filibuster on December 2, after it became clear that the Liberals were not serious about their hate crime bill, Conservatives moved that the committee prioritize the bail bill, Bill C-14 . Given the daily news reports of violent crimes being committed by repeat offenders, I would think the Liberals might have wanted to work with us to pass that bail law. Conservatives are of the view that, while the bill does not go nearly far enough to fix the broken bail system, a partial measure is better than nothing.”
“It also means that when opposition parties unite to hold the government to account, the government must comply with the will of the committee. However, rather than working constructively with opposition parties, the Liberals prefer to take their ball and go home. [ English ] Allow me to cite some examples of Liberal obstruction. At the justice committee, after Conservatives worked productively to receive witness testimony on Bill C-9 , the Liberal law on hate speech, the committee got bogged down by a Liberal filibuster on a Conservative motion that called for the strongest legislative response possible to the Supreme Court ruling that struck down mandatory prison time for those convicted of possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. That is right.”
“As part of my responsibilities, I make a point of observing a wide cross-section of standing committees and can report that Liberal obstruction tactics include purposely not scheduling meetings, intentionally withholding ministers from facing accountability at committee, preventing witnesses from testifying, lengthy filibusters and breaking procedural rules to their advantage. In a phrase, the Prime Minister treats Parliament like a corporate boardroom meant only to rubber-stamp his agenda. I have news for him and his government: This is a G7 democracy, not a meeting of shareholders. [ Translation ] This is a minority Parliament. Committees are composed in such a way that the Liberals must work with at least one opposition party to advance the government's agenda.”
“Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek concurrence on the first report of the Liaison Committee, which details the work of the standing committees of the House. I am doing so to sound the alarm over the systematic obstruction we are witnessing on multiple committee fronts, perpetrated by the Liberal government. I will split my time, as well, with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South . In addition to my work as chair of the ethics committee, I serve as the Conservative caucus committee coordinator.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is blaming climate change for the rise in food prices. The Liberals will say that things have never been better, but the reality is that things have never been worse. In Ontario, there were 8.7 million visits to a food bank, and grocery prices are expected to cost families $1,000 more in 2026. The Prime Minister said he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Well, the verdict is in, but there is still time for him to enter a plea deal on his lower grocery price promise. Will he plead guilty of breach of trust, fraud or both?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Well, the verdict is in. The 2026 “Canada's Food Price Report” warns that grocery costs will rise by 4% to 6% next year, meaning the average family of four will pay nearly $1,000 more, bringing annual food costs to over $17,500. One in four Canadian households is already food insecure, and Canadian families, seniors and single moms are being squeezed at the checkout. Why are these Liberals not cutting their inflationary spending, the industrial carbon tax and their new fuel tax, so that Canadians can afford to eat?”
“Therefore, I am very proud of the policies we put forward with respect to agriculture, and I am very proud to represent a riding that has agriculture in it.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very proud to represent the rural part of my riding in Innisfil. We have the largest privately held farm in Ontario and the largest onion farm in Canada. The policies we put forward would have directly impacted, in a positive way, farming communities. For example, the industrial carbon tax is still applied. Every time those farmers buy equipment, buy fertilizer and buy seed, all of that is applicable and has a cascading effect down the supply chain. The hon. member wonders why food inflation and food insecurity are so great in this country. It is a direct result of the failed economic policies of the government that are affecting farmers at the cost level. Those costs are being applied downstream, as well, to the end consumer.”
“He can make broad policy decisions that impact his company and his investments, like the tax credits, for example, in the budget implementation act, or nuclear deals with the United States in Washington, which his company owns. All this means that the blind trust is not really blind at all to the Prime Minister and that he can, in fact, use his position to influence policy decisions and make millions at the same time.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a simple response because the Prime Minister knows precisely what is in that blind trust. He set up the investment schemes, green infrastructure, etc. when he was advising the former prime minister, so he knows full well what is in that blind trust. The problem is that every policy decision he makes can and will, in some way, impact him and his corporate buddies. The Conflict of Interest Act, which the ethics committee is studying right now, has a massive hole that one could drive a truck through, and this is what the Prime Minister is applying right now, as it relates to the general application rule.”
“Madam Speaker, that got the member going. The truth hurts. Actually, everything I said is open source and based on testimony at the ethics committee and on some of the discussions and questions in the House. The difference is that the Prime Minister holds the levers of power in this country. Every decision he makes can and will benefit him, Liberal-connected insiders and his corporate buddies. When members of the opposition hold stocks, let us say in Brookfield, they do not hold the levers of power that will enrich themselves. The truth is the truth, and what I spoke today is the truth.”
“For people who support expansive government involvement in every aspect of our economy; subsidies given to companies that would otherwise invest their own capital; Brookfield's deep involvement in policies shaped by its former chair, the current Prime Minister , policies that he and the company stand to gain from; bloating debt and deficits that burden our families, seniors and future generations; and a system that gives Liberal insiders and lobbyists unfettered access to the Treasury while Canada drifts closer and closer towards a kleptocracy, this is the budget—”
“We found out last week that the Prime Minister met with Brookfield executives privately in the Prime Minister's office in October, which would cause a reasonable person to think that the screen is not being wilfully applied, given the fact that the Prime Minister is not supposed to have any interaction with Brookfield, either its people or its entities. Who cares? We all should, because democracy depends on trust. If Canadians believe that their leaders are making decisions to enrich their companies or themselves, confidence in our institution erodes even more than it has under the Liberals. This is not about partisan politics; it is about accountability. Canadians deserve leaders who serve the public interest, not private portfolios. My assessment of the budget is simple.”
“The Prime Minister knows what he owned before the blind trust was set up. Every time he makes a decision on infrastructure, energy or climate policy, or with tax incentives that are in the BIA, this will help Brookfield in areas where Brookfield is deeply invested. Questions should arise. Is any given policy for Canadians, for Brookfield or for the Prime Minister? Critics will argue that they have set up a blind trust and an ethics screen, and that this is enough to ensure public confidence and trust, but Brookfield's interest from artificial intelligence, modular housing, carbon capture, nuclear and the transition model of public risk for private return he set up while advising Trudeau will make the Prime Minister millions, and he knows it. Furthermore, the screen is administered by two political appointees of the Prime Minister .”
“Having Trudeau in power was a dream come true for the incestuous cabal of Liberal elites. While Trudeau was playing prime minister, the pieces being put into place to ensure that many if not all of the public financial instruments, green investment funds and policies the Prime Minister started pushing when he was pulling Trudeau's strings as his economic adviser aligned with Brookfield's strategy and success. Last week we found out from Brookfield's chief operating officer that the Prime Minister stands to make millions in carried interest payments from his company's success related to climate and infrastructure schemes he set up. These funds could generate tens of millions of dollars in carried interest for the Prime Minister personally, depending on their performance over the next decade. However, here is the problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister said “Who cares?” during his visit to the U.A.E. recently about the state of trade talks with the U.S., he meant it, and here is why. No one should be naive in thinking that the Prime Minister left a $1-trillion company, making millions of dollars in both salary and deferred compensations, for some virtuous reason to make $400,000 as the Prime Minister, to negotiate a trade deal or save us from ourselves. Almost everything in the budget implementation act is set up to use the power of the Prime Minister's Office to benefit a group of well-connected Liberal insiders, lobbyists and the Prime Minister's corporate buddies. This was a process that started in 2020, when the Prime Minister was appointed as the economic adviser to Justin Trudeau while still acting as chair of Brookfield Asset Management.”
“Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Proposed Review of the Conflict of Interest Act”.”
“Madam Speaker, Brookfield's COO also confirmed that the umbilical cord between the Prime Minister and his company will stay attached until 2034, because the fund the Prime Minister set up will mature then. That means if it does well, he does really well. Here is the problem. He knows full well what is in his blind trust and is using the power of his office to promote policies that benefit his company and him. AI, modular housing, carbon capture, nuclear and the transition model of public risk for private returns he set up while advising Trudeau will make him millions. How is this ethical, if not illegal?”
“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister 's trust may be blind, but the math is not. This week, we found out from Brookfield's chief operating officer that the Prime Minister stands to make millions in carried interest payments from his company's success related to the climate and infrastructure schemes he set up. Many, if not all, of the public financial instruments, funds and policies the Prime Minister started pushing when he was pulling Trudeau's strings as his economic adviser in 2020 align with Brookfield's strategy and success. How is it ethical when the Prime Minister is using the power of his office to benefit him and his company?”
“I think this was early 2012; I am gapping on the date, but there was $59 million, as I said, that was dedicated towards the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, so members of the coalition are asking for the restoration of that fund. Again, as I said, they are asking to “Anchor Lake Simcoe Within the Federal Freshwater Action Plan”. My colleagues and I, in ridings that surround Lake Simcoe, have written numerous environmental ministers. We have written the Prime Minister , pleading with the government to restore the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, which was a dedicated fund that saw measurable improvements, that put boots on the ground and that worked with the conservation authorities to make sure that the health and vitality of Lake Simcoe was to be protected, not just for now, but for generations to come.”
“As an invasive species, it has the potential to create incredible damage. (1725) In its executive summary, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition talked about what we see 16 years after the Lake Simcoe protection plan, which was a provincial initiative. It said, “The costs of inaction are mounting. Declining water quality drives higher municipal expenses for stormwater systems, with significant deferred maintenance for stormwater ponds and linear drainage assets”. It said that the “watershed remains under significant ecological stress.” The report, and the review of the report, talked about the current scientific conditions and the policy trends, and they were asking that Lake Simcoe have a dedicated fund that is directed, again, in a similar way to what the Conservatives had initiated.”
“We depend on the lake for many things, not to mention drinking water, which is drawn from that lake as well. In the report, the coalition talked about the current state of the lake. It talked about phosphorus pollution, fish habitat and fish health. It talked about invasive species. It stated, “Quagga mussels have overtaken zebra mussels; round goby are widespread; starry stonewort is entrenched, though it has gone through 'boom and bust' cycles; and in 2024, water soldier was confirmed near Keswick and Innisfil as a significant emerging threat”. In fact, through a friend of mine, Barry Wiszniowski, I had an opportunity to fly over the lake in his aircraft. We flew over the water soldier that is now permeating and rising above Cook's Bay. It is quite relevant and prevalent in Cook's Bay right now.”
“In 2019, the former finance minister came to the shores of Lake Simcoe and promised a restoration of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. Conservatives had made a commitment to restore it, and the Liberals have reneged on that offer since then. We have not seen one dime coming to Lake Simcoe. There was an announcement of some minor funding, but in terms of that protection plan, that dedicated fund for Lake Simcoe, we have not seen it at all. Just two days ago, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition issued a report on the current health of Lake Simcoe. I will remind members again that it is the largest freshwater lake in Ontario. It is a four-season destination. The economic benefits of Lake Simcoe, as a four-season destination, are hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. It is generated in businesses, seasonal fishing and cottages.”
“There are minor increases in funding, but one thing that is not in the budget implementation act, nor was it in the budget, is the restoration of the long-standing demand that I have made and members whose ridings surround Lake Simcoe have made. It is about the health, sustainability and viability of that precious crown jewel. There is not one dime allocated toward the health and the protection of Lake Simcoe. I am profoundly disappointed. We made a commitment to reinstate the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. There was $59 million initiated by the Conservative government back under former prime minister Stephen Harper. We saw measurable improvements in Lake Simcoe's health, quality and invasive species, as well as the land restoration surrounding the lake. It was having a dramatic impact.”
“Those are staggering numbers, and this is really going to impact affordability for Canadians. It adds $10 million to our debt every hour, and the federal debt is now $1.35 trillion. The interest on the debt will be $55.6 billion for 2025-26, and that is more than the Canadian health transfers of $54.7 billion. GST revenue is $54.4 billion, and it amounts to about $3,360 per Canadian household. The GDP has already grown. It is just getting worse. I want to spend my time focusing on something that is not in the budget. It is a critical issue for us locally in central Ontario, particularly in the riding that I represent and the riding of the member for Simcoe—Grey , who is sitting behind me right now. We have many members who have an interest in Lake Simcoe and the health of Lake Simcoe. The Canada Water Agency is addressed in the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak fast because I have a lot to cover in seven minutes. A lot has been said about the budget implementation act over the last several days. There are a couple of highlights I want to focus on. The first thing I want to talk about is the deficit. We heard that it is up to $78 billion. It was supposed to be $62 billion. The Prime Minister promised a lower debt-to-GDP ratio. He is raising both it and inflation. He promised to spend less. He is spending $90 billion more, and that works out to about $5,400 more in inflationary spending per household when families can least afford it. He is adding $321.7 billion to the federal debt over the next five years. That is more than twice the $154 billion that Trudeau would have added over the same period. Let us think about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a hard-working member. His riding is adjacent to mine. He is well-respected in his community. I know he works hard. I know he is dealing with an issue that I am keeping an eye on. He referenced the DND expropriation of almost 4,000 acres of farmland. This is prime agricultural land. There are generational family farms. The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture is engaged, trying to do everything it can to stop this. Could the member comment a little further? Obviously, when land is expropriated, people do not get the true value for it, and all the significant investments that farmers have made in that area will be lost as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, he shrugs off critical trade talks with a smug “Who cares?” Here is something he cannot shrug off that everyone should care about. Despite the conflict of interest and ethics screen he has on Brookfield, we found out this week that the Prime Minister met with Brookfield executives behind closed doors in his office in October, proving that his ethics screen is more like a smokescreen. The Prime Minister and Brookfield stand to gain millions from his policies. He knows he cannot have any contact with those at Brookfield, but he met with them anyway. Why would he meet with Brookfield knowing he is barred from having any contact with it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says Canadians need to sacrifice more and accept a lower standard of living and quality of life, while he says “Who cares?” about critical trade talks with the U.S., acting more like an advance team for Brookfield than standing up for Canadians. Everywhere he goes, a deal for Brookfield follows while tariffs stay in place or go up. We learned this week that the Prime Minister stands to make millions in bonuses from Brookfield's success. Why does the Prime Minister have his elbows up for himself and his Brookfield buddies, but says “Who cares?” about Canadian businesses and working families affected by tariffs?”
“By donating or volunteering, we can make a real difference in the lives of our neighbours and strengthen the bonds that make our communities so special. This Christmas, let us come together to share kindness and ensure that everyone can experience the joy of the season.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we begin the Christmas season, it is important to remember the spirit of giving and compassion that defines the time of year. In Barrie and Innisfil, local charities, such as Community for Kids, Christmas Cheer, Senior Wish Association, the Salvation Army, our local churches and the Rotary clubs, work tirelessly to support families, provide meals and bring hope to those in need. Food banks in both Barrie and Innisfil have seen a demand increase and a rise in use. Speaking with Barrie Food Bank executive director Karen Shuh over the weekend, I learned that it has seen a 16% increase in usage year over year. Sadly, people who never imagined they would have to use the food bank now are. The same is true in Innisfil.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is the Liberals' response to the interim PBO's warnings? They put him on notice that they will be looking to replace him with someone who has “tact and discretion”. Presumably, that means replacing the budget watchdog with someone from the Prime Minister 's inner circle of corporate buddies, who take their marching orders from him. The independence and oversight of the budget watchdog is designed to call out deception and raise the alarm, to ensure that every MP and Canadian knows when the books are being cooked. Why are the watchdogs who are challenging the wolves on the credit card budget being threatened?”
“Mr. Speaker, every Canadian should be thanking their lucky stars that we have a Parliamentary Budget Officer whose job it is to be independent and honest about the state of government deficits, debts and spending. The budget watchdog, last week, called out the creative accounting in the Prime Minister 's credit card budget, saying that he is using “a definition of capital investment that expands beyond the current treatment in the Public Accounts and international practice”. In other words, the Prime Minister is cooking the books, and his out-of-control deficit is pouring more gas on the debt and deficit fires. How many more alarms must go off for the Prime Minister to rein in his spending in his credit card budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, no one who aspires to become prime minister or a member of Parliament should profit from things they conceal among their private assets. [ English ] We talked a lot about, and there has been some testimony about, complete divestment of holdings in order to ensure that designated public office holders are not subject to the perception among the public that there is an alternative reason as to why they are in that position, for profit.”
“We heard from the deputy clerk of the Privy Council, for example, during transportation committee hearings, that it takes a whole department to look after the Prime Minister's conflicts, so we want to make sure we have the right people in front of us, including the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's chief of staff, to ensure that the screens are being properly applied and that the Prime Minister is not in conflict.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that it is the job of the ethics committee, as an oversight committee, to hold the government to account. It is majority-led for a reason, by a majority of members of the opposition, and it is our job to provide oversight. There are other committees that do that as well, but it is critical, as I said, that Canadians have transparency and accountability and are confident in the ability of the Conflict of Interest Act to hold designated public officers to account, and it is also critical in the appearance of conflicts. In the case of the Prime Minister , in an example I gave earlier, he has 103 different conflicts of interest declared and over 550 stocks held in the United States.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will say this: The report's being presented in the House and being concurred in is a requirement in order for the ethics committee not just to continue its study but also to eventually present a report to the House. There were Liberal members on the committee who agreed with our having the House concur in it. At some point the concurrence motion had to come to the House. Today was the day, and I would hope that the member is not opposed to the committee's work on improving and increasing the transparency and accountability of designated public office holders.”
“Therefore, we want to ensure that public trust is restored, that designated public officers are held to the highest standard and that we review and modernize the Conflict of Interest Act to reflect the modern realities of Canada today.”