Bill C-27 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985

This enactment amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to provide a framework for the establishment, administration and supervision of target benefit plans. It also amends the Act to permit pension plan administrators to purchase immediate or deferred life annuities for former members or survivors so as to satisfy an obligation to provide pension benefits if the obligation arises from a defined benefit provision.

Ethics

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, it is the opposition that is making baseless insinuations. There is no conflict of interest. The minister acted on all of the commissioner's recommendations, which included setting up an ethical screen, which the commissioner said was the most effective way to handle things. The minister followed the rules, he set up an appropriate screen, and nothing goes against Bill C-27.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, the Minister of Finance introudced Bill C-27 to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, and immediately afterwards, Morneau Shepell's profits just happened to increase by $2 million. I would like the people listening to us on social media to get a simple answer to an extremely simple question.

When will the Prime Minister demand transparency from the finance minister so that he will stop deceiving Canadians?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the topic of ethics has come up a lot lately. Today, we witnessed a fine piece of theatre as the Minister of Finance tabled his fall economic statement as a diversion.

I have a good memory, and I am pleased to tell you what we on this side of the aisle have been seeing for almost a month. We believe that all parliamentarians, regardless of professional background, must obey the rules and publicly disclose their private financial interests.

We have repeatedly asked the minister to do so, but unfortunately we have never gotten a straight answer. The finance minister did the right thing last week when he decided to disclose his information, more than two years after taking office. Everyone in the House was under the impression that he had already disclosed his assets and placed them in a blind trust. His colleagues in the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP were all convinced that he had already done the right thing two years ago.

Unfortunately for us, in light of certain information, it became apparent that that was not at all the case. In my mind, that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for such a person, a minister in charge of billions of dollars of public funds and government bonds, a minister responsible for all the government's savings at the Bank of Canada, for hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage insurance, a minister involved in his government's financial discussions about Barbados. I find it beyond belief that he would not have realized that he had a conflict of interest when he was elected two years ago.

This is the Prime Minister's right-hand man we are talking about. He has access to all the information, he drafted Bill C-27, and he owns assets. I find that unacceptable.

The question we have always asked, that we are still asking today, and that we will continue to ask is the following: did this Minister of Finance recuse himself from discussions that could have placed him in a conflict of interest?

I am asking this question again and I will continue to ask it. If necessary, I will keep asking it for two years. I will continue to ask it until this side of the House receives a clear-cut answer.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not like the fact that we are focusing on the Minister of Finance's conflict of interest. The government does not like it because what we are saying is true: the minister is working for his own personal interests, when he is in a conflict of interest, and not the interest of all Canadians. We have a number of examples, including Bill C-27 and the Bombardier deal. In any case, the most flagrant is the fact that the minister said he was going to put his assets in a blind trust, but he failed to do so for two years. He misled the House about that.

How can the Minister of Finance continue to act as the government's bagman while being in a conflict of interest because of his personal affairs?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. The minister has introduced legislation that directly benefits the company in which he owns millions of shares. In fact, his shares have increased by a whopping 33% since the minister was sworn in.

While in charge of Morneau Shepell, he lobbied for the exact legislation that he now proposes in Bill C-27. The minister is right about one thing. His conflicts of interests are in fact serious distractions.

Does the minister actually believe it was ethical of him to table Bill C-27, knowing it would further feather his own nest?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, share prices for Morneau Shepell went up by 5% the day after the Minister of Finance tabled Bill C-27.

The bill directly affects pensions, which Morneau Shepell is in the business of selling. This is a clear conflict of interest. The minister promised the House, the Ethics Commissioner, the media, and anyone who would listen that he would recuse himself from decisions involving Morneau Shepell, but he has not done that.

Did the minister receive written approval from the Ethics Commissioner to introduce pension legislation that turned out to be a windfall for the minister and for Morneau Shepell?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, did the ethics screen enable the minister to have discussions on a company that he controlled, that he received $65,000 a month from, that he himself lobbied for in the past?

The minister would say to us, “Oh, you're so concerned about my personal finances.” Actually, we are not. We are caring far much more about exactly what ethical screen he had in place, and if he did the right thing.

This is not about Bay Street; this is about Main Street. Canadians want to know this. Did the minister recuse himself when we had these discussions on Bill C-27?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these are the facts as we know them.

As executive chair of Morneau Shepell, the minister lobbied on behalf of targeted pension plans. When he became the minister, he brought legislation in to make these law. He also collected dividends from the company because he still had shares.

Now the hon. member mentioned an ethics screen, and that may very well be in place. However, I want to know something specific. Given all of these conflicts around this issue, did the minister recuse himself from any of the discussions around Bill C-27?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here are some plain facts.

On February 20, 2013, two years before being appointed, the Minister of Finance was arguing in favour of a bill that would create target benefit plans. Three years later, on October 19, 2016, the minister introduced Bill C-27, which would create these very plans. What a coincidence.

When will the Minister of Finance admit that he has not fulfilled his obligations and that he has a real conflict of interest, as proven by the $2 million he has personally pocketed since becoming finance minister?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the finance minister is desperate to change the channel by performing some magic tricks, Canadians understand that he has used public policy for his own advantage. Bill C-27 is not only bad legislation and an attack against good pension plans, it is also very good news for some people, for example, Morneau Shepell.

The finance minister was supposed to put his assets in a blind trust. He did not do it. The Liberals were supposed to tackle the tax loophole of the CEOs. They did not do it. When will the Liberals stop working for their friends on Bay Street and work for the common good?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the past two weeks, the Minister of Finance has been hiding behind the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. That same Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner wrote to him, saying, “If your official duties provide an opportunity to further your private interests or those of your relatives or friends, you are considered to be in conflict of interest”.

That is exactly what we saw with Bill C-27, which he himself introduced. Why is the minister still refusing to take responsibility for his actions?

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance and Conflict of Interest Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this opposition day motion, presented by my colleague. The last bit of exchange was interesting. I hope Mary Dawson is listening to this, because it speaks to the arrogance taking place here in the way she and her office are being used by the government. Theparliamentary secretary just got up and said, “...trust me, Mary Dawson...will be in touch.”

The parliamentary secretary, while espousing the independence of Mary Dawson, has just indicated that she is going to take action. He is giving a directive to this chamber and to the public in general about someone else. This is one of the most disturbing things taking place today. Some of the defence that has been taking place, the shield of the ethics office, which operates under legislation made in this House with the dominance of the Liberal Party and its ethical perversions over the years, still has not resonated that it actually has the capacity to deal with the conflict of interest in this chamber. The member opposite is now suggesting that Mary Dawson is going to contact every single member of Parliament, and to trust him, she is going to do that. The amount of arrogance in that is profound. It comes to the real problem we are talking about, the confidence and trust of the people.

The motion we tabled in the House of Commons is simply to live up to the Liberals' standards and ethics. It is almost like we have to apologize, and Canadians have to apologize that the Liberals dined out on this in 2015. They said they were going to be different than their own selves. In fact, we would often hear their own members contradicting each other on the electoral campaign, including the member for Papineau talking about other Liberals in the past and their past indiscretions in regard to ethics, standards, and behaviours, going back to everything from the Chrétien years to the most recent being the former prime minister, Paul Martin. He was called out for sailing ships with different flags so he could save on taxes, and not actually have the people serving on those ships get the same standards that Canadians deserve in their own workplace. That is reality. That took place. The former finance minister used ships of convenience and flags of convenience of his own registered companies to get lower working standards, lower wages, and avoid taxation for his home country. Shame.

What have they learned from that? They have learned nothing. We are apologizing for the fact that they campaigned that they were going to be different. They said they had changed this time. They were going to drink from the other glass, not the same one they had been drinking out of during the Chrétien and Martin years, with all those ethical breaches and standards they had in the past from Dingwall, to Gagliano, to all those things in the past.

Here we are. They have created their own mess because their own Minister of Finance could not figure out a basic thing that all of us know: when something in front of us seems wrong, usually it is, and do the right thing. We have to stand here and apologize and basically call them out for the fact they have not lived up to what they promised to be.

The motion is crafted in a way to deal with the facts. The first one is “(a) after being elected to Parliament in 2015, led Canadians to believe that he had placed his shares in Morneau Shepell into a blind trust, while never having done so”. It was not someone else who led people to believe that. It was the finance minister.

I am so sorry that the finance minister promised to do something and he never did. I guess it is my fault. I guess it is my colleagues' fault. I guess it is Canadians' fault that he did not do what he said he was going to do. That is what we are talking about here. It was not thrust upon him. It was something he said. He willfully went to the public, built that trust, and said he was going to do that. He never did it.

The second one is “(b) used a loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act to place his shares in a private numbered company instead of divesting them or placing them in a blind trust”. What is important is, people have seen the key moments in modern history where there have been leaks about individuals using tax havens and loopholes, from the Isle of Man, to Bermuda, to Barbados, and other places.

People have had enough. They cannot get prescription drugs. They have a hard time paying the rent, are worried about the future, and their jobs are more precarious. At the same time, people in our own civil society are using the system that is supposed to defend them. This place, the House of Commons for the common people, has set in place a taxation process to be fair and equitable, and it allows people with an accountant and lawyer to skirt that. It is a cottage industry that has turned into an extreme example of the inequity in society.

This has to end. I hope people take this to heart, because this is the problem that comes with fairness. This system basically defends a colonial system of taxation of the poor versus the wealthy. We have created a system where the better an accountant and lawyer one hires, the less money one pays, even after paying them off, than the neighbour down the street who is trying to do a nine-to-five job and just wants to have 40 hours a week with benefits to make sure their child can go to school in the future. That is what is at odds here.

Look at the wording of the motion. Let us remind ourselves what a numbered company is, by its definition. A general definition states, “Numbered companies may include, but are by no means limited to, new companies that have not yet determined a permanent brand identity, or shell companies used by much larger enterprises for various purposes.”

Therefore, if one can afford a lawyer and a numbered company that does not have a permanent status, purpose, or anything, then one has the chance to shelter their money by using the tax laws, and those accountants and lawyers, to pay less taxes. It does not have to be a good idea or be innovative. No, not at all. It does not have to be any of those things. It could be a villa or something else that one dreams up or creates that then has a number to it.

Ironically, we talk in this motion about Bill C-27, which is the next point on this, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act. That is a conflict of interest, at least on appearances. My goodness, how can we have a finance minister not even understand that recusing himself would be the number one thing?

There is another piece of legislation that has been forgotten in the debate today, which is Bill C-25. Bill C-25 looks at a series of different things that relate to not only pensions but also shareholders and the Corporations Act, to find out how shares can be hidden and sheltered. What the members on the other side did is to create a piece of legislation that buffered the real debate out of Bill C-25 for issues that are complicated, bearer shares and all these different things. They were just more ways to squirrel away the money if you are rich versus that of anyone else. It slid on through here and reinforced that this place is no longer the House of Commons, but a house that represents a taxation system for the few who can have accountants and lawyers.

That bill passed, and we had amendments on it to provide more clarity and transparency. However, what did we get? Why is it that the minister chose random numbers for personal interest? When one looks back at that in the history of time, again, it is about sheltering personal interests. Sheltering personal interests and using the law to do so should not have to be explained here, if one came for that reason. It should not have been taught.

Most importantly, as I conclude here, it is what the Liberals said they would do differently. They said they would be different than themselves. That is who they said they would be different from at that time.

I remember these things. We can go back and watch debates and check out the former Prime Minister Paul Martin and Canadian steamships. This is the second time coming.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor West.

Today we are debating an NDP motion calling on the Minister of Finance to apologize to the House and to Canadians for breaking their trust and calling on the government to close the loopholes he exploited in the Conflict of Interest Act, in order to prevent a minister of the crown from personally benefiting from their position or creating the perception thereof.

There are some people in this life who are clearly lacking in subtlety, and the Minister of Finance is unquestionably one of them. Fortunately, this gave us the chance to note that the minister had placed himself a situation that, at the very least, presented the appearance of a conflict of interest, that he had abused the trust of the House and the Canadian people, and that he had used a loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act for his own personal gain.

The Conflict of Interest Act clearly states that:

...a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests...

In the weeks following his election in 2015 and his appointment as finance minister, the minister suggested that he had complied with the Conflict of Interest Act, which, generally speaking, requires members to divest themselves of their shares or to place them in a blind trust if their duties could place them conflict of interest. However, we recently learned that this is not what the minister actually did. Instead, as we finally found out, the minister took advantage of a loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act to place his half of his shares in Morneau Shepell in numbered companies. In other words, the finance minister no longer holds shares in Morneau Shepell; the numbered company does. However, since he is the sole shareholder in the numbered company, this is just a matter of semantics.

The minister betrayed the trust of Canadians and the House by leading them to believe that he had followed the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act when really he had made use of a loophole. The spirit of the act serves to ensure that those serving in the role of minister do not find themselves in a real or perceived conflict of interest. If he had truly been abiding by the spirit of the act, the minister would have placed his shares in Morneau Shepell in a blind trust or simply divested himself of all of his shares.

Instead, what he did was use a loophole to circumvent the spirit of the act and put himself in a position where he could personally benefit from the policies he implemented as the Minister of Finance. He did that for two years.

None of this passes the sniff test, especially since we are not talking about pocket change here. The shares in Morneau Shepell that the Minister of Finance directly or indirectly owns are valued at over $20 million as of October 20, 2017. It seems to me that any reasonable person standing to become finance minister that owns more than $20 million in shares in a company that bears his name would have seen a huge red flag with the word “danger” flashing in neon lights, and perhaps asked himself whether he should put all those assets in a blind trust so as to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. That all seems like common sense to me.

There is more, however. On October 19, 2016, on the first anniversary of his election by the way, the Minister of Finance introduced and sponsored Bill C-27, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, which would increase the use of target benefit pension plans. The Minister of Finance's former company, Morneau Shepell, is a strong proponent of target benefit plans and manages related services. Those plans are that corporation's bread and butter. Should Bill C-27 pass and come into force, the company stands to be one of only four corporations in Canada that would benefit from the new pension administration rules.

While the current finance minister was in charge of Morneau Shepell prior to being elected, the company lobbied for greater use of targeted benefit retirement plans and became the Government of New Brunswick's lead consultant in implementing its new pension plan.

The Minister of Finance's company would absolutely cash in by helping existing clients switch to targeted benefit plans and producing the annual actuarial valuations that would be mandatory under the new law. The current system requires them only every three years. That would generate even more business for his company. Clearly, as a major shareholder in his company, the minister would derive personal financial gain if this bill were to become law.

The worst of it is that the Minister of Finance is the one sponsoring this bill. Ordinarily, because he still holds shares in a corporation that would directly benefit from the legislation, he should have declared his interest and recused himself from any cabinet discussion of the bill. Instead, he celebrated his first year in office with the gift of bill sponsorship. That is a pathetic way for a Canadian finance minister to behave.

To top it off, within days of the Minister of Finance introducing Bill C-27, Morneau Shepell shares were up almost 5%. We can all agree that that is no coincidence.

I repeat:

...a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests...

We are no longer talking about appearances here. The Minister of Finance is in a direct conflict of interest, but he waited for it to be discovered and for the media to report on it before fixing the problem. On top of that, when he was elected in 2015, the value of the minister's shares in Morneau Shepell was $32.1 million. As of last Friday, as I mentioned earlier, his shares were worth $42.6 million, which means that his shares generated a profit of over $10 million in the past two years. If he still owns half of what he had in 2015, that means an extra $5 million in his pocket, while he is the Minister of Finance.

When the information was made public last week about his shares in the company bearing his name, it took us asking him nearly 20 times before he would finally confirm that he still has considerable holdings in Morneau Shepell, as though he had something to hide. This Minister of Finance is like a kid who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, with chocolate around his mouth, but who still denies doing anything wrong. This reminds of the time when one of my brothers was caught licking another brother's ice cream cone, and he said that his tongue simply fell on it.

This is not a matter of cookies or ice cream. We are talking about millions of dollars. When the minister finally held a press conference to announce that he would divest himself of his shares, the price of his company's shares dropped by $0.41 in the three following hours, costing the minister an estimated $410,000. It is easy to see why he hesitated to respond and do what was necessary to put an end to this situation, which was strongly perceived as a conflict of interest. How can the minister continue to try to lead us and Canadians to believe that he went into politics for the right reasons and that he is really working in the interests of the middle class and those working hard to join it?

How many middle-class Canadians earn $5 million in two years? We now see why the finance minister was reluctant to tax the wealthiest Canadians. I grew up in a family where my parents had to work hard to make sure that their children had everything they needed in life, and I want to thank them for that here. Thank you, Mom and Dad. I decided to go into politics to help families have the same opportunities that my parents gave me. We are not here to help the rich get even richer.

At the very least, the minister should apologize to Canadians and members of the House for betraying their trust and leading them to believe that he was carrying out his duties in the interest of the public, rather than in his own personal interest. Ministers have lost their limos for far less than this. The government must also immediately commit to eliminating the loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act to ensure that the sorts of antics we are seeing today never happen again and that the spirit of the Conflict of Interest Act can no longer be circumvented by semantics.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to take the floor in this debate on the matter of supply relating to the problem of ethics and the finance minister. I would like to thank my friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his speech and ask his indulgence that I state, on the record, my deep concern that Bill C-27 must be withdrawn. It appears to me that there is a blatant conflict of interest in the finance minister bringing forward this measure.

As for much of the rest of the debate, I find it regrettable that we cannot focus on the need to bring into this place, and it is part of the motion before us today, ethics rules that are binding. The code of ethics for members of Parliament that we find in our Standing Orders book says very clearly that we must avoid conflict of interest and the perception of conflict of interest, but as far as I can see, it is impossible to commit an ethical violation. On this, I refer to more than the hon. Minister of Finance, but to other members in this place who have committed, in any common-sense understanding, a violation of their conflict of interest guidelines, the guidelines are unenforceable. Would my friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge agree that we should make them enforceable?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as Jack Layton used to say, I rise more in sadness than in anger today and I resent very much comments that somehow the motion today involves, to quote the member from Hamilton, a “personal attack”. If one were to read the motion before Parliament today, one would understand that we are seeking amendments to avoid the situation that the finance minister found himself in.

Legislation in other jurisdictions, I will say, adds not just the term “conflict of interest” but “apparent conflict of interest”, which has been the standard, for example, in the province of British Columbia's legislation for decades. Had that section been in the act, I do not think we would be here, because most Canadians would accept that there is the perception that a reasonable person would have, reasonably well informed of the situation, that the minister has been in an apparent conflict of interest.

Whether the letter of the Conflict of Interest Act was broken, how many people could say with a straight face that the spirit of the act has not been broken? We want to avoid that in the future. Ever since the Sinclair Stevens scandal of many years ago, people have consistently sought for an apparent conflict of interest standard to be added to the legislation. When the ethics committee met in 2014 under the leadership of Pat Martin, it was accepted that there should be amendments to the legislation, and the Conservatives did none of it. After two years, the Liberals have done none of it, and here we are today.

If the finance minister had accepted the letter of the law and had simply told the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner that he would have a conflict of interest screen, then he would have had a staff member decide when he was or was not in conflict, whether that was adequate, and whether they were “controlled assets” because they were in a numbered company controlled by the member and then those shares were held by another company controlled by the member. If somehow Canadians thought that was just fine, surely the abysmal failure, error of judgment, of the minister has to be examined here today. That he is in an apparent conflict of interest that a reasonable person would have to conclude exists seems beyond doubt today.

However, even if it is wrong for a finance minister who regulates the pension industry, who gave a speech in 2013 concerning Morneau Shepell's work in New Brunswick, arguing for target pension plans instead of defined benefit plans, which clearly would benefit a company like his, and then introduced Bill C-27 in October of 2016, a bill that would make the world safer for companies like Morneau Shepell, what kind of judgment does the finance minister have in doing so? How can Canadians have confidence in the minister, even if the technical requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act, weak though everyone knows it to be, including the commissioner, that error of judgment stands apart.

That is what the NDP is saying today. It is calling for an urgent amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act. If Liberals do nothing but add what British Columbia has had for decades, that there should be an apparent conflict of interest where a reasonable person, well informed, looks at the situation and says there is a reasonable suspicion of conflict, that would be enough. Then the commissioner would be able to hold a minister to account where that standard was breached.

My province is no stranger to conflict of interest. That is the section that has been used countless times by commissioners in the past. That is the section that the commissioner and others have sought to have added for years, but yet nothing gets done. We find ourselves in this embarrassing situation today, a situation, according to Bloomberg News, where the minister himself called for legislation allowing target benefit plans in a 2013 speech on the company website of Morneau Shepell and then his shares rose 4.4% in the week after the legislation, Bill C-27, was introduced, where the benchmark TSE composite index actually went down 0.2% during that period.

Canadians get it. This was a colossal error, unless the minister recused himself. After countless efforts to have him acknowledge or explain, I do not believe today we have had an explanation as to whether he recused himself, as the act clearly requires in circumstances of that sort. That is what is at issue. That is why we are here today.

Did he divest himself of the shares? Did he put them in a blind trust? Not really. Did people believe that he had done so, including his Liberal colleagues on Twitter? Yes, they did. However, suddenly, because The Globe and Mail reported that he did not do that, he decided it was time to clear the deck.

He owns a numbered company, which, as the commissioner quite properly says, is a separate legal entity. A corporation is different from the individual minister. I understand that. However, if he owns shares of a company that owns shares of a company that he controls, and he watched his shares go up by $2 million, allegedly, during that period, after he chose, as the minister responsible for pensions, to introduce pension reform, do Canadians expect that not to be something a responsible opposition would bring forward?

The Prime Minister the other day said that this is “petty politics”. This is somehow “gutter politics”. With respect, this has to be fixed urgently. That is what the tenor of this motion is. It talks about calling on the Minister of Finance to apologize for breaking trust and about calling on the government to immediately close the loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act, as recommended by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, to prevent a minister from personally benefiting.

This is not about intent. This not about us alleging that this was or was not done knowingly. That is not what is relevant in the current conflict of interest test. The test is whether a reasonably well-informed person would think that it has caused a problem.

Professor Lorne Sossin, the dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, when he testified in 2013 before the ethics committee, talked about lots of jurisprudence on the reasonable apprehension of bias test. It seems ironic that regulators are constantly subject to that reasonable apprehension test, which is whether a reasonable person would perceive a lack of impartiality, when a minister of the crown is not. This seems to be where we are today. That is why it is argued that this legislative change is so urgent.

When he testified before that same committee, British Columbia's conflict commissioner, Mr. Fraser, said that “if there is a suspicion or if there's a taint [of conflict of interest], then that's enough for an investigation.” That, of course, has occurred on countless occasions in British Columbia, but there is no such test in the circumstances here.

This is the problem of judgment that really needs to be addressed. Should the minister have recused himself? Yes, he should have. Should he have divested before he made decisions, as the regulatory minister for pensions, that had an obvious impact that would benefit him and his company, in which he held so many shares. Yes. Knowing that, and simply saying that because we have a conflict of interest screen, that is sufficient, suggests an error in judgment that Canadians have a right to have addressed today.

In summary, the NDP is asking for the Conflict of Interest Act to be amended. It is asking for the minister to finally apologize for breaking the trust and giving politicians of all stripes a bad name. Most significantly, it is asking to get this legislation fixed so we can join the 21st century, as other provinces and jurisdictions have, so this kind of conflict does not occur again.