House of Commons Hansard #216 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was shepell.

Topics

EmploymentOral Questions

3 p.m.

Mississauga—Malton Ontario

Liberal

Navdeep Bains LiberalMinister of Innovation

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, these types of particular instances that occur with job losses sometimes go before the courts under the CCAA, but more importantly, our government understands that we need to be there to help these citizens during these difficult times, help these workers, help the families, and help these different communities. We will remain engaged. We will work with the stakeholders and the communities to find solutions and a path forward to create more opportunities and more jobs.

Broadcasting of House ProceedingsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Forty years ago today, the “gavel-to-gavel” parliamentary proceedings of the House of Commons were broadcast live on television for the very first time.

This first televised broadcast launched the concept of television as an electronic Hansard. The success of the Canadian experience ultimately led other legislative bodies to allow the broadcasting of their work, based on the model proposed by the House of Commons.

We have come a long way since that first live television broadcast, and despite the rapidly advancing forms of social and digital communications reframing how we communicate with Canadians, broadcasting service continues to play a key role in keeping our fellow citizens informed about the business of Parliament, and even manage the sound quite well. For the past 25 years, the Cable Public Affairs Channel, or CPAC, has worked in partnership with us to ensure that Canadians have a front-row view into the very centre of our democracy.

We thank them.

Broadcasting of House ProceedingsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, given the importance of the matter, allow me to remind you of some of the comments made yesterday in the House.

In response to an excellent question put by my colleague from Niagara West, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated, “...I did not say the words ascribed to me.”

I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the transcript of the video in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly states:

Is there room to discuss and negotiate? Of course.

Broadcasting of House ProceedingsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

Broadcasting of House ProceedingsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Broadcasting of House ProceedingsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

There is no unanimous consent.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

There are three minutes remaining in questions and comments after the speech by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard brought up, in reference to the Conservative motion today, that those living in glass houses should not be throwing rocks. I think about those living in glass houses in France, Barbados, the Bahamas, and on Bay Street. Maybe they should not be throwing rocks at people like the small business people in our country. I would like to hear from the member how he feels about the fact that perhaps those people living in glass houses should be looking at CEO stock-option loopholes, tax breaks for the wealthiest Canadians, and those who are using tax havens in our country.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, this is what is so hypocritical with the debate we are having today. The Liberals are trying to protect the Minister of Finance, who had an ethical lapse in not providing all the information regarding the property he owns through a private corporation, which includes a beautiful villa in France. As we know, most small businesses using private corporation structures are being attacked by the very same minister. The Liberals are calling them tax cheats. That type of rhetoric and demeanour and the way the Liberals are treating our small business community I heard about loud and clear this past week when we were in our ridings. In the round tables I participated in in Winnipeg, in Beausejour, and in Stonewall, our small business community is so upset they are not getting the respect they deserve. They are not getting the same types of opportunities to put their money into tax havens in Barbados or the Bahamas, as the Minister of Finance has done.

In the motion today, all we are calling for is more transparency. We are asking the minister to present all the documentation he has had between his office and the Ethics Commissioner, and also, if he has sold his shares, to disclose that to the House. The only way he could get around not having a blind trust is to have liquidated his assets.

As a farmer, who was a parliamentary secretary, I had to put my farm into a blind trust while I served as a public office holder. Why did the Minister of Finance not put his assets into a blind trust as well?

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with the basics. First, this is Canada. The people here in this House represent this country. We are a democracy, not a dictatorship. As Canadians, we are governed not only by laws, but also by a code of ethics. We parliamentarians are here to serve Canadians, and Canadians expect us to govern this country in an exemplary fashion.

As parliamentarians, we must be the first to honour the laws we pass. Any parliamentarian who fails to take seriously the laws we pass or the code of ethics we swear to abide by clearly does not understand our responsibilities or our mandate.

Second, Canada is a beacon to the world. This country may not be perfect, but it is the best in the world when it comes to natural beauty, the beauty and strength of its people, and good governance practices. Many people around the world dream of making Canada their home, and for good reason.

However, Canada and what it represents are a fragile thing. The things that make this country great did not come about by accident. It is no accident that there is peace in Canada and major tension in other countries. It is no accident that our country is stable while so many others are in dire straits. Our ancestors were not perfect, but I honour them because they laid a solid foundation upon which we today can build a future. If we wish to continue to prosper and to strengthen our stability, we must never forget what is important. As members of Parliament, we must never lose sight of our mandate, our responsibilities, and the laws that govern us.

Furthermore, when a member is appointed to cabinet, he or she is held to a higher standard when it comes to compliance with the law and our code of ethics. As the saying goes, to whom much is given, much is required. A minister of the Crown has access to a lot of privileged information and is granted many decision-making powers. These powers must be managed judiciously, taking into account the well-being of all Canadians. A minister cannot be negligent or selfish in the administration of his or her powers and office. There is too much as stake.

That being said, I would now like to give my personal opinion. We in the House are used to getting vague answers from the Liberal government. When the Liberals answer our questions, they use big words that mean nothing. We have seen a few examples of this recently. The Liberals are insulting our intelligence and that of Canadians. However, we would be naive to rely on their answers to get at the truth.

We in the opposition are looking for the truth, but from different sources. We are not the only ones looking for the truth. Canada’s business community, Canadians, the media, and even the Liberal backbenchers, those who are not listening to what I am saying right now, are looking for the truth about the Liberals’ proposed tax reform.

Yesterday after the caucus meeting, some Liberal MPs came to us frustrated. They are still awaiting the details from their own Minister of Finance, perhaps because he himself is waiting for instructions from Gerald Butts. Where is Mr. Butts? The Minister of Finance would like to have a word with him.

This Liberal circus is laughable, but the Canadian economy is a very serious subject. We have reason to be concerned because the Liberals are doing an excellent job of misgoverning this country. Bravo!

Even the liberal media cannot ignore this parody of governance. Media coverage of this tax reform has Canadians worried. I can only hope that some of the reports are false. For example, some stories indicate that Morneau Shepell could benefit from the finance minister’s tax changes. If that is true, the minister would be in a conflict of interest, and he should be looking for another job.

The Minister of Finance also failed to disclose a private corporation to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and he admitted that he failed to put more than $30 million in Morneau Shepell shares in a blind trust. That is unbelievable. All members of the House, particularly cabinet members and even parliamentary secretaries, have a basic obligation to report absolutely everything. If we have $10,000 in an RRSP, it has to be reported. If not, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner may send us a letter telling us that we are in trouble.

We are talking about $30 million. That may not seem like a lot of money to the finance minister, but it is an enormous amount for Canadians watching at home.

Does the Minister of Finance believe he is entitled to his entitlements? Does he think it is not fair and not hard to make priorities?

Does the finance minister intend to tell Canadians about his tax reform and how it seems to benefit his companies and that of the Prime Minister himself? Canadians want to know the truth about this reform.

Canadian businesses and Canadians must know the truth. That is the only way they can know whether this government truly believes in job creators.

This reminds me of a famous quote from a former Liberal prime minister, who said: “I don't know. A proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven.” I did not make that up. It was said by a former Liberal prime minister who everyone remembers.

I hope the finance minister remembers the words he spoke at his swearing-in ceremony, and that the rest of us do too for that matter. Right now, I am not convinced that he does.

Why must Canadians always wait for answers to such easy questions? There could be no easier questions.

The sooner the finance minister gives the House the details regarding his investments, the sooner the Prime Minister will give him permission to speak to the public and the media.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I take great exception to the fact that the Conservatives have opposed everything the Minister of Finance has tried to do. They heckle “Hear, hear“ across the benches.

I have seen the results of the actions of the Minister of Finance. We could talk about the historical number of jobs that have been created, 400,000-plus. We could talk about the issue of tax fairness for Canadians. We could talk about tax breaks for Canadians. Everything the Minister of Finance does, the Conservative Party does nothing but criticize.

Why should Canadians believe the Conservative Party on this issue when we have an independent commissioner responsible for ethics, who has indicated he has done nothing wrong, from what we can tell? The minister is prepared to even meet with the Ethics Commissioner.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

The issue is conflict of interest. You're off topic.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind members that the question is being directed through me to another member, who actually has the floor as soon as I recognize him. I am sure he will answer accordingly.

The honourable member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Madam Speaker, I agree. The question must be directed through you to me. I am nonetheless happy that the parliamentary secretary is asking me a question, and I am trying to understand how he can believe what he is saying.

From the beginning, two years ago, I have had a great deal of respect for the finance minister. I think he is a very successful businessman, and he is stylish and kind. However, it is the minister’s actions that are currently being judged. The minister and the individual are two different people. The Minister of Finance of Canada introduced tax reforms in the middle of the summer. Everyone stood up, not just members of the Conservative Party, everyone in Canada. Canadian entrepreneurs stood up and said that these measures would not work, that they went against their interests, and that the reform made no sense.

Then we heard that there were some ethical issues. We all know that ethics are the cornerstone of our work and, as I said in my speech, Canadians rely on us. We have here a minister who failed to report $30 million in assets and maybe more. Do not try to tell me that that is okay.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to this debate.

I am wondering what he thought about the answers we have been given so far regarding the information that has come to light, namely, that the minister may not have placed his assets in a blind trust, even though everyone, even the Liberals, seemed to think that he had. It was understood that the minister had done that. The answer we have been getting from the minister and other Liberal members is that the minister is prepared to work with the commissioner, that he is prepared to meet with her, and that he even sent her a letter today about meeting with her.

Does my colleague not think that it is a bit late to be dealing with the situation now, and that the minister should have put his affairs in order much sooner?

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Madam Speaker, that is a good question.

We get a letter from the commissioner's office every year. Since I first got here, I have received a letter or email every year without fail, asking me whether there are any changes to report in my situation. I look at the letter and realize that I cashed in my RRSPs, so I have to report it.

The minister must have received the same letter every year. We have been here for two years. Even if the minister forgot to report $30 million dollars in the first year, he could have thought about it later. I think that he could have thought about the fact that he had $30 million and a villa in France and that he should report it. However, he did not.

Was it intentional? Was it a mistake? When you have too much money, it may be possible to forget about some of it. However, I believe that he had enough people working for him, including about 100 accountants, to remind him, so I think he should have been able to report these things.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, where to start in trying to deal with what the Conservative Party is sharing with us this afternoon. Maybe I will start by responding to the concluding words of my colleague across the aisle, who said that the villa should have been declared. My recollection is that it was reported in November 2015. The Financial Post mentioned the fact that the Minister of Finance had a villa in France. Does that mean opposition members or their research department are not even aware of this?

This is why I bring it up. We really cannot trust the Conservative Party on this issue. Some might suggest any issue, but I will be a bit more generous to my friends across the way. This is one of the issues on which we really cannot trust the Conservative Party.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Kevin, this is humiliating. Just stop.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

That's pathetic.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, each and every one of us, including myself, is responsible to the Ethics Commissioner, even the member across the aisle who yelled “pathetic”. Even that member has an obligation to the Ethics Commissioner. All those members, including the Minister of Finance, have an obligation. All means all inclusive. We all had to submit requirements. We all consult with the commissioner's office. The commissioner's office provides us with the information we need to know in order to be, and appear to be, transparent and accountable to the constituents we represent or to Canadians as a whole. The minister—

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

The finance minister is exempt.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind members on the Conservative side that they were afforded the opportunity of not to being heckled by members on the other side when they were giving their speeches. I would ask that they refrain from heckling to allow the parliamentary secretary to give his speech. If members on that side have questions, I will be glad to entertain them right after his speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, when the Ethics Commissioner's office contacts myself, I respond. I suspect members on both sides of the House will respond, whether he or she is a New Democrat, a Conservative or a Liberal, where follow up takes place with individual members because the commissioner's office may have some concerns. That is no different than what the Minister of Finance has done.

The Minister of Finance has made it very clear. He has said that he will meet with the Ethics Commissioner and will seek her advice and recommendations, and act accordingly. That is the responsible thing to do, and what each and every one of us are obligated to do.

As some of my colleagues say, what we have today is an effort from the official opposition, joined by the New Democrats, to go on some sort of a witch hunt or character assassination. Let us go into the details of that.

Why should Canadians, or anyone who is listening, believe the Conservatives or the New Democrats who at every opportunity they get attack the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and others within this government? One might argue that they are the opposition and that is their job. Yes, there is a great deal of merit for that argument. Having said that, it is every initiative.

I want to remind the viewers and the members opposite to degree they have been critical of this government and, in particular, of the Minister of Finance. People should ask themselves why they should believe in and take the advice of the Conservatives when they have been critical of the Minister of Finance since day one.

We would be ill-advised to take advice from the Conservatives on this and many other issues in which they have demonstrated they have a natural, instinctive bias to attack. That is demonstrated in their actions. I believe Canadians understand and appreciate what this government has been able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time through the actions of the Minister of Finance.

Again, I highlight, as I go through each one of these initiatives, that we will find the Conservative Party attacking the Minister of Finance, with no exceptions.

The most recent one is the tax fairness policy. Day in and day out, the Conservative Party fights against tax fairness. The Minister of Finance led the debate among Canadians, which started, in a big way, back the month of July, when a presentation was made.

It is interesting as there seems to be a bit of a divide between the New Democrats and the Conservatives on this. I do not hear members of the NDP criticizing many aspects of the tax fairness policy. I give them credit for recognizing the fact that the issue is tax fairness.

On the other hand, the Conservatives yell and scream that this is an attack on business and middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth with respect to the whole tax initiative. It has been that way since the month of July. It all about tax fairness. People would not know if they listened to the opposition party, as they take the extreme position and try to use it as a wedge issue. In fact, the government has been very supportive. I use small business as an example.

How often do we hear Conservative members saying that the Liberals are attacking small businesses, or the government is attacking small businesses? I would suggest that they wake up and understand reality.

It was only yesterday that we as a government fulfilled a campaign platform promise. We actually made a commitment to reduce the small business tax rate from 10.5% to 9%. That is something we promised, and that is something we fulfilled. It was announced yesterday.

That is not the first time we have been there to help small business. I talk to small businesses. If members talk to small businesses, what they will find out is that the primary thing every small business wants is customers. If they have customers, they have opportunities.

Opposition Motion—Minister of Finance's documents submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics CommissionerBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

You've got to be in business to have customers.