Debates of March 10th, 2015

Ethics

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the report makes clear, I had no specific knowledge of these applications nor any preference in what was chosen. The fact of the matter is that the then Minister of Human Resources made a decision to support accessibility for disabled people to a community centre in the Markham area. She believed that was in the public interest, and I believe she was acting in good faith.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics commissioner has deemed that the former human resources minister gave preferential treatment to the centre in Markham.

In response to pressure from her colleagues and interference from the Prime Minister's Office, she disregarded the Treasury Board's guidelines, changed the rules in the middle of the game, and used her discretionary power with no regard for the expertise of her department in order to support a poorly put together project.

How can the Prime Minister condone this disregard for the rules and this favouritism?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I always believed that this project, which was designed to make the Markham Centre for Skills and Independence more accessible for people with disabilities, was worthwhile and in the public interest.

I accept the advice of the commissioner to ensure that these subsidy programs are administered in a fair, accessible and effective way for all involved.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the ethics commissioner, the Prime Minister's Office was heavily involved in the deal.

Many senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office, including Nigel Wright and Ray Novak, were very interested in this file. According to Nigel Wright, the orders came from the top, since the Prime Minister asked him to take care of it.

When the Prime Minister asks his chief of staff to handle a file, does that necessarily mean breaking all the rules, as we have seen again today in this matter?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I always believed that this project was going to make the centre more accessible for people with disabilities.

The commissioner found that neither I nor any of my family members or friends had a personal interest in the decision to subsidize this project.

What is more, she found that I was never friends with Rabbi Mendelsohn and that, in fact, we had never even met.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is about the credibility of this minister dealing with public funds. Ethics commissioner Mary Dawson has found that she broke the rules on conflict of interest. The report is disturbing because it shows how friends of the Prime Minister are able to fast-track projects that should have been rejected.

This project failed because it was not in the public interest, yet a number of cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister's right hand, Nigel Wright, picked up the phone and got involved.

Therefore, if it was against the law for the minister to interfere with this project, was it somehow okay for the Prime Minister's Office to interfere? Who gave the direction? Why were they not following the rules?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this project is to make the centre more accessible for people with disabilities in the Markham area.

I always believed that this project was worthwhile and in the public interest.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all manner of hard-working community groups apply for projects, and they succeed or fail based on their merits. That is how the system is supposed to work. Ordinary Canadians play by the rules because they do not have the speed-dial into the Prime Minister's Office, yet in this case, we saw interference by a number of ministers and the Prime Minister's personal chief of staff, the infamous Nigel Wright.

Will the Prime Minister tell us if Nigel Wright was once again somehow going rogue, or was he acting on the direct instructions of the Prime Minister? What do Conservatives mean by “sort it out”? Why was the Prime Minister getting his fingers into this file?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner was very clear that there was no involvement by the Prime Minister in the selection of this project. I always believed that this was a worthwhile project to help improve accessibility for people at the Markham Centre and that it was in the best public interest to fund this program.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not even hear a “sorry”. She broke the rules and she misused public funds. We expect that when a minister breaks the rules, there is a “sorry”, but no. It is as though if Nigel Wright makes the call, it is okay. This is the question here. All manner of projects apply, but not all manner of projects get moved up after they have been rejected because they are not in the public interest.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister once again about his interference in this project. When Nigel Wright was told to “sort it out”, what does that mean? Is “sort it out” the new “good to go” for breaking the rules in the PMO?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the program was destined to help improve accessibility for the disabled at the Markham Centre. It was evaluated on the basis that it did provide value for money and was in the public interest.

It was clearly found that neither I nor any of my relatives or family had any personal interest in this matter. The commissioner further found that I was not friends with Rabbi Mendelsohn. In fact, she acknowledged that we had never even met.

Finance

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the IMF shows that the Canadian housing market is over-valued by up to 20%. In Montreal, middle-class homeowners would lose $70,000 on the sale of their houses. The Conservatives inflated the housing bubble with their 40-year mortgages. Then they cancelled the census. As a result, experts do not have the data to assess and adjust the market.

Why are the Conservatives jeopardizing the largest investment made by middle-class families that are now more indebted than ever?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, the government has taken measures to ensure the long-term stability of the housing market and to reduce taxpayer exposure. It specifically limited the government guarantee on insured mortgages for homes priced under $1 million. The government also reduced the maximum mortgage amortization period to 25 years and the maximum amount that lenders can provide when refinancing mortgage loans to 80%.

Our long-term objectives are—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the IMF has issued a warning about the inflated Canadian housing market, cautioning that home prices have jumped more than 60% over the past 15 years. Canadian families with a personal debt burden that the IMF warns is among the highest in the OECD are at risk of $100,000 losses they can ill afford. The IMF says that Canada needs better data, something the Conservative government is bizarrely opposed to, and more coordinated financial oversight.

When will the government quit electioneering and fearmongering and table a budget that addresses Canada's cooling economy and overheated housing market?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile to quote the IMF directly. It said:

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Canada’s financial system held up remarkably well—making it the envy of its Group of Seven peers. This relative resilience was particularly impressive considering its most important trading and financial partner, the United States, was the epicenter of the crisis.

It further said that:

Over the past several years, Canada has taken numerous steps to reduce the economy’s vulnerabilities through policies designed to keep financial institutions and the financial system as a whole safer.

That is including housing.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Numerous steps and none of them are working.

Mr. Speaker, nowhere in the country is the Canadian dream of owning a home more at risk than the Prime Minister's home of Calgary.

Calgary is predicted to be the epicentre of a housing collapse if the current government does not start dealing with housing issues now. The IMF report is crystal clear: regulation is fractured, more oversight of the market is needed, and it is needed now. Instead, the government attacks CMHC, it cuts staff, cuts research and does this to fund tax cuts for well-housed Canadians. It is not right.

Why will the Prime Minister not protect his constituents in Calgary Southwest?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I said many times, there is no housing bubble. CMHC agrees, the Bank of Canada agrees and the OECD agrees.

We have taken a number of measures, which I have just discussed, and we continue to monitor the market very closely.

National Defence

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the report of the Military Police Complaints Commission into the death of Corporal Stuart Langridge is scathing. It found incompetence and negligence on the part of the military police.

The current government has consistently failed to right the wrongs in its handlings of the Langridge case. The Department of National Defence has rejected most of the recommendations and had even tried to hide its rejection.

Does the minister agree with his department or will he move to reverse this position and implement the recommendations of the commission released today?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we thank the Military Police Complaints Commission for its work and its report. We agree that what happened to Corporal Langridge is completely unacceptable.

The Department of National Defence has just received the final report and is reviewing the recommendations on an expedited basis.

Our thoughts remain with the family of Corporal Stuart Langridge during this very difficult time.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Fynes family has been waiting for over six years to find out the truth about the circumstances of Corporal Langridge's suicide.

Today, the report of the complaints commission revealed unacceptable mistakes on the part of the military police. The commission finds that the government demonstrated incompetence and negligence in dealing with the grieving family.

In view of such findings, why is the government refusing to implement the recommendations?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind that member that we received the final report only an hour ago.

We thank the Military Police Complaints Commission for this final report and the work. We agree that the outcome of this is completely unacceptable. That is why we are seriously looking at the report and its recommendations on an expedited basis.

We offer our condolences again to the Langridge family.

Veterans

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in December, the Prime Minister said that Canada offered veterans the best services and programs in the world. However, according to an analysis by The Globe and Mail—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Why are they applauding this nonsense, Mr. Speaker? According to an analysis by The Globe and Mail, Canadian soldiers injured in the line of duty receive significantly less financial compensation than British, Australian and American veterans.

When will the government take action to back up its promises and provide tangible assistance to our veterans?