Debates of Oct. 17th, 2017

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have a fairly straightforward question regarding the Ethics Commissioner, who has the responsibility not of just one member but of all members of all political parties. I wonder if the member has any thoughts in terms of how important it is, as we go through the process, to respect the advice that she provides. It is something that the Minister of Finance has sought from the Ethics Commissioner. Does the member not believe that we should be following the process?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it is very important to follow the rules from the commissioner.

After two years, the Minister of Finance cannot claim that the commissioner did not properly assist him in completing his forms. I hope that the finance minister, the master of finances in Canada, is intelligent enough to complete his forms without needing help from the commissioner.

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

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if I could ask my colleague from across the way what he feels about the issue of farmers. When Stephen Harper was the prime minister, there was a great debate at the time in terms of what was happening with the Canadian Wheat Board and the impact that was having on farmers. Many of those farmers on whom it was having an impact sat on the Conservative benches. They were part of the government.

The member across the way is trying to imply that our Prime Minister, our Minister of Finance, or even government members in general benefit from decisions that are made by the government. All of us have some sort of a vested interest in the communities in which we live. Were the Conservative members, back when the Conservatives killed the Canadian Wheat Board, in an awkward position? What should they have done?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, every member of this Parliament has a vested interest in some way, shape, or form, in something. However, we disclose every aspect of what we own, every asset we have, when we become members of Parliament. In fact, the law requires that we do that within 60 days. The Minister of Finance has not done that in two situations: with respect to the corporation by which he owns that French villa, and the millions of shares that he still owns in Morneau Shepell.

I am not trying to be cynical, but the question is this. How are the decisions he makes going to impact the wealth he has created in Morneau Shepell? Should the shares not be put in a blind trust, as former prime minister Paul Martin did with Canada Steamship Lines? Would that not be the way to solve this issue?

On the issue of the grain farmers, I was not here when that was happening, but I have spoken to farmers across western Canada, and the grain industry has exploded as a result of that decision.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with my hon. colleague, because I have a fundamental question for him and a fundamental problem with the premise that, if the finance minister puts his shares into a blind trust, all will be well. I think we are way beyond that.

In 2013, the finance minister gave a speech in which he talked about the need to bring legislation into Canada to move people away from defined pension benefits. He talked about how his company, Morneau Shepell, was in the front row of making these changes around the world. Then he offered himself for public service, and he was put in the finance minister position, and the legislation was brought in to help make it easier to take away defined pension benefits. Therefore, the fact that he did not put his shares into a blind trust but said that legislation was needed to benefit his company and brought forward that legislation, to me speaks to a much more serious issue, which is a question of integrity with respect to the government and using people's pension funds to benefit the finance minister and his pals at Morneau Shepell. I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on this.

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

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend is quite right in calling into question the effect this is going to have on Morneau Shepell with respect to defined benefits. We do not have to look too far back to Bill C-27, which was an amendment to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which in fact was sponsored by the Minister of Finance and could potentially affect Morneau Shepell. As long as he continues to hold onto those shares, as long as he continues to get, as David Akin reported today, $146,000 a month in dividends based on the 2.5 million shares he has, I think we are quite right to call into question every single decision the finance minister makes for the benefit of not just Morneau Shepell but the potential benefit of an increase in those dividends and what he can gain from this.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to mention that I will share my speaking time with my distinguished and respected colleague from Timmins—James Bay, who will also certainly have much to say on the matter.

Like me, he has been on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I had the opportunity and honour of serving as chair of that committee when my colleague was an active member on matters of ethics. I can therefore testify to his work and to the work that we did on that committee regarding matters of ethics.

The ethics and integrity of elected officials in our country, the elected officials of this institution, the House of Commons, are a fundamental issue, particularly regarding people who are chosen by the Prime Minister to hold important positions within the government, within the executive, where important decisions are made, as they have repercussions on all of Canadian society. Whether it be the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister of course, or the Minister of Health, these people make decisions on a daily basis that affect our society. The finance minister makes decisions that are directly related to the financial sector in this country, and sometimes even decisions related to the management of pensions in Canada.

That brings me to the problem raised by many of my colleagues today, the potential conflict of interest that we obviously see with the finance minister's company, which is the subject of the motion being debated today. It is related to statements that he made to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I have a lot of respect for her. I have had the chance to meet with her and to cross paths with her in the committee I chaired. She came several times to answer questions from parliamentarians regarding ethics and the code that could be modernized; not only the code, in fact, but also the law that applies to public office holders. It is very important to distinguish between the code and the law.

There is a reason we decided to have higher standards for public office holders. Indeed, they make decisions that directly affect our society and our laws. So it is perfectly normal for them to have higher standards regarding ethics and conduct.

The finance minister was questioned. He is the subject of this motion, because his company has direct interests in decisions that the minister makes on a daily basis. That is the big issue today, and it presents a major problem. Whether we talk about tax changes for small and medium enterprises and rules regarding estates, passive assets in companies or income distribution, they are all changes that could potentially have an impact on the minister's own company. Moreover, it can even give the impression that he intentionally avoided affecting his own company and his own assets in the legislative amendments that he published, that he proposed, in a document last July. We are still waiting for definitive answers. Clearly, Canadians and parliamentarians are questioning the finance minister’s real motivations in these matters, and his real intentions behind those changes.

The same goes when we talk about changes to pension plans, as my colleague just mentioned, and the possibility that this is the end of defined benefits pensions. The Minister of Finance has a direct interest in the new pension formula proposed in the framework of this bill, a formula that might be used by private companies across the country. One of the key players in this field, an entity that is prepared to promote such a pension plan, is the Minister of Finance's company.

Of course in this matter as well we question the minister's real interests and true intentions when he sponsors a bill that can have an impact on his own company and his own interests.

I say his own company because we are still not sure who Morneau Shepell belongs to. Obviously, the company bears his name, which is one indication, but questions remain on the identity of the real shareholders of this company because the minister has not shed light on the matter so far. Hence the motion calling on him to table all documents that could shed light on this. He failed to declare all of his interests in this company. He still has not said whether he put his assets in a blind trust, which is another fundamental question.

In Quebec, we might be more attuned to this issue because of our experience with a former political party leader at the National Assembly who also had significant interests in a private company and who could have influenced policy decisions having an impact on his company. Putting assets in a blind trust is the least someone can do to be free of any perceived conflict of interest.

Even if his assets had been placed in a blind trust, the fact remains that the minister will take back the company's reins once he leaves public life, which should be sooner rather than later, in our minds. That raises the question, then, about whether this is the best solution. In my opinion, it is the minimum, but so far, the minister has not confirmed that information.

Although the Liberals thought that the minister had placed his assets in a blind trust, whether he did or not is less clear today. Confusion reigns regarding what is really going on with his business and how much control he has in it.

The whole debate around this matter makes us wonder whether the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister understand what the middle class is. Do they really understand when they talk about taxation and small and medium-sized businesses?

When we hear the Prime Minister say during the election campaign that most small businesses are merely numbered companies used to avoid paying taxes, we have to wonder whether the Liberals really understand the reality facing small and medium-sized businesses and the middle class, even though they pride themselves on being their greatest champions. Do they really understand?

Madam Speaker, when you declare your assets under the conflict of interest code, do you forget a property? Do you forget about some cottage you own somewhere in Canada? Do you forget to mention a chalet in Switzerland? I doubt it. I doubt that most Canadians would forget about their villa in France. I have to question the sincerity of the Minister of Finance when he claims to be the champion of the middle class. He says he wants to protect small and medium-sized businesses at all cost, but he appears to be doing the opposite. This whole debate forces us to question his sincerity, the Prime Minister's sincerity, and what their private holdings actually are.

This is one more example of how far removed policy makers are from regular Canadians. If there is one thing a finance minister can to do alleviate public cynicism towards politicians, it is to fully disclose all of his private holdings. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance's conduct only feeds this cynicism towards politicians who refuse to obey the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and disclose their information and interests.

It is high time that the Liberals accepted the motion before us today, to finally let the daylight in and dispel any and all doubts as to the true interests of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things we have heard all day today is that this is character assassination of the finance minister.

Does the member not agree that this was actually the finance minister's own making, that it is something he did by not putting those shares into a blind trust, raising questions about the impact this would have on his company, Morneau Shepell? As far as incorporation and the private asset of that French villa are concerned, would the member not agree that it is the finance minister who has put himself in this position, not the opposition, not the third party, and not any Canadian?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree with what my colleague said. If there is one person who deserves to be blamed today, it is the Minister of Finance himself.

He could easily have avoided this situation by answering the questions, disclosing all his information, and declaring all his holdings, if any, by placing them in a blind trust and being as transparent as possible from the time he first took up his duties in November 2015. He did not do so. He tried to avoid answering questions, and he has only himself to blame for the situation we are in today.

If this motion has one goal, it is certainly not character assassination. With this motion, we only want to help him. We want to help the minister get out of this mess by declaring everything he submitted to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That would clear up the situation once and for all. All we want to do is clear the air with regard to his true interests in his capacity as Minister of Finance.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherbrooke mentioned cynicism. It is important to consider that aspect in this matter.

We often have water here in the House and if I continue to put a drop of poison in this water, it becomes no less poisonous over time. As I continue to add more and more poison to this water, it becomes undrinkable. This is what is occurring in our politics. We have the Ethics Commissioner who has an opportunity to study this issue and make sure that we are not poisoning the well for all politicians, that we do not bring dishonour upon ourselves by bringing dishonour upon some other individual.

One of the things I have often heard is that when we are outside the House, we try to remove politics from the issue and say that a person works so hard for their constituency. The implication is that we say some things about each other in the House, but that outside the House we are friends.

I would like to remind members that we have to give the Ethics Commissioner the opportunity to make a ruling so that we can be aware of the issue, but not to go out and blame hon. members of the House, because at the end of the day, we have to work together and we do not want people in Canada to lose faith in their public institutions, but to continue to believe that these institutions can build a better day for all of us.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my speech, I said that I have full confidence in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We do not lack confidence in the commissioner but in the Minister of Finance, who is hiding the information and, being unscrupulous, has not declared all his interests. He says one thing and in the end—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is a point of order.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is a point of order. I believe the member said “being unscrupulous” when referring to someone in the House. I believe that is unparliamentary language that we should not be using in reference to other members.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will take comments, but this is a debate.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke has the floor to finish his comments.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe it is unparliamentary language. Honestly, I am not an expert in linguistics, but I believe that if we were unable to use the expression “being unscrupulous” we would have a problem.

I was saying that it is the Minister of Finance who is undermining people's confidence with his lack of transparency. He is trying to avoid answering questions, he is trying to avoid clarifying his situation, and he sometimes says one thing and then the opposite in the same sentence. The Prime Minister is not any clearer in his answers about his real interests.

People have confidence in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, but they are not confident that the Minister of Finance will give real answers to her questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Essex, International Trade; the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, National Defence; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, I am greatly honoured to rise to speak on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay.

One of my Liberal colleagues said that we had to continue to show deference on this issue to the finance minister to reassure Canadians that they should have trust in the House. However, the question we are discussing today is a fundamental question about a breach of trust with Canadians. When I talk with Canadians across the country, quite frankly, they do not believe that Ottawa is interested in or will protect their basic interests, and we need look no further than the present finance minister.

We look at the situation today of the Sears workers who have been laid off thanks to the mismanagement by a hedge fund of what was once a stellar company. We see people whose basic pension benefits are at risk, and the most we hear from the Liberals is, “Well, that's really too bad, but it's before the courts.” It's the same thing we heard when Nortel went down, and the Abitibi workers lost their jobs, and the people across my riding who had their pension stolen by corporate executives like Peggy Witte. Members know that that kind of theft is not only legal in Canada, but also gets one bonuses for doing it. We will never see the government stand up and defend people whose pensions are being stolen from them, because they are fundamentally the party of the 1%.

I am not saying this in an exaggerated fashion, because we have only to look at our present finance minister who is the privatized pension king of this country. The issue today, hot off the presses after all of the major national attention, is that he has finally written the Ethics Commissioner about the fact that the shares he receives from Morneau Shepell give him $150,000 in pocket change a month, and an extra $40 million since he has come into government.

Now the Liberals would tell us that this kind of money is virtuous, because a man who makes that much money and offers himself for public service is someone we should admire, as he can only be doing it for the benefit of all of us little people. I would like to believe that, but if we look at the issue in terms of where Morneau Shepell has been and where the present finance minister has been, a blind trust will not cut it.

I will refer members to a speech by the minister in 2013. He summarized it by saying, “Elderly poverty is not a problem.” I guess one has to own a villa in the south of France to think that elderly poverty is not a problem in Canada. However, in that speech he also made a number of statements about the push to get rid of defined pension benefit plans. He said “A significant number of our clients have parent companies or sister companies in the...United Kingdom.” He went on to say that the movement away from defined pension benefits has been easier there than in Canada and that “We need legislation enabling Target Benefit Plans and Shared Risk Plans in all Canadian jurisdictions.” He told his shareholders that we needed to move on legislation. In that same speech, he said that “As defined benefit plan consultants and administrators, we’ve been in the front row.”

What was one of the first pieces of legislation the minister brought forward in his own name? It was legislation that would especially benefit Morneau Shepell, Bill C-27, which is an attack on defined pension benefits in this country. He said it was necessary to give his company the advantage.

When discussions on changes in defined pension benefits began with the previous government, Morneau Shepell wanted its investors to know that the idea came from it. The proposed DBP framework the government outlined in its consultation paper is clearly modelled after the shared risk pension plans introduced in 2012 in New Brunswick. Morneau Shepell's experts were heavily involved in the design of that, which is what they do for a living. This is why he makes $150,000 a month and his benefits have gone up by $40 million. If one introduces legislation that will benefit his company, obviously the shares will go up.

How is this an ethical problem? Well, of course, when one is a Liberal, one does not think there is a problem with ethics, because he is a nice guy.

We have been told that we have been picking on him because he forgot to announce that he had his private French villa through a private corporation. The Liberals over there have been saying that any one of us could have made that same mistake. Perhaps. It is not a fair question to ask in this House, because the amount of money people earn here is much higher than the folks back home. Can we have a show of hands? How many people here own a villa in the south of France? I do not see any, and the minister is gone on the Prime Minister's hide, so he is not here. I do not even know if he would have put up his hand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, order. I just want to remind the member for Timmins—James Bay that he is not allowed to indicate who is in and who is not in the House.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker, you are right. I meant to say that the finance minister probably would not put up his hand, because he might have forgotten that he owned the house.

This was the question. The Liberals again were saying I was mean to them, because they said, “That is really unfair, Charlie, because he actually did announce before—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I just want to remind the member that he may not refer to members, whether to himself or not, by first or last name.

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

I would like to thank the Speaker. I do not have a private corporation I can refer to myself as. I am just Joe Average.

Madam Speaker, the Liberals told me it was different. He forgot to mention it was a private corporation. There was silly me, thinking that all the people I know own houses with their families, not through private offshore corporations, but this man does.

Now, on October 17, he is saying that he is willing to look at the issue of a blind trust for the money he is making from Morneau Shepell. I do not think that cuts it, because we are looking at a man who said in 2013 that legislation was needed to attack defined pension benefits, which many workers and many seniors across this country depend on. Then he came into this House, and he was given the position as finance minister, and the first major piece of legislation he brought in was Bill C-27, which was the direct form of legislation his company required to undermine pension benefits for Canadian workers. All through that time, he was able to participate in directing his company, because it was not in a blind trust. Even if it were in a blind trust, how would anyone think that a man whose name is the company, Morneau Shepell, which makes its money getting rid of defined pension benefits, and brags about it, would bring in the legislation?

I am sorry, but putting it in a blind trust on October 17 and asking for advice from the Ethics Commissioner does not cut it. This is about a fundamental, shocking breach.

I have seen a lot of breaches in Parliament over the years, and I have seen a lot of dubious and bogus behaviour, but to have the Liberal government come in and tell us that this is somehow high-minded integrity and just a bit of absent-mindedness does not cut it.

When I talk to Canadians across this country, they talk to me about their disappearing pensions. I want to talk about Lisa Okill, 100 years old, the first woman to run a Sears store, who is losing her pension benefits right now. We will never see anyone from Morneau Shepell or anyone in that government stand up to fight for that senior citizen.

It falls to us as parliamentarians to say that this kind of misuse of public office to look after the pals and friends of the Liberal Party is not acceptable. We have to hold this House to a higher standard, because Canadians have absolutely no reason to believe in a Prime Minister who had his $1,500 cash for access meetings with Chinese billionaires, and when he was caught out and asked why he was doing it, answered that they were worried about the middle class, that they were meeting about the middle class. I guess we little people are supposed to say, “Wow, that is amazing. These Chinese billionaires paid $1,500 to get the ear of the Prime Minister to talk about the middle class.” Yes, I bet. How about, probably not?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Charlie, you are not a little person.