Michael Cooper
St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a supplementary report on behalf of the Conservative members of the committee. The Conservatives would have liked to see additional recommendations with a view toward strengthening the integrity of our elections, including an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to require electors residing abroad to provid…”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since legislation was passed to establish a foreign influence registry. Two years later, the Liberals have missed every deadline to get the registry up and running. On what date will the foreign influence registry finally be fully operational?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25 , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, at the third reading stage. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of measures in this bill that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act, which Conservatives welcome.”
“(2235) I have to say that, ironically, to the degree that third parties would be captured by the general rule versus third parties that would not and would be captured by the exception, or could take advantage of the exception, I expect that in general it would be the smaller, grassroots-oriented third parties that would be subject to the…”
“This is much like how, as a general rule, third parties would be required to use and be limited to contributions from individual Canadians. That is all very good. That is in the bill, and we support that.”
“to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates.”
The complete record
Every one of 343 lines we hold for Michael Cooper, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 7.
“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. (1645) 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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague spoke about the Prime Minister 's so-called ethics screen. This is a screen that is unprecedented in scope. It is being administered solely by the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council, who are determining what the Prime Minister sees and does not see based on an ambiguous proportionality standard. There are no checks and balances. There is no reporting mechanism. There is no assurance that the screen is being triggered appropriately when it should be. One witness said the only assurance Canadians have is the basis of trust and faith. It would seem to me that this so-called ethics screen is nothing more than a smokescreen. Would the hon. member agree?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about some of the deficiencies with the Prime Minister 's blind trust. What good is a blind trust with respect to the carried interest payments to the tune of tens of millions of dollars that the Prime Minister stands to reap? It appears that, in the case of those carried interest payments, it is Canadians who are blind to them, while the Prime Minister is fully aware of what holdings are in the funds that are the basis upon which he will garner profits in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition with respect to brain cancer research and treatments. The petitioners note that an estimated 27 Canadians are diagnosed with a brain tumour each day. Canada is years behind the U.S. in approving new drugs and treatments, and even when new brain cancer therapies are approved, there continues to be a shortage of brain cancer drugs in Canada, with some medications even being discontinued. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to increase funding for brain cancer research and work with the provinces and territories to ensure that drugs, medical services and new therapies are accessible and to remove unnecessary red tape so that brain cancer drugs can be approved more quickly.”
“Instead of lecturing young Canadians, perhaps the Prime Minister should get a grip, own up to 10 years of Liberal failure and reverse course on his disastrous policies.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Prime Minister told a room full of students that they need to make sacrifices. Evidently, from the Prime Minister's globalist jet-setting vantage point, young Canadians have never had it so good. He could not be more wrong. He could not be more out of touch. If the Prime Minister had any grip on reality, he would know that after 10 years of the Liberals, young Canadians have sacrificed enough. They have sacrificed with skyrocketing food costs, they have sacrificed without jobs in the face of the worst employment numbers in 30 years, and they have sacrificed the dream of owning a home, with home ownership unattainable for three quarters of young Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, not only did the CRA fail to meet its service standard 95% of the time, but last year, 8.6 million calls to the CRA went unanswered. If callers were lucky enough to get through, the CRA gave wrong information 83% of the time. What is the Liberals' solution? It is to increase the CRA's budget even more. They cannot make this stuff up. Have the Liberals learned absolutely nothing after 10 years of failure?”
“Mr. Speaker, never before has a government spent so much and delivered so little. The latest example is the CRA. Under the Liberals, the CRA's budget increased by a staggering 70%, yet according to the Auditor General, the CRA has failed to meet its service standard a shocking 95% of the time. How is it possible that every time the Liberals spend more, Canadians get less?”
“Mr. Speaker, that, sadly, is the record of the Liberals. At every step of the way, they have dragged their feet. They say that this is needed, that this is the solution: take jurisdiction out of the code of service discipline when it comes to sexual offences and transfer it into the civilian system. That recommendation was recommendation 5 of Madam Deschamps' report, which was 10 years ago. Then the Liberals proceeded to have Justice Fish issue a report, and then they asked Justice Arbour to undertake the same study, the same review, that Madam Justice Deschamps had undertaken years earlier. It is a record of inaction. It is a record of failure.”
“Mr. Speaker, I concur with the hon. member that there are cultural issues that have to be tackled. There have also been well-documented instances of a failure to hold certain leaders within the Canadian Armed Forces accountable. It is not necessarily the systems that are in place and the code of service discipline that are the problem; it is what have been instances of a lack of accountability by individuals who have failed. Regrettably, the government was complicit in that regard when it played a major role in covering up the wrongdoing of Vance. That cover-up went all the way to the top, right to the former prime minister and to his chief of staff, Katie Telford.”
“Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the member. There are a lot of nuances to the bill. There are a lot of details that have to be sorted, and there may very well be some amendments required to get it right, and that is why we are committed to seeing that the bill move forward to committee today.”
“I know that my Conservative colleagues on the national defence committee look forward to working with members on all sides of the House to hear from as many witnesses as possible, first and foremost from victims of sexual assault but also from actors within the military justice system, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, victims groups and so on. We need to have a thorough study to deal with some of the complexities that have to be addressed in what is a well-intentioned bill, the objective of which I support. We need to get it right, first and foremost for victims of sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces who deserve a safe workplace, and we need to ensure, when it comes to the Canadian Armed Forces, that there is an improvement in the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale.”
“We also need to better understand to what extent the bill would improve the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces now that the investigations of sexual assaults and sexual misconduct would largely fall outside of the chain of command and be transferred to the civilian authorities, absent a clear chain of responsibilities. To what degree would that impact how occurrences of sexual misconduct are handled, and to what extent might that put certain victims of sexual assault in a more vulnerable position? These are some of the many questions that need to be addressed.”
“I want to know to what extent that is working as intended. To what degree are these cases being prosecuted? What has been the rate of conviction? How are historical cases of sexual assault being proceeded with now that they fall within the jurisdiction of the civilian authorities? I understand there have been some challenges in that regard. What about the extent to which prosecutions have been stayed because of a very real and serious backlog in our court system, having regard for the Jordan decision, which imposes a very strict timeline between the laying of charges and the conclusion of a trial, failing which there is a presumption of unreasonable delay and a stay of proceedings? I understand that this too has been an issue. We need answers to these questions.”
“If concurrent jurisdiction of the code of service discipline is objectionable in the case of sexual offences, then should it not perhaps be considered objectionable in the case of other offences? I say that in recognition of the uniqueness of sexual assault cases in terms of investigating and prosecuting them. I recognize that, but it does raise questions about whether the bill is a piecemeal or ad hoc approach to reform rather than a fully thought-out and comprehensive set of reforms to our military justice system. (1030) I would, furthermore, ask what evidence there is that simply transferring the cases to the civilian authorities serves victims. I say that because there was a directive to the Minister of National Defence issued in November of 2021 to begin transferring sexual offence cases to the civilian authorities.”
“That being said, I would submit that the bill warrants careful scrutiny when it is studied at committee. The legislation essentially stands for the proposition that the code of service discipline, the military justice system, is not fit for purpose, is not suitable and cannot be trusted to investigate offences of sexual assault and other sexual misconduct. That is the essence of the bill, whether the government would characterize it in that fashion or not. It begs the question then, if that is so, what about other serious offences? The code of service discipline, after all, would apply to all other criminal offences within the Canadian Armed Forces; indeed, it would continue to apply to offences of a sexual nature where those offences are alleged to have arisen outside Canada.”
“With respect to the substance of the bill, it would transfer jurisdiction from the code of service discipline to civilian authorities with respect to the investigation and prosecution of offences of a sexual nature within the Canadian Armed Forces. By way of background, I will say that the purpose of the code of service discipline is to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. That broad proposition has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1992 Généreux decision and the more recent 2019 Stillman decision, and it is stated in section 55 of the National Defence Act. Conservatives stand with victims first and foremost, and it is on that basis that we will be supporting the legislation at second reading.”
“The government of the day, the Harper Conservative government, committed to implementing all 10 recommendations of the Deschamps report. Of course shortly thereafter, there was a change of government. There was the election of the Liberals, and nothing was done. It is quite rich to see members across the way patting themselves on the back for introducing the legislation, because if in fact the legislation is the answer to addressing very real issues and challenges within the Canadian Armed Forces with respect to dealing with allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, then the Liberals have a lot to answer for, because it has taken them a full 10 years in government to finally introduce the legislation. However, I digress.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-11 , the military justice system modernization act. In short, the bill would amend the National Defence Act by removing investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction in respect of sexual offences from the code of service discipline and would transfer such jurisdiction to civilian authorities on an exclusive basis to the extent that such offences are alleged to have arisen within Canada. The legislation would implement recommendation 5 of the report of Madam Justice Deschamps, in which she undertook an external review of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment within the Canadian Armed Forces. Recommendation 5 is the only recommendation that requires a legislative change. I would note that the report of Madam Justice Deschamps was issued all the way back in March 2015.”
“Mr. Speaker, cases of a sexual nature have been transferred to civilian authorities since the minister issued a directive to that affect in November 2021. Can the member speak to how that is working with regard, for example, to historical sexual assault cases, and I understand there have been some challenges with that, as well as the backlog we face in our courts and the implications of the Jordan decision?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from petitioners who call upon the government to repeal Bill C-47 so that natural health products are no longer regulated in the same manner as therapeutic chemical drugs. The petitioners note that natural health products are already appropriately regulated and that the legislation would jeopardize Canadians' access to NHPs, would threaten the Canadian natural health product industry and would make the supplements and vitamins Canadians rely on more costly.”
“Madam Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety was caught on tape admitting that the Liberals' gun buyback is a $750-million scam, all about gaining votes for the Liberals and nothing to do with public safety. The minister even counselled his tenant to break the law and keep his now-illegal firearm. Given the minister's complete lack of confidence in his own $750-million scheme, will he do what is right, save his reputation and resign?”
“It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean and to disclose the full extent of his financial interests, including the extent to which—”
“Madam Speaker, just like Justin was, the current Prime Minister is compromised by Beijing. In September 2024, he became the head of Trudeau's task force on economic growth. Two weeks later, the Prime Minister's company Brookfield secured a $250-million loan from a Beijing state-controlled bank, indebting himself to a hostile regime. Since then, he has refused to come clean and disclose the full extent of his financial interests, including the extent to which he is indebted to Beijing. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Prime Minister , who has repeatedly lavished absurd praise on Beijing, was silent this week when Taiwan was excluded from the ICAO assembly and has been silent on Beijing's atrocious human rights record?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. The Prime Minister , in his capacity as head of transition funding at Brookfield, raised capital of $27 billion for three funds. He hand-picked the companies; therefore, he knows what public policy decisions may ultimately impact the value of his future performance pay, which is tied to these funds. Canadians deserve transparency, and they deserve disclosure. I am simply asking for the Prime Minister to be transparent, to come clean and to disclose all of his financial interests. Why will he not do that?”
“The Prime Minister needs to come clean and disclose the full extent of his financial interests in Brookfield Asset Management, including the many companies to which tens of millions of dollars of his future performance pay—”
“The Prime Minister will say there is nothing to see and everything is on the up and up because he has set up a blind trust, but I ask what good a blind trust is when the Prime Minister knows the companies that these funds are invested in and, therefore, knows which public policy decisions may impact upon their profitability, which, in turn, is tied directly to the value of the Prime Minister's future performance pay. When the Prime Minister talks about a blind trust, it is not the Prime Minister who is blind. It is Canadians who are blind. It is Canadians who are left in the dark in respect of a multitude of potential conflicts of interest involving the Prime Minister in such public policy areas as transport, finance, energy and infrastructure. Canadians deserve transparency.”
“Very simply, it is because, according to the Prime Minister 's ethics disclosure, he is entitled to carried interest payments from these funds, which are potentially worth tens of millions of dollars. To be clear, carried interest payments are essentially bonus pay based upon the performance of these investment funds. What is completely lacking from the Prime Minister's ethics disclosures is which companies the Prime Minister's performance pay is tied to.”
“More specifically, the Prime Minister continues to hide the full extent of his financial interests in the trillion-dollar investment firm Brookfield Asset Management, for which he served not only as board chair but also as head of transition investing. The National Post reported that, during the time the Prime Minister served as Brookfield's head of transition investing, he coled efforts to raise capital for two very large clean energy funds: the global transition fund and the second global transition fund. He was also involved in raising funds for a third Brookfield investment fund shortly before he ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party to become the Prime Minister of Canada. Why does that matter?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I posed to the government in May relating to the Prime Minister 's financial holdings, potential conflicts of interest and his total lack of transparency concerning these matters. At the time, the Prime Minister was hiding behind an ethics loophole in Canada's ethics laws by hiding his assets from public disclosure. Finally, in July, the Prime Minister's ethics disclosure was quietly released. Canadians deserve to have the assurance that policy decisions made by the Prime Minister in no way further his private interests. From that standpoint, the Prime Minister's ethics disclosure is completely inadequate insofar as it provides a vague outline of the Prime Minister's financial interests, but not the full and complete picture.”
“Mr. Speaker, it does not end there. On tape, the minister admitted that the buyback rips off law-abiding firearms owners when he promised his frustrated tenant to personally pay the difference in value for his confiscated firearm. He went from counselling his tenant to break the law to promising to bail him out and then trying to appease him by cutting a cheque. How many ethical lapses is it going to take before the Prime Minister fires this incompetent minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety got caught on tape telling his tenant that he need not worry about the Liberals' $750-million gun buyback program, because he could simply ignore it. The minister then proceeded to joke that he would bail him out if he got arrested. In other words, the Minister of Public Safety effectively counselled his tenant to break the law. In the face of this serious ethical lapse, will the Prime Minister fire the minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, after six months, the Prime Minister 's record can be summed up as “promises made, promises broken”. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7; instead, he has delivered the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. The Prime Minister promised jobs and investment; he has killed 86,000 jobs and presided over a massive outflow of investment. The Prime Minister promised to spend less; it turns out, deficit spending has doubled. The Prime Minister promised nation-building projects; the record shows there are no new permits, no new projects, and I could go on. Promise after promise is made; promise after promise is broken. With the Prime Minister , it is a broken record of broken promises. Canadians deserve so much better.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the 42nd ICAO Assembly sets to convene in Montreal, Canada's democratic ally Taiwan continues to be excluded from ICAO. Taiwan's exclusion is about one thing and one thing only, bending to Beijing's bullying, and it has to stop. Taiwan is the 11th largest aviation market in the world and serves as a vital global hub. Excluding one of the world's largest and most responsible airspace managers creates a dangerous gap. It undermines global aviation safety and, frankly, makes a mockery of ICAO's stated mission. It is time for ICAO to stop placating the Beijing dictatorship, put global aviation safety first and invite Taiwan to participate at the assembly.”
“Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114 and the motion adopted by the House on Thursday, June 5, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, do members know what it is called when a company submits an invoice and accepts payment for work that was not done? It is called fraud. It is called theft. Under the Liberals, GC Strategies robbed taxpayers for millions. Will the Liberals finally take responsibility and vote with the Conservatives to get taxpayers their money back?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General found no proof of work in nearly half of the contracts awarded to GC Strategies. The Liberals gave millions to GC Strategies to do literally nothing. Taxpayers deserve a refund and deserve it now, so will the Liberals support our Conservative motion to get taxpayers their money back, yes or no?”
“Mr. Chair, it sounds a lot like the same old government with the same non-answers and no accountability. Has the government taken any action, any steps against GC Strategies to recover millions of taxpayer dollars for work that was not done, anything?”
“Mr. Chair, millions of taxpayer dollars improperly went out the door to GC Strategies under the Liberal government's watch. All day, Liberal MPs referenced this mysterious legal action against GC Strategies. Does it exist, yes or no?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister has increased, through the estimates, the budget for contractors by $7 billion. My question related specifically to the contracting practices of the Liberal government as it pertains to arrive scam. How much money has been recovered to date? Is the number zero?”
“Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South , as well as the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington . On February 28 of last year, this House ordered the government to recover all funds paid to arrive scam contractors, who did no work, within 100 days. It has been 16 months since that House order. As of today, how much money has been recovered?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have seen no meaningful action taken on the part of the Liberals to get the money back. All we have seen, in fact, is the government's thumbing its nose at the will of the House of Commons, which ordered the government to recover all of the millions of dollars. As far as any proceedings go, no member on the other side of the aisle can cite the lawsuit, the amount sought and the parties named when— Some hon. members : Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, when someone submits a receipt and gets paid for work that they did not do, which is exactly what GC Strategies did, it is called fraud. That is what happened under the government's watch: $20 million for the arrive scam and millions more on non-arrive scam contracts. It is scandalous. It is criminal.”
“Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. I do not believe that we see evidence of accountability for those who engaged in wrongdoing. While it is important to see that those responsible for shovelling money out the door without seeing proof of work are fired, there also has to be responsibility on the part of ministers under whose watch tens of millions of dollars went out the door to GC Strategies and other contractors without proof of work. Thus far, the only response from the Liberals is that they are not responsible and that there is nothing to see here. There is plenty to see, and it is pretty ugly.”
“Mr. Speaker, to say that this was “a problematic procurement” is the understatement of the year. We are talking about 76% of contractors who got paid but did no work. The House, 16 months ago, ordered the government to recover all of the stolen money, not just from GC Strategies but also from the other contractors. It is now 16 months later, and I would challenge the member to prove me otherwise, but I believe that not a single cent has been recovered. With respect to proceedings that have been commenced, I would ask the hon. member or a member across the way to cite where the action has been filed, for what amount, and who are the parties who are named.”
“It is really about a systematic problem within the Liberal government, after 10 years. It is a damning indictment by the Auditor General. In the face of that, now that we have the Auditor General's report, now that we have learned the extent of the abuse of taxpayer dollars, taxpayers deserve their money back, and they deserve their money back now. That is why we have put forward the motion: so that the House can order the government to immediately commence proceedings to do just that, to get taxpayers their money back and to make taxpayers whole again in the face of this outrageous abuse, this outrageous corruption, all under the government's watch.”
“It would be comforting if one were to say, “Well, as bad as this is, it's an isolated incident”, but of course that is not the case. After all, the audit involves 35 contracts across 21 departments and federal organizations, so it cannot be said that it was one department or a handful of rogue bureaucrats. We have also seen other instances of this type of abuse involving other contractors under the Liberal government's watch, such as McKinsey. However, putting that aside, members do not have to take my word for it in terms of the degree to which this is a systematic problem; they can take the word of the Auditor General, who said in the media, “I have no reason to believe that the lack of following the rules is linked to a specific vendor. This is really about the public service”.”