The ethics screen facade: What Liberals AREN'T telling you | Michael Cooper EXPOSES ethics loophole

Ajouté : 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]Uh thank you Mr. Chair and uh I want to speak to the sub amendment put forward by Mr. Barrett.

[00:00:11]Want to take a a step back to provide some context as to what it is that is before this committee. Uh the mo the sub amendment put forward by Mr. Barrett calls on and would mandate that the prime minister's office, privy council office disclose to the committee every time that a decision is made with respect to the prime minister's ethics screen.

[00:00:52]Now, it's important to note that with respect to the ethics screen, that this was a screen that was set up at the insistence of the ethics commissioner in the face of the prime minister's extensive conflicts related to primarily, but not exclusively uh to Brookfield.

[00:01:23]Now the prime minister, chief of staff and the clerk of privy council last fall came before this committee and provided the assurance that the screen was being robustly used and that an assessment tool was created within the PCO and the PMO to guide the prime minister's chief of staff and the clerk of the privy council, both of whom are charged with the responsibility of administering the screen uh to be able to do so effectively.

[00:02:07]and the assessment tool that they provided a copy of to this committee they tabled before this committee contains u an analysis a stepbystep analysis.

[00:02:26]Uh it sets out the matters that must be included in the screen and the matters that must be included uh relate to any direct engagement by uh Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Corporation or Stripe Inc. and the companies listed in annexa of the prime minister's conflict of interest screen. In other words, the companies in which the prime minister has declared a conflict in relation to.

[00:02:54]Now we know that the prime minister has other conflicts that are not in the screen that he didn't disclose but that's a separate issue. There are uh 103 companies or 103 conflicts listed in annexa. So the matters that must be included in the screen relate to any direct engagement with respect to those companies listed. uh the tool that the PCO and PMO designed then goes on to provide or or set out the matters requiring assessment and the screen of EB tool notes that certain sectors warrant specific attention including uh real estate, mortgage insurance, the airline industry, the expansion of the nuclear industry, uh the expans expansion and investment in the renewable energy sector including solar, wind and hydro uh as well as the credit card industry.

[00:04:02]So then upon identifying is one of the listed companies captured by a matter that could be put before or a matter in which the prime minister could be engaged in um and does it particularly uh relate to any of these areas where given the prime minister's declared interest has interests in relation to real estate, mortgage insurance, the airline industry, the nuclear industry, the renewable energy sector, the credit card industry, those sectors that have been specifically identified as red flags.

[00:04:47]There is then an analysis that is undertaken if if if it if if it is triggered and that is with the threshold question what is the prime minister's involvement what decision is being sought from the prime minister what matter is he being asked to discuss or engage on and then so that that that is the that's professional question that's what must be answered and the tool then uh provides matters that must be included in the screen. Does the decision or discussion involve direct engagement between Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Corporation, Stripe, Inc. or any of the companies listed in annexa and the government of Canada. uh example contracting for goods and services applications for funding meetings and then matters requiring assessment are the interests of one of the companies involved in the decision or discussion and if so what in what way is the decision or discussion in relation to a matter of general application. Does the decision or discussion involve the interest of at least one of the companies as a member of a broad class of persons or entities? If the decision or discussion applies to a broad class, is the interest slashbenefit of at least one of the companies disproportionate to those of the other members? Uh another question if the decision or discussion is one not of general application and does not apply to a broad class or two there is a disproportionate interest/benefit despite being applicable to a broad class. Is there a direct link between the prime minister's involvement and the opportunity to further one of the company's interests? And then it pro the the tool provides examples to assist with the assessment.

[00:06:54]And uh examples include questions of a general application such as if the decision or discussion applies to an undetermined group of people or companies then the matter is a general application.

[00:07:13]uh if the decision or a discussion applies to a regulated activity and to an indefinite group then the matter is not of a general application.

[00:07:25]If the decision or discussion applies to a particular entity person or group of entities or persons or to a particular situation then the matter is not of general application.

[00:07:37]Further examples to assist with the assessment include questions related to a broad class.

[00:07:44]So in those questions include if the decision or discussion applies to a large number of entities or people who may have different characteristics but share at least one important characteristic such as teachers, homeowners, lawyers, financial services companies, etc. Then the matter applies to a broad class. If the decision or discussion applies to a small group, then the matter does not apply to a broad class. Uh if the decision or discussion applies to a larger group, but one of the companies has a disproportionate interest/benefit, then the matter does not apply to a broad class. A disproportionate interest/benefit refers to an imbalance in proportion to others. So this is the tool that is being used.

[00:08:31]These are the questions that are supposedly being analyzed to determine whether a matter should be put or can appropriately be put before the prime minister or whether it should not be put in front of the prime minister, whether the matter be kept at arms length from the prime minister.

[00:08:53]And for the purpose we were told of transparency and accountability.

[00:09:07]This analysis is documented.

[00:09:12]It's documented in a two-page template that is filled in.

[00:09:27]And upon that two-page analysis, the prime minister's chief of staff and the clerk of the privy council make a decision as to whether the screen applies or does not apply. And if they can't make a decision then the they uh pursuant to the tool go seek more information. I mean those are the three options either they can make a decision that it applies or it doesn't apply or they need further information and then upon if in the event that they request further information then uh presumably that information is then provided and then a decision yes or no is made.

[00:10:18]Now the motion or the sub amendment of Mr. Barrett simply provides that this committee be able to see these two-page analyses that are conducted every time that there is a red flag.

[00:10:50]a red flag being that the prime minister may have a conflict of interest in relation to a matter. Not not that he does, but that he might.

[00:11:03]And what the liberals seem to be prepared to do is to say, well, uh, we'll provide you with the times in which the screen is invoked, that a determination is made, that the prime minister has a conflict.

[00:11:33]uh on a matter that isn't of a general application.

[00:11:37]uh that kicks in, of course, when a decision disproportionately impacts Brookfield's interests relative to other companies as part uh as part of a broad class or otherwise.

[00:11:58]But we won't provide you with the times that this form is filled out and the prime minister's chief of staff and the clerk of privy council say no, we don't believe that the prime minister has a conflict and can engage on the matter even though the matter would have to involve Brookfield or one of companies listed in annex A which relate to companies in which he has a declared conflict in relation to.

[00:12:46]And it it's really unclear as to what the rationale is in terms of why the Liberals seem to so strongly want to resist this, I think, common sense sub amendment from Mr. Barrett that would go a long way to providing transparency that Canadians deserve in knowing that the prime minister is not making decisions where he has a conflict of interest to have the assurance that the ethics screen which is supposedly a safeguard to prevent the prime minister from engaging in matters in which he has has a conflict of interest uh is being uh invoked appropriately and frankly if the prime minister really wants to stand behind the ethics screen and if we're to accept that everything has been done in such a robust way then I would have thought that the prime minister's office and liberals on the committee would be very eager to say, "Here it is.

[00:14:10]Here are the times that red flags have been raised. Here is the analysis that was undertaken. And in light of the analysis, here is the decision that was made by the chief of staff and the clerk of privy council. one way or another.

[00:14:32]Yes, it's good to know the times that the prime minister has I wouldn't say recuse himself because under the ethics screen, it's it's designed so that the prime minister that it isn't supposedly put in front of the prime minister. So, he wouldn't have to recuse himself. He would supposedly have no idea uh that this matter was before uh his government and he would be uh if it were used in the way that uh prime minister's office clerk privy council say it's int designed to do and and as the ethics commissioner asked that it be designed to do it would be to completely shield the prime minister from those decisions.

[00:15:20]So fine, uh, we need to know when that happens. But I would argue that as relevant, if not more relevant, are to know the times that there was a red flag that was issued and the decision was made that the prime minister could weigh in, even though it relates to a matter in which he has some sort of declared conflict in most in all likelihood related to Brookfield, not necessarily, but in all likelihood given the companies and entities that are listed uh in annexa.

[00:16:07]uh we haven't I I I've spoken a few times to this yesterday uh or at the la the last meeting on Monday and I said several times to the Liberal members if there's something that I'm missing here something that would clearly explain why it is that it's come that it's impossible or that there's some something problematic about disclosing the times that a decision is made by the chief of staff and the clerk. The prime minister doesn't have a conflict that rises to the threshold to invoke the ethics screen to provide what those reasons are.

[00:17:10]But no reasons have been offered or at least to the degree that some rationale has been put forward. It it it would seem to be completely uh inadequate in terms of an explanation as to to why uh this committee shouldn't be made aware of the times that a decision is made to not invoke the ethics screen in the face of a red flag relating to a conflict. Uh, one of the explanations that was provided was that it was cumbersome.

[00:17:51]That word might not have been precisely been used, but that was effectively one of the arguments that was put.

[00:18:01]And it's not clear to me how it could be cumbersome because we know that back in the fall when the clerk and chief staff came before this committee as we undertook a review of the conflict of interest act, we were told that the screen had been that the tool had been triggered 13 times in which a decision had to be made about whether to apply the screen or not apply the screen. that in seven on seven occasions uh a decision was made I I believe not to invoke the screen and six times the decision was made to invoke the screen or iter could have been the reverse of that but it was there were 13 occasions when there had been a red flag and a decision one way or another had been made. So that would have been uh as of the fall documents that amount to being 26 pages.

[00:19:02]uh 13 different sum summations, 13 different occasions where the chief of staff and the clerk signed off on the tool to uh answer the the the question ultimately. Do you concur that this issue engages or does not engage the application of the prime minister's conflict of interest screen?

[00:19:39]So what is cumbersome about that? What is difficult about that? Now we know in in terms of the update that has been provided to this committee that uh not surprisingly the the other conflicts have been plagued given that other decisions have been have come forward and that there were 14 occasions where the screen had been applied that a a a decision was made that yes in fact it does engage the prime minister's application of conflict of interest screen and therefore he should be shielded from having any knowledge or any involvement in respect of the matter.

[00:20:25]I would not if there were in the fall a total of 13 matters that came before the clerk and the chief of staff and and and now there were 14 times when it was applied after you know several months had passed. Uh we're we're not talking we couldn't be talking about hundreds of other occasions where there was a red flag. Uh we're probably talking about 14 15 maybe 20 times maybe 10 times that a decision was made that nova screen does not apply.

[00:21:07]So the notion that it is somehow burdensome is just not genuine.

[00:21:14]It's not an a reasonable explanation for saying that we as a committee, an oversight committee, the ethics committee shouldn't be privy to uh knowing the occasions when a decision is made that the screen not be invoked.

[00:21:37]The other another argument that was put forward was again I'm paraphrasing uh but in in in essence it was well that's just not how it works.

[00:21:53]Um that's not how it works. I'm sorry it's not how it works.

[00:22:03]They said the Liberal members said, "Well, there's the ethics commissioner, conflict of interest act.

[00:22:14]If there are matters that arise in which is thought that screen should have been invoked whereby the prime minister was in a conflict.

[00:22:33]uh that there is the ethics commissioner there and that there is a process in place through the ethics commissioner to deal with breaches of the conflict of interest act. And yet that's true.

[00:22:50]We do have an ethics commissioner, but it goes without saying that it becomes difficult, more difficult for members of parliament, opposition, members of members of the Liberal members if presuming assuming that they also are interested in oversight as as members of this committee to work to provide appropriate oversight when there isn't full and complete transparency.

[00:23:32]How can one scrutinize whether the prime minister was in a conflict or not a conflict when it's entirely possible absent disclosure that that members of this committee and Canadians are left in the dark about decisions that he may in fact be involved in making.

[00:24:02]So to say that there is a process and that there's an ethics commissioner and if there's the possibility that the act was violated, we'll write to the ethics commissioner. The ethics commissioner can undertake an investigation.

[00:24:21]Uh that isn't an adequate explanation for that either.

[00:24:32]And if we were to accept the submissions of the clerk and the prime minister chief of staff, the whole purpose of the ethics screen is to avoid exactly that type of scenario.

[00:24:49]That and I I take it that's exactly what the screen is supposed to do, prevent breaches of the act.

[00:24:59]But if we don't know when red flags have been raised and decisions are made that the prime minister can proceed, then there's a there's a major transparency gap.

[00:25:20]A major transparency gap.

[00:25:23]One that the sub amendment put forward by Mr. Barrett seeks to close.

[00:25:32]And I would cite the ethics commissioner in his annual report for 2023 24 in which he states at paragraph 22 or page 22 rather quote a transparency is a pillar of the conflict of interest act and indeed of all effective conflict of interest regimes.

[00:26:00]End of quote. Precisely.

[00:26:04]Precisely.

[00:26:09]In order for there to be confidence that the ethics screen is being applied appropriately.

[00:26:23]There has to be transparency.

[00:26:27]And what the liberals are saying is that we'll give you transparency selectively, but we won't give you transparency in those cases where there are certainly questions about the prime minister's conflict of interest and a decision is made that he has the green light to proceed. that in both cases, we're going to keep this ethics committee. We're going to keep members of parliament. We're going to keep Canadians in the dark, and all that will be left for you to do is to do your digging. And uh and if you stumble across something or you find something, uh well, then there's a process.

[00:27:22]But until then, unless that happens effectively, too bad, so sad.

[00:27:31]Now they they may characterize it other ways, but that is what they are doing.

[00:27:38]That's the consequence of not adopting the sub amendment brought forward by Mr. Barrett, which is their position. The Liberal member members of parliament on this committee bear position.

[00:27:57]And it begs the question why, which I keep asking.

[00:28:11]And I continue to invite liberal members opposite to help me better understand what the rationale is because it isn't too cumbersome. Saying that it's it's not the way that it works that there's the process of the e of going through the ethics commissioner uh totally again inadequate for the reasons that I've outlined.

[00:28:45]And so it without any further explanation or beyond what are totally disingenuous, illegitimate, uh, inadequate, not persuasive explanations.

[00:29:03]Uh, the inference that I am left with drawing is that well first of all that we have a a prime minister's office that really isn't interested in transparency they they've created the facade of transparency but on matters that are clearly material to whether the prime minister is involved or engaged in matters in which he has a conflict of interest the uh the posture position of the PMO is to effectively tell this committee to tell Canadians to pound sand. Now, they won't say that. They won't use those terms, but but that is one one thing that we are learning uh from this debate and the resistance that we're seeing from Liberal MPs, no doubt, uh based upon the input from the the prime minister's office.

[00:30:06]Um but but but the other thing uh that putting aside just the general contempt really for transparency that we're seeing it it raises questions about how robustly this ethics screen is in fact being applied.

[00:30:32]How many times has the ethics screen not been applied when it should be applied?

[00:30:40]May maybe maybe never. Maybe it has always been applied when it should be, but perhaps not. And if it's always if the prime minister's office is so confident that everything is above board and has been applied robustly, then show us the analysis. Show us the times that the prime minister's chief of staff and the clerk of privy council signed off and said no prime minister can proceed.

[00:31:10]There isn't a sufficient conflict of interest here.

[00:31:15]Now I don't have a lot of confidence in this ethics screen and the the way in which it is being administered.

[00:31:30]uh as a starting point. We have an ethics screen to avoid a conf conflicts of interest on the part of prime minister being administered by persons who have a conflict of interest in so far as the clerk and the chief of staff both serve at the pleasure of the prime minister.

[00:31:57]So they're not independent regardless of the the extent to which they're they're acting fully in good faith and trying to apply the ethics screen. They're not independent.

[00:32:12]They're in a conflict.

[00:32:17]That's a problem, but it's a problem that uh seems to be accepted by the ethics commissioner. I'll concede that.

[00:32:30]Uh okay.

[00:32:34]So, it underscores why all the more there needs to be some level of transparency.

[00:32:43]uh what there is no we have no mechanism to know when and how often the screen is being invoked or not invoked on matters in which there have been red flags. In fact, before this committee undertook study in the fall on reviewing the conflict of interest act, we were left completely in the dark. We had no idea how it was being used.

[00:33:13]We got some answers as to how many times 13 that the tool had been used and an analysis had been prepared.

[00:33:26]We got a copy of the tool but we uh have no other information.

[00:33:37]And of course, where matters that warrant likely scrutiny or could warrant scrutiny from this committee are not in those cases where the screen has been invoked because it's been invoked and so the prime minister has no involvement in the matter.

[00:34:05]It's it's on matters where he is involved.

[00:34:14]Now, some of those areas could be gray areas.

[00:34:20]Some of them could be areas where he has a blatant conflict of interest, but for whatever reason, the clerk of the privy council and the chief of staff signed off and said, "Go ahead, prime minister."

[00:34:34]whatever it is and and and vendor could be and likely are other instances where the answer any reasonable objective person would say well no in fact they got it right it shouldn't be invoked but all Mr. Barrett sub amendment is saying is show us those times.

[00:35:00]Be transparent.

[00:35:03]If you're so confident in the ethics screen, if this is if this is the the answer, the solution to guarding against a prime minister from making decisions in which he has a conflict of interest, a prime minister who doesn't have any ordinary number of conflicts of interest by the standpoint of former prime ministers, but the most conflicts of interest because of uh the roles that he played uh prior to becoming uh elected to this place and serving as prime minister.

[00:35:36]And we have as a backdrop to all of this of course documented cases where the prime minister has met with Brookfield notwithstanding that those companies or executives were executives of companies listed in schedule A.

[00:36:12]So it's not as if or I should I would rephrase it based on everything that we have seen over the past year there have been multiple instances where the prime minister has not abided by the advice of the ethics commissioner being to stay away from Brookfield.

[00:36:38]In fact, he's done the opposite in several instances, which again raises the question, how many times has this screen not been invoked on matters relating to Brookfield and other conflicts that Prime Minister's declared and does have.

[00:37:07]And so it's it it's quite disappointing that Liberals don't are not inclined or are being directed by the prime minister's office not to support Mr. Barrett's sub amendment. And it does raise questions about exactly what the prime minister's office is hiding. And by hiding, I I mean they are hiding. They're hiding these reports from this committee and from Canadians. Why?

[00:37:47]Why?

[00:37:54]Uh I and and I I I will say you come just before I got to this committee, I was in question period and I I put forward some questions to the government on a matter involving 200 million tax dollars that have gone to a company called Maritime Launch Services for a so-called spaceport in Nova Scotia.

[00:38:35]And I I was I asked some very straightforward questions today about how it is that the Liberals entered into a lease with a nearly bankrupt company.

[00:39:00]a company whose independent auditors report specifically flagged or questioned whether that company, Maritime Launch Services, was a glowing concern uh that the Liberals nonetheless proceeded to enter into a lease for a so-called spaceport with an early bankrupt company.

[00:39:20]They entered into the lease in March of this year but backdated the lease in to to April 1st of 2025. They backdated it by a full year without any work being undertaken by maritime launch services. No proof of value for tax dollars.

[00:39:46]Even though maritime launch services got $20 million because the lease had been backdated.

[00:39:52]Uh when I say no work, all you have to do is look at the site that consists of a a a poorly designed concrete slab and uh a gravel parking lot.

[00:40:10]Uh but the Liberals handed maritime launch services 20 million tax dollars by backdating the lease.

[00:40:20]And then we find out that the chair of the board immediately upon the lease being entered into and which $20 million was funneled to Maritime launch services decides to sell 3 million shares that were previously worthless or nearly worthless and ras in 1.8 million.

[00:40:48]$1.8 8 million.

[00:40:53]And um you you would you would ask normally in the private sector there'd be a lockup agreement in place to prevent exactly that sort of thing from happening.

[00:41:10]Why the Liberals didn't insist upon a lockup agreement uh is beyond me. Uh other than that, the whole thing is one big scheme, pump and dump scheme in which an insider got pretty rich. $1.8 million is uh it's a pretty good deal if you can get it. uh with worthless shares that suddenly you get $20 million for work that was never done to bail out your nearly bankrupt company. And and here here are now my shares. I'm selling them. I I'll rake in a cool $1.8 million.

[00:41:56]Um, so those are I I think for an opposition party, the official opposition, those are the types of questions that Canadians want answers to. Uh, that in terms of holding the government to account, that that is necessary to get answers to questions like that uh as to why uh $200 million went to a company that doesn't own land. It's making a 1300% profit off crown land that they're then flipping back to the federal government for a concrete slab and a gravel pit that in respect of a lease that's backdated by year for no work, no value in which the chair of the board walks off with $1.8 million after selling shares immediately after his nearly bankrupt company got a $20 million cash infusion from Mark Carney's Liberals.

[00:42:53]And what we had, what I saw in the house was the Minister of Natural Resources, he he laughing about the matter.

[00:43:05]He thought it was funny.

[00:43:08]The member for Kate Breton, parliamentary secretary, Mike Kellaway, in answer to a follow-up question from Greg Mlan.

[00:43:20]called it a conspiracy theory.

[00:43:23]Now I cite this in terms of what happened in the house a little over an hour ago as an illustration as one illustration of how these liberals operate.

[00:43:42]the complete and utter contempt that they have for accountability.

[00:43:55]The extent to which they go to gaslight, to dismiss and laugh off what on the surface appears to be cronyism and corruption of the worst kind. in in the case of this so-called space pad.

[00:44:19]Now, bringing it back to the sub amendment put forward by Mr. Barrett, we we see a lot of the same gaslighting at the last meeting of this committee.

[00:44:46]a lot of the the the same approach which is to effectively thumb their nose at transparency and accountability.

[00:45:03]And I know that the prime minister and those who repeat the talking points provided by the prime minister's office, whether they be parliamentary secretaries or backbench Liberal MPs, often uh call this Canada's new government, but it's the same old Liberal government, the same old liberal approach, the same old liberal government that has a long history of cronyism, conflict, and corruption.

[00:45:55]I sat on this committee in the last parliament and the litany of scandals surrounding the same old liberal government is too much to keep track of.

[00:46:15]It was endless.

[00:46:18]It was endless.

[00:46:20]You know, there's a reason Justin Trudeau left office with uh upon him announcing that he was resigning in January of 2026, had an approval rating in the range of 15 or 16%, the lowest approval rating of any prime minister in 35 years.

[00:46:44]Uh the highest approval rating was not 17%.

[00:46:49]Uh if that's a high approval rating, I think Mr. Alsud who worked in that office thought that that was uh such a great approval rating. Well, I I mean 17% at 17%. It was uh he couldn't be more out of touch if he thought that Justin Trudeau was popular in January of 2026. He he most certainly wasn't. But it doesn't matter other than to say that there was a reason why he was unpopular and that was because of a litany of corruption, conflicts, and scandals surrounding his government.

[00:47:25]And for Canada's so-called new prime minister, new government, there was an opportunity to for a reset to do things differently, but it's been more of the same. More of the same. When we have a prime minister who two days after the federal election meets with an executive who's listed on one of the Brookfield companies in which the prime minister has a conflict of interest.

[00:48:08]more of the same when we have a prime minister who a month later met with the CEO of Brookfield Infrastructure in Washington.

[00:48:22]More of the same when we have a prime minister who met with those connected to Brookfield in New York City and London. more of the same when we had have a prime minister who met with none other than the chief operating officer of Brookfield in the prime minister's office alone chief operating officer of Brookfield who came before this committee and admitted acknowledged quite appropriately so that given the prime minister's extensive stock options and deferred share units with Brookfield that quote as the value of Brookfield increases the value of those instruments increase. In other words, when Brookfield does well, Mark Carney does well.

[00:49:33]Well, if Brookfield does well, if if if if it is the case that when Brookfield does well, but Mark Carney does well, then we sure deserve to know those times that the prime minister has been involved in decisions involving Brookfield.

[00:50:04]We need to know those times that sufficient red flags have been raised likely about Brookfield that warrants an analysis.

[00:50:15]But the prime minister proceeds to be involved in those decisions.

[00:50:27]I suspect the reason that the prime minister's office doesn't want this committee to see when they have given the prime minister the green light is because it wouldn't look good for them.

[00:50:45]It would raise questions about how robustly this ethics screen is in fact being applied. to what extent the prime minister in fact is recusing himself or or or not being involved, being shielded from decisions related to Brookfield and uh and that's really what is going on here. You know, they can come up with all kinds of excuses, but that's what's going on here. They don't want Canadians to know all of the times the prime minister is making decisions related to Brookfield in which he has a conflicts of interest because he stands to make millions when Brookfield does well.

[00:51:43]They don't want Canadians to see that.

[00:51:46]They don't want Canadians to know about when that's happening. They want Canadians to be kept in the dark.

[00:52:02]We need transparency.

[00:52:05]We need sunlight.

[00:52:08]We need to know. That's what the sub amendment provides for. And 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 sub amendment. Thank you, Mr.