Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for splitting his time with me today.
Let me begin. If I did not know any better, I would think today is February 2, Groundhog Day, because here we are dealing with another issue of Liberal ethics. Last time, it involved the Prime Minister and his trip to billionaire island. We still have not had the result of that ethical investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. This time we are dealing with the finance minister. I will get into why we are here in a second.
One of the benefits of being on House duty on a long day like Tuesday is that we get to hear the debate and the dissertations of many members. I just happened to sit through the one by the member for Winnipeg North, who claimed that this was in fact a character assassination of the finance minister. That always seems to be the answer from the Liberals any time legitimate questions come up with respect to ethics, legislation, regulation, or policy: it is always an attack on them.
Nothing could be further from the truth in this situation. In fact, it is the Prime Minister who put himself in the position by going to billionaire island and causing, if not ethical lapses to occur, illegal activity to occur. It is now the finance minister who has put himself in this situation.
I will remind this House why we are in this position. Just this past week, The Globe and Mail reported that for two years the finance minister has not put his assets, including the shares he owns in Morneau Shepell, into a blind trust. This is in spite of the fact that two years ago he said he was going to do that.
The other reason we are here is that, within the past week, CBC reported that the finance minister and his wife, a member of the McCain family—and I will touch on that a little later—have a corporation that owns a French villa, which could in fact be used to avoid inheritance tax. Over the course of the past several months, we have been dealing with this business tax proposal that would tax businesses, would create challenges for those businesses, including farms, that would want to pass those businesses on; and yet here is the finance minister owning a corporation of a French villa with the potential of avoiding inheritance taxes.
Two years ago, when the finance minister was asked about this situation, he said he expected to put those assets into a blind trust, not unlike what former prime minister and finance minister Paul Martin did when he owned Canada Steamship Lines.
The finance minister blamed this on an early administrative failure, this in spite of the fact that, by her own admission today at committee, Ethics Commissioner Dawson did speak to the finance minister. I think it is important, again, to understand what she said. She did advise him otherwise, but it was still his decision to not put those assets in a blind trust.
It was not until the CBC story broke about the French villa on September 25 that the minister did make a claim that he did own the French villa and a company associated with it.
Those are the facts. This is not an attempt by the opposition at character assassination, in spite of the narrative of the members on the other side, as we heard from the member for Winnipeg North, but this is an issue about transparency and about accountability, all of those things that we hold dear, not just in this House but also as Canadians.
When I became a member of Parliament, I had to declare all my assets, with thoroughness, including RESPs that I had for my children and RRSPs that my wife and I owned. I actually had to talk about and declare my wife's pension and everything but the tool shed in my backyard, notwithstanding the fact that it was not a French villa but a tool shed.
As members of Parliament, we know what it is we have to declare, so there was no early administrative failure on my part, and I suspect there was no early administrative failure on the part of most other members of Parliament in declaring their assets, except of course what we have learned about the finance minister.
The assets and the declaration of those assets are important—in particular, putting assets into a blind trust, like shares one owns in a company like Morneau Shepell—because the finance minister is held to a higher standard. Ministers of the crown are held to a higher standard. Every single decision made and every stroke of a pen in making those decisions could in fact benefit them. Therefore, as ministers, they are intended to be held to a higher account. That is why the declaration and the holding in blind trust are extremely important.
Let us look at the policies. I brought up the French villa before. He talked about the fact that he owns this company there. That could potentially be used to avoid some inheritance tax, perhaps the very inheritance tax that could be affected by some of the tax policies he announced back in July. There are other issues, like the passing on of family farms to heirs. I had a farmer in my riding come to me quite upset about this because they had set up their entire affairs in order to pass the farm on to their children. He told me it would actually be more reasonable to sell it to an outside entity than it would be to sell it within his family. That calls into question why the finance minister would be changing the rules on those family farms. Maybe it is to benefit someone he is married to, like the McCains. Those are the kinds of things the finance minister has to be mindful of when he still holds on to these assets.
How could this have an effect? As I said earlier, it calls into question every decision the finance minister would make with respect to how these tax changes would benefit him. How could it benefit him and his family, in particular his wife, who as I said earlier, is a member of the McCain family?
The big question is the tax on business. We have seen the proposal of the tax on business. Granted, the Liberals climbed down a little yesterday. I would say it was more political backlash than anything else. With respect to the tax on pensions, which for example could affect those in the private sector, those in incorporated businesses, the beneficiary of that could be Morneau Shepell, as we heard all morning during this debate and throughout the afternoon. That calls into question the integrity of some of the decisions the finance minister has been making.
The tax on passive income and retained earnings could also be affected by this, as well as the tax on succession planning, passing those businesses on to other family members—for example, farms.
The one thing that has not been talked about today—and again it directly relates to the finance minister's interests in Morneau Shepell and not holding those assets in a blind trust—could be the infrastructure bank. How many of the companies that are going to invest in the infrastructure bank have direct dealings with Morneau Shepell, and how much of an impact would that have on the finance minister's wealth?
Just this afternoon, David Akin of Global TV tweeted that, if the finance minister still holds 2.5 million shares in Morneau Shepell, he has been getting a dividend cheque about once a month worth $146,000-plus. Every decision the finance minister makes could potentially impact the assets he continues to own in Morneau Shepell and could continue to affect the income he creates on a monthly basis, based on those dividend cheques.
The finance minister should have known better. He should have put the money into a blind trust. He should have disclosed the French villa. We are asking him to disclose all those documents from November 2015 to now. That is what the motion is all about.